• A system of registration, much like for trademarks or for registered designs.
• Registrations would be reviewed for uniqueness and authenticity.

No word on what, if any, legal rights for registered tartan owners would be associated with registration. I assume that there would be some sort of mark from the registry that would be attached to registered and ‘authentic’ goods. That way the registry would be a way to brand quality and develop a better reputation for producers.

My guess is that the authenticity review would only be a part, as the article notes that new tartans are created every year:

There are thought to be more than 4,500 unique tartans and about 150 new designs come forward each year. Football teams, the mobile phone firm 02, the Hilton Hotel in Hong Kong and a number of whiskies all have their own tartan.

LL Bean, based in Maine, US, was caught out earlier this year using a tartan whose creators claimed copyright over the design.

It has an extremely informal End User Licence Agreement (EULA). I particularly like the  indemnification clause and the choice of law and jurisdiction clause:

You will pay us any costs and damages we suffer if you do something you’re not allowed to. This would include the costs of our legal types. As we are proud to be a Scottish based project, this agreement will be under Scots law and enforced in the Scottish courts.

I also like this description of the educational restriction:

You can only use the material for educational purposes, so don’t go selling it on e-Bay. Beyond the fact that it is illegal, it is also not very nice.

I hope to find out in the project if they considered a Creative Commons like licence for their content. The EULA and their separate copyright policy restricts the use of the content outside of the educational setting and specifically prohibits placing any of the files on a page accessible to the internet.

So what does everyone think about organising some sort of meetup of Open Rights Group supporters and like-minded folk in Scotland?  We’ve been discussing it a bit on the ORG-Discuss list, but I wanted to also post my thoughts here as well.

It looks like it will be in Edinburgh, in July. Preferably on a Thursday about 6 or so (maybe later).  Either the 5th or the 19th.

If you are interested post in the comments or contact me directly via the contacts page.

In this issue:
Editorial

• “Douglas v Hello! – An OK! result”, Gillian Black

Peer-Reviewed Articles   

• “Do Asian Nations Take Intellectual Property Rights Seriously?” Assafa Endeshaw.
• “The day after the Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive: who won the battle and when shall the war end?”  Konstantinos Fotinopoulos.
• “Without Walls: Copyright Law and Digital Collections in Australian Cultural Institutions” Emily Hudson and Andrew T Kenyon.

Analysis  

• “Patenting programs as machines”, Philip Leith.
• “Keep on hacking: a Finnish court says technological measures are no longer “effective” when circumventing applications are widely available on the Internet”, Mikko Välimäki.
• “Copyright and research: an academic publisher’s perspective”, Kevin Taylor.

Book Reviews  

• The Law and Ethics of Medical Research: International Bioethics and Human Rights, by Aurora Plomer. Reviewed by Shawn H.E. Harmon.
• The Intellectual Property Debate: Perspectives from Law, Economics Political Economy, Edited by Meir Perez Pugatch. Reviewed by Jordan S. Hatcher.

May 2007 Election Report: Findings of the Open Rights Group Election Observation Mission in Scotland and England.

This report gives the findings of ORG’s election observers from the trial projects at e-voting in Scotland and England from May 2007.  For further details, please consult the site.  The conclusions on the Scottish Parliament follow:

The Scottish Parliamentary Ballot
Sixteen Scottish Parliamentary constituencies declared results where the number of spoilt ballots was greater than the winning margin. ORG considers that combining on the same day two elections, using different systems, was a contributory factor to the number of papers rejected. However, based on figures collected, ballots observed during adjudication as well as interviews with candidates, agents and electors, ORG’s view is that the design of the Parliamentary ballot paper was the primary cause of spoilt ballots. Specifically the placement of the regional vote on the left-hand side of the paper ran contrary to voter expectations. This issue was compounded by information posters and instructions from poll workers which often failed to specify that one cross, only, should have been made in each column. Given that many smaller parties stood candidates nearly exclusively in the regional contests, the pattern of voting from previous Scottish Parliamentary elections and the types of spoilt ballots observed; it is ORG’s view that smaller parties were unfairly penalised by the ballot design and associated errors.
The Electoral Commission made an inappropriate use of focus group studies when assessing potential ballot paper designs. The study conducted failed to test any designs with the constituency column on the left-hand side, an oversight the Commission should have corrected before allowing the study to proceed. That the results of the flawed study were presented as key evidence in support of the final Scottish Parliamentary ballot paper printed brings into question the judgement of both the Commission and the Government departments responsible. Both the Commission and the Government ignored advice from the Usability Professionals’ Association in failing to conduct proper testing of the ballot design, as well as of other systems and processes observed in Scotland and England.

I know that some people have the reaction to IP mentioned in the article:

Usually, eyes start to glaze over when the term “intellectual property” is thrown into a conversation.

… but I actually find that when I tell people that I’m an IP lawyer that they are pretty interested. It’s a much better conversation starter than saying that you do personal injury and getting into a heated debate over tort reform.

In “Leading the fight for your rights“, The Herald reports on clothes designer Katherine Hamnett, who spoke at “Encouraging Creativity” — an event sponsored by Maclay Murray and Spens for World Intellectual Property Day. Hamnett’s talk centred on ethics in IP law, and she mentioned issues patenting human genes and the use of her designs for causes that she does not support.

Echoing the same message as the Scotsman story, Fiona Nicolson of Maclay Murray and Spens had this to say:

Intellectual property is “extremely important”, says Nicolson. “The value of businesses is now in intangible assets and not in the tangible ones.” She cites Microsoft as an example. “If businesses in Scotland are going to make it, each needs to understand and capitalise on the value of intangible assets: or, in other words, their intellectual property.”

The draft programme is out, but it doesn’t have too much detail. From the site, the cofirmed speakers are:

Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia Founder), Lawrence Lessig (Creative Commons CEO), Joi Ito (Creative Commons Chairman), Lawrence Liang (Alternative Law Forum), Cory Ondrejka (Linden Labs CTO), Benjamin Mako Hill (MIT).

And BTW, thanks for the incoming links from:

• Square Mile Law
• Nearly Legal
• lo-fi librarian
• CONFINED TO THE LIBRARY
• cearta.ie
• Lex Loci Linux