Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

The Politicization Of The US Patent System

The Washington Post story, How patent reform’s fraught politics have left USPTO still without a boss (July 30), is a vivid account of how patent reform has divided the US economy, preempting a possible replacement for David Kappos who stepped down 18 months ago. The division is even bigger than portrayed. Universities have lined up en masse to oppose reform, while main street businesses that merely use technology argue for reform. Reminiscent of the partisan divide that has paralyzed US politics, this struggle crosses party lines and extends well beyond the usual inter-industry debates. Framed in terms of combating patent trolls through technical legal fixes, there lurks a broader economic concern – to what extent ordinary retailers, bank, restaurants, local banks, motels, realtors, and travel agents should bear the burden of defending against patents as a cost of doing business.

Latest Comments
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »
  • 'Business methods were generally not patentable in... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    Author Archive

    25/06/2014: US Supreme Court Aereo Ruling Threatens New Risks For Online Firms
    20/06/2014: US High Court Shuts Door On Many Software Patents
    02/06/2014: Patentees Suffer Double Loss At US Supreme Court
    20/05/2014: US High Court Opens Door To More (And Older) Copyright Suits
    30/04/2014: What’s Next For Patent Trolls After US Supreme Court? More Risk, For Sure
    23/04/2014: US Supreme Court Hears High Stakes Aereo Copyright Case
    14/04/2014: Copyright Ruling In US May Impair Free Speech
    31/03/2014: “Innocence of Muslims” Creates Copyright Controversy In US
    25/02/2014: Novel Legal Attack On Patent Trolls Falters In US
    15/01/2014: Year Ahead: In US, 2014 Promises Bad News For Patent Trolls And Trademark Owners
    20/12/2013: Once More, US Supreme Court Will Review Software Patents
    26/11/2013: US Supreme Court Questions America’s Power To Carry Out Treaties
    13/11/2013: US Supreme Court Declines Review Of Controversial Copyright Ruling
    09/10/2013: As US Government Shutdown Continues, Effects On IP System Grow
    20/09/2013: Study: Patent Trolls In US Use Business Method Patents To Target More Firms
    29/07/2013: United States Confounded By Standard-Essential Patents
    17/06/2013: US Supreme Court Restricts Gene Patents … A Little
    20/05/2013: After Court Ruling, US Still In Disarray On Software Patents
    23/04/2013: US Supreme Court May Invalidate Gene Patents, But Create Little Change
    19/03/2013: US Supreme Court Applies First Sale Doctrine Worldwide
    14/03/2013: US Perspectives: US Tries Gentler Copyright Enforcement
    18/02/2013: Patent Outsourcing May Harm US Economy
    11/01/2013: After A Tough 2012, IP Owners In US Face An Uncertain 2013
    21/12/2012: US Supreme Court Poised To Rule Human Genes Are Not Patentable
    21/11/2012: Overseas Manufacturing Creates Copyright Dilemma For US Supreme Court
    18/10/2012: New USPTO Post-Grant Review A Small Step For Patent Harmonisation
    20/09/2012: US And UN Consider New Limits On Patent Wars
    27/07/2012: Innovation And The Law: Some Lessons From The Patent Wars
    25/06/2012: A Bigger, Meaner Patent War
    03/05/2012: Viacom v. YouTube: Chipping Away At The DMCA
    13/04/2012: US Supreme Court Edges Toward Reviewing Extent Of GMO Patents
    05/04/2012: After Mayo, Is Patent Law More Restrictive In US Than Europe?
    21/03/2012: US Supreme Court Narrows Patentable Subject Matter
    15/03/2012: More Foreigners Find Themselves Targets Of US Copyright Law
    13/03/2012: US Aims To Boost Its Efforts Against Overseas Infringers
    13/01/2012: The Year Ahead 2012: Top IP Legal Issues In The United States
    24/06/2011: Special Report: A Quick Summary Of The New US Supreme Court Decisions On Patents
    09/05/2011: TiVo Case More Closely Aligns US With Europe On Patent Infringement Contempt Cases
    17/03/2011: US Court Rulings May End Plague of False Patent Marking Suits
    12/01/2011: US Supreme Court Expected To Weaken Patent Validity
    07/01/2011: The Top Legal IP Issues In The United States In 2011
    02/08/2010: 中国防火长城:网络审查何时会违反世贸组织规则?
    28/07/2010: The Great Firewall of China: When Does Online Censorship Violate WTO Rules?
    29/06/2010: In Bilski Decision, US Supreme Court Adopts Tough But Vague Test for Business Method Patents
    07/04/2010: Special Report: The Significance Of Europe’s Ruling On Google Ads And Trademarks
    13/01/2010: Les États-Unis examinent l’utilisation du droit d’auteur comme obstacle aux importations du marché gris
    11/01/2010: Year Ahead: Five Key IP Cases To Watch In The United States In 2010
    23/12/2009: US Weighs Copyright As Barrier To Grey Market Imports
    24/11/2009: Bilski Decision Likely To Narrow Patentable Subject Matter In US, Panel Says
    25/08/2009: EU, US Bristle As Drug Innovators Pay To Delay New Generics
    Your IP address is