Wikid - Services for SME, Inventors and Designers

We were one of the first barristers' chambers with a website, one of the first with a blog, one of the first with a ".eu" TLD (though we have not yet decided how to use it), one of the few with a ".law.pro" domain (though we are probably going to give that up) and the first with a WAP site (which we definitely have given up). Now we are one of the first (if not the first) to launch and support a voluntary public wiki for our area of the law.

We could be wrong, but we think we have the first IP law wiki anywhere - at least in the UK Like our other websites and this blog, the wiki will concentrate on advice for SME and creative and innovative individuals. They need specialist legal services just as much as Siemens and Microsoft but can't afford the silly fees that are often charged for such services.

Though this has been launched and is supported by nipc it is open to everyone with an interest in IP and technology law and we hope everybody will take part.

Comments

David Pearce said…
The first UK IP law wiki? I think ukpatents, which has been around since June 2006, beat you to it by a reasonable margin.
08:07
Jane Lambert said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
21:03
Jane Lambert said…
Thanks David.

Not quite the same as mine but it is certainly a wiki, it focuses on IP and it is clearly first in time.

I shall consult that wiki frequently and hope to contribute to it. It will be useful resource for the new Patents Rules 2007.
21:10
David Pearce said…
Many thanks John. Maybe I could do more to publicise the wiki, but since it was done largely for my own benefit I will let it speak for itself. If others find it useful, that's nice to know. I will carry on the efforts to keep it up to date, but any other useful contributions are most welcome. I would particularly like to see more (preferably objective) commentary on the individual sections. Section 1 in particular is looking a bit of a mess at the moment.
07:58
Jane Lambert said…
I've got some posts and articles on excluded matter floating around the internet which could be incorporated into your comments on s.1 and I shall be referring to your compilation of the Act and Rules rather than repeating your work. The emphasis of the two wikis are different. I am looking after my little chaps in the North whereas you are looking after patent professionals, but there is a lot of overlap.
09:52
Anonymous said…
The wiki appears to consist of 29 pages and one user. I realise that these things have to start somewhere and no offense intended but I have a desktop wiki with TM information in it that is bigger than this. It seems a pretty thin claim to have the first IP law wiki when in fact the wiki is little more than a domain name at present.
16:24
Jane Lambert said…
If you mean WikIP, give it a chance. It has only been up for a couple of days. It will have a lot more than 29 pages of my own stuff alone when I finish transposing pages from www.ipit-update.com and membership is open to everyone. If you mean David's I think it will grow very rapidly once folk know of it. I shall link to it for a start. If you have a lot of TM pages you are very welcome to put it on WikIP. You just have to log in, create the relevant pages and upload.
17:19
Anonymous said…
Apologies for the tone of my previous. I've been thinking about an online wiki for a while but never actually got round to it so kudos to you for getting it done. Will certainly be watching it and adding content as it grows. I think there's a lot of potential in a more open sharing of information for both SMEs and professionals.
18:59
Jane Lambert said…
No offence was taken. Your original comments were very fair and we look forward to your input in due course. WikIP will be angled towards users, mainly SME and individual inventors, but all relevant contributions will be welcome.
19:30
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Image
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in  Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd   [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br...
Read more

"What is meant by "Due Cause" in s.10 (3) of the Trade Marks Act? The Red Bull Case

Image
Amsterdam   Source Wikipedia According to Wikipedia  Red Bull is the most popular energy drink in the world, with 5.2 billion cans sold in 2012. Its manufacturer, Red Bull GmbH , has registered the RED BULL mark has registered those words and their accompanying logo as word and device marks in trade mark registries around the world including the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property ( "BOIP" ) . The company registered that sign with BOIP for non-alcoholic drinks in class 32 with effect from 11 July 1983. After decades of massive sales and extensive advertising nobody could argue that that mark has a reputation within the meaning of art 5 (2) of the Trade Marks Directive (Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2008   to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks OJ 8.11.2008 p 299/25).  S.10 (3) of our Trade Marks Act 1994   implements that provision. There is in the Net...
Read more

Copyright: Creation Records Ltd. v News Group

It is trite law that if two photographers take identical pictures of the same scene at the same time from the same position each of their photographs is an original work and neither infringes the copyright in the other. However, much of the skill of a photographer lies in his choice of subject and the arrangement of the scene. The question whether copyright subsists independently in such an arrangement arose in Creation Records Ltd. v News Group Newspapers Ltd . (1997) The Times 27 April.   The Facts A swimming pool at a country club was drained and various props including a white Rolls Royce motor car assembled for a photograph of a well-known group of musicians for reproduction on their album cover. Although the public was not admitted to the session certain fans of the group who happened to be there were allowed to photograph the scene before official pictures were taken. A freelance photographer who was booked into the club photographed the scene during the session. One of his pict...
Read more