laws governing intellectual monopolies in the United Kingdom are in a state of flux at the moment. After the previous government in his last hours rammed by sloppy work known as the Digital Economy Act, the current coalition government has adopted a more rational approach to the implementation of the Hargreaves review on the impact of digital technologies that area. One of its key proposals was that the policy must be based on evidence, not "lobbynomics" that it has not yet been named, says a lot about how the laws have been established to day.

Consequently, the Intellectual Property Office of the United Kingdom (IPO) tried to gather evidence to help policy makers develop new policies that correspond to data not only dogmas. It is not surprising, perhaps, those who have done well with the previous approach have been tested without mounting a rearguard action against the changes.

unhappy people on both the Hargreaves Review and the response of the IPO is British MP Peter Wishart, who made the following comments about their Parliament in early this year:

Ian Hargreaves was nominally in charge of this process [watch digital copyright], but they found evidence taken and the report and recommendations to be issued, I suggest that the main the IPO was everywhere. I think Ian Hargreaves was a figurehead since the IPO seems to have led to the agenda. We will discuss some of the exceptions to copyright that the proposed initial public offering as part of an investigation, but took the lead at the end of the process.

What is it based on? It is based on the belief that economic reality should be at the center of all initiatives and all that relates to intellectual property. Ian Hargreaves may have been a little arrogant when it comes to intellectual property, and you could tell who did heroic assumptions about the value of some of the proposed recommendations and exceptions.

Wishart is also the vice-president of something called the Parliamentary Group of the Party Intellectual Property. This is described as:

The Group was established in 2003 as a response to that and create a resource for members of both Houses interested in learning more about intellectual property (IP), its role in promoting creativity and economic growth, new services are developed to meet the needs of consumers and the damage that can be caused when IP is properly respected and protected.

As it clearly shows, the Parliamentary Group of the Party of intellectual property is not an official organ of the Government of the United Kingdom, but more of a club for people mind. Earlier this year, the group announced its unofficial research on how the British government has been handling intellectual monopolies

The Group will seek to unravel the fabric between the Ministries of responsibilities in this area considering how policy has developed, the effectiveness of the current approach and the machine government can be improved to better policy

is difficult not to see this as an attack on the IPO and its new approach -. of six questions was "What is the effectiveness of the Office of Intellectual Property and what their priorities should be? (Pdf). "This suspicion is confirmed by the recent publication of results (pdf).

Philosophy

group is clear from the outset in the document:

The fact that intellectual property is of interest reflects their growing importance in our economy. Obviously one IP does not generate economic activity, but as a property right, allows innovators, designers, manufacturers and designers to protect their innovations and monetize their work.

Unless the copyright and patent

are not property rights, but "a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly of ideas. ' In fact, the growing recognition that it is useless to try to copyrights and patents as property rights seems to really stick in the craw of the parliamentary group. This is what he said about it:

We are also concerned that officials are struggling to describe BPR intellectual property as property rights. It has been described as a framework for an officer who immediately compromised. If you see the IPO as IP framework then suggests they see it as something that can be molded and modified at will. We wonder if this just leave [and] attitude would be transferred to other property rights, and if they were, if officials and ministers to allow this attitude infiltration.

Note that the IPO is blamed here to simply convey a truth which is unpleasant for the group. In addition, the report is really difficult to find other reasons to blame the IPO, unfortunately, the facts are on the right track:
Find best price for : --Hargreaves--