Utyman's Heirs

01 May 2010

A monthly column devoted to IP curiosities and controversies, named in honour of John of Utynam – who received the world’s first recorded patent in 1449 diary@managingip.com

Not that kind of IP

The recent debate about the Digital Economy Act in Britain was certainly cantankerous. In one corner the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, among others, pushed hard for strong legislation to deal with downloaders of copyright-infringing material and steadfastly maintained that taking internet users' access away is not the same as disconnecting them.

In the other corner, the Open Rights Group argued that if passed, the bill would lead to the end of life as we know it. Utynam was pleased then that the debate had an arbitrator, in the form of Digital Britain Minister Stephen Timms. One would certainly think that he was qualified for the role: before entering Parliament in 1994, the politician worked in the telecommunications industry. Who better to steer the debate, walking the tightrope between the two nuanced arguments, while adding his technological know-how to the mix.

But Utynam was...



Only subscribers have complete access to Managing IP Magazine, log in or subscribe now.

Alternatively take a free trial, giving you 48-hour access to Managing IP Magazine (some articles and surveys may be excluded).

Subscribe Now

This article is available to subscribers. Please click subscribe to read the rest of the article.

Subscribe

Take a free trial

Please take a free 48-hour trial to gain limited access. Some articles and surveys may be excluded.

Take a free trial


INTA Daily News 2012

Read this year's INTA Daily News - published daily by Managing IP direct from the 134th INTA Annual Meeting in Washington DC

null null null
null null

May 2012

Do you want to be famous?

Famous, well-known, notorious, reputed: everyone wants enhanced protection for their trade marks. But should they, and what does it mean if it is? Emma Barraclough explains



Most read articles

Poll

Will the new post grant and inter partes review proceedings result in more litigators practising pro hac vice before the USPTO?







Supplements