Re: An IP gripe

On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Robert Cumbow <rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 1999, Carol Cricow <carol[_at_]yujean.com> wrote:
> >
> > Am I the only one who resents the term "Intellectual Property" being
> > used only for patents? I just got a flyer in the mail advertising a
> > CLE called "International Judge Conference on Intellectual Property
> > Law." A quick glance at the schedule told me that this is a
> > conference on patent law.
> >
> > Earlier this year, I was asked to be on a career panel at the
> > University of Oregon law School representing "soft" intellectual
> > property -- by which they meant "not patents" which, apparently,
> > goes as "hard" intellectual property.
> >
> > I resent that. Many of the most important, cutting edge issues in
> > IP law are in the areas of copyright and trademarks -- esp. with
> > Internet issues such as copyright infringement by posting on a web
> > site and domain names as trademark.
> >
> > The kind of IP law I practice, that is copyrights, trademarks and
> > licensing, is IP. Period. Not "hard"; not "soft" -- just intellectual
> > property.
> >
> > Sorry for the slight diatribe but it really pisses me off.
>
> I second Carol's complaint. For too many years now, "IP" has been
> considered a synonym for "Patent", and when I introduce myself as
> an i.p. lawyer people immediately assume I am a patent attorney,
> which I am not.
>
> Whenever I get the opportunity, in CLEs or classes or client briefings,
> I identify six kinds of intellectual property: patents, trademarks,
> copyrights, domain names, trade secrets, and rights of publicity. I
> think each of these six things is legitimately considered a separate
> form of i.p., because the applicable law, the standards for protection,
> and the relevant licensing policies vary greatly from one to the next.
> I continue to regard trade dress as a subset of trademark, but if the
> law keeps diverging in that area, there may be an argument for
> identifying trade dress as a seventh separate form of i.p.
>
> I'd be interested in thoughts on this approach, and on anything we
> can do to educate the public as to the full range of the rubric
> "intellectual property".

I've not found the public here (Australia) to be so wedded to patents as the only form of IP. Most people here seem to think of copyright first, then "the rest of them" as a bunch, so maybe there is a national approach reflecting the relative influence of patent attorneys in different countries! Fragmentation of specialists may contribute to the perception that there are patents on one side and "soft IP" on the other.

Given the low understanding with which IP was held in many peoples' eyes until recently, I am amazed at how quickly the world became littered with barrick-room lawyers willing to argue techincal issues as if they had been on the case since jumping out of nappies.

Education in the concepts of IP seems to be pretty good these days. Even my 10 year old started putting the copyright symbol on his drawings three years ago, though maybe there is an enviornmental influence there...

CS

"Galvanising Ideas"

Colin Seeger, Consultant, Management of Intellectual Property. P.O Box 3227, Tamarama, Sydney, Australia 2026 Tel: (61) (02) 9365 1186, Fax (61) (02) 9365 1286 Received on Tue Aug 17 1999 - 03:01:58 GMT