<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>LawFont.com &#187; IP</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lawfont.com/category/ip/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lawfont.com</link>
	<description>an analysis of law, technology, economics, and policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:35:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Creole/Oreo biscuits</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/13/creoleoreo-biscuits/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/13/creoleoreo-biscuits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:15:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ben</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=809</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There was a recent news story about Coles changing the name of a product line of biscuits from &#8220;Creole Creams&#8221; as a response to criticisms that the name was racist.
The more interesting aspect to the story &#8212; not commented on anywhere that I could find &#8212; was why Coles might have chosen the name &#8220;Creole [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/13/creoleoreo-biscuits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Protectionism maintained</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/12/protectionism-maintained/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/12/protectionism-maintained/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:23:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Minister for Innovation has decided to ignore the Productivity Commission&#8217;s recommendations, and not to change the Australian regulatory regime for books introduced by the previous Labor government. In other words, publishers get to keep their territorial exclusivity for books, and the government thinks we should all get e-Readers instead (seriously, that&#8217;s practically in the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/12/protectionism-maintained/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More on ACTA</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/12/more-on-acta-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/12/more-on-acta-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All jurisdictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telco]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=802</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A few more news stories on ACTA including one from the ABC. 
Perhaps more interesting (not for what it says, but how it says it) is DFAT&#8217;s latest update on the negotiations. 
First, there&#8217;s this:
A variety of groups have shown their interest in getting more information on the substance of the negotiations and have requested [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/12/more-on-acta-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kookaburra sits in the courtroom</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/07/31/kookaburra-sits-in-the-courtroom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/07/31/kookaburra-sits-in-the-courtroom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:27:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ben</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=785</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There have already been a few articles about the Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited case. 
The first thing to note is that the decision is just on a preliminary question. This is a procedural device used where it is likely to help save the court&#8217;s (and parties&#8217;) time and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/07/31/kookaburra-sits-in-the-courtroom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Manufacturing Generic Pharmaceuticals in Australia?</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/04/30/manufacturing-generic-pharmaceuticals-in-australia/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/04/30/manufacturing-generic-pharmaceuticals-in-australia/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:37:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=777</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was interested, the other day, to see this Online Opinion article by Nick Gruen (Club Troppo) on Australia&#8217;s pharmaceutical industry and the idea of manufacturing generics for export. The basic point of in Nick&#8217;s post is that investment in the manufacture of generic biologics in Australia is being prevented by Australian patent law and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/04/30/manufacturing-generic-pharmaceuticals-in-australia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>This is interesting news: CSIRO wins settlement of wifi patent case in US</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/04/23/this-is-interesting-news-csiro-wins-settlement-of-wifi-patent-case-in-us/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/04/23/this-is-interesting-news-csiro-wins-settlement-of-wifi-patent-case-in-us/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:09:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=774</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SMH has the story here.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/04/23/this-is-interesting-news-csiro-wins-settlement-of-wifi-patent-case-in-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IceTV &#8211; appeal allowed &#8211; open thread!</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/04/22/icetv-appeal-allowed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/04/22/icetv-appeal-allowed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:51:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telco]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=768</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[more analysis later.
updated: judgment now available on AustLII.
Further update: commentary will have to wait until after my classes today. But please consider this an open thread for any discussion!
Further Further Update: Warwick Rothnie has some very interesting thoughts on the case here. He&#8217;s certainly right about one thing. There&#8217;s a heckuva lot of food for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/04/22/icetv-appeal-allowed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another IP Reform Review!</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/03/30/another-ip-reform-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/03/30/another-ip-reform-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:45:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=762</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Senator Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, today called for written submissions on proposed reforms to Australia&#8217;s intellectual property (IP) system.
A strong and efficient IP system is a cornerstone of successful innovation.
The proposed reforms are designed to help Australian innovators take their inventions to a global marketplace and encourage foreign investors to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/03/30/another-ip-reform-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade Mark Enforcement Review: weird criminal offences redux</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/02/23/trade-mark-enforcement-review-weird-criminal-offences-redux/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/02/23/trade-mark-enforcement-review-weird-criminal-offences-redux/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:24:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IP Australia is reviewing the penalties (criminal offences) and additional damages in trade mark law. Actually, they&#8217;ve been reviewing this for a while: we had the ACIP Review, and then an Options Paper (pdf) published by IP Australia back in November; submissions on the Options Paper close this week.
Anyway, I was just reading through the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/02/23/trade-mark-enforcement-review-weird-criminal-offences-redux/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama campaign poster artist sues AP</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/02/10/obama-campaign-poster-artist-sues-ap/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/02/10/obama-campaign-poster-artist-sues-ap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:35:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sarah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Artist Shepard Fairey, who created the &#8220;Hope&#8221; poster of now President Obama, has filed a pre-emptive law suit against the Associated Press. The suit, which has been filed in United States District Court in New York, seeks a declaratory judgement for Fairey ruling that the poster is protected by fair use and does not infringe [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/02/10/obama-campaign-poster-artist-sues-ap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
