What I find alarming here is the fact that, in respect of conduct which took place between 2006 and 2009, it was not until the summer of 2011 that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was able to give a ruling. If the SDT had been able to fast-track its adjudication of the complaints, which were well publicised in the media at the time, it is possible that some of the egregious practices of law firms subsequently could have been averted.
To put the record straight, the main problem with the original decision was the way it was reported in the Italian press: the more boring, if less exciting, version -- from the legal perspective anyway -- can be read http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/03/wednesday-whimsies_30.html (2nd item down).
Nicedoggy is quick to comment that "The only reason I can think of people keep saying a lot of crap is bad is because in an IP world that is absolutly true, those crappy startups will lock down every path for growth and innovation that there is". How strange it is that, in the history of mankind, there has never been a period in which as much innovation has hit the marketplace as over the past three decades, when registered IP rights really began to proliferate and unregistered IP rights started receiving broader statutory and judicial protection.
Look at medicine, healthcare in general, the entertainment and communications sectors, fast-moving consumer goods, the luxury sector, banking and commerce -- all this has been facilitated by IP, not inhibited by it.
I really appreciate your comment about rushing to cut people out of the debate, which is absolutely right. "Stakeholder" has become an exclusionary term -- but we are all stakeholders in IP now, whether as creators, owners, authorised or unauthorised users, competitors, distributors or consumers.
It was tough work trying to organise a non-exclusionary copyright debate this week, but with the help of a lot of people it more or less worked. The high point for me wasn't the debate itself but the sight of high priests of the copyright industry engaged in human discussion with major critics of the system over a refreshingly free beer and realising they lived in the same world and shared more values than they first thought they did.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by The IPKat.
Punishment for solicitors
What I find alarming here is the fact that, in respect of conduct which took place between 2006 and 2009, it was not until the summer of 2011 that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was able to give a ruling. If the SDT had been able to fast-track its adjudication of the complaints, which were well publicised in the media at the time, it is possible that some of the egregious practices of law firms subsequently could have been averted.
To put the record straight, the main problem with the original decision was the way it was reported in the Italian press: the more boring, if less exciting, version -- from the legal perspective anyway -- can be read http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/03/wednesday-whimsies_30.html (2nd item down).
IP and lockdown
Nicedoggy is quick to comment that "The only reason I can think of people keep saying a lot of crap is bad is because in an IP world that is absolutly true, those crappy startups will lock down every path for growth and innovation that there is". How strange it is that, in the history of mankind, there has never been a period in which as much innovation has hit the marketplace as over the past three decades, when registered IP rights really began to proliferate and unregistered IP rights started receiving broader statutory and judicial protection.
Look at medicine, healthcare in general, the entertainment and communications sectors, fast-moving consumer goods, the luxury sector, banking and commerce -- all this has been facilitated by IP, not inhibited by it.
Stakeholders
I really appreciate your comment about rushing to cut people out of the debate, which is absolutely right. "Stakeholder" has become an exclusionary term -- but we are all stakeholders in IP now, whether as creators, owners, authorised or unauthorised users, competitors, distributors or consumers.
It was tough work trying to organise a non-exclusionary copyright debate this week, but with the help of a lot of people it more or less worked. The high point for me wasn't the debate itself but the sight of high priests of the copyright industry engaged in human discussion with major critics of the system over a refreshingly free beer and realising they lived in the same world and shared more values than they first thought they did.