Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

If you're saying IP licences should run with the use of them, then logic also requires that there should be protection for a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

There also needs to be some sort of tidying up as to which sorts of IP licences really can run, and which sorts of provisions are spurious and can't run at all. For example, provisions shouldn't be enforceable unless they confer a clear, legitimate and financially self-evidently quantifiable benefit on the original licensor.

There are quite a lot of examples of purported licences that one encounters in day to day life that one suspects would prove to be spurious if anyone were to try to challenge or enforce them.

Much more controversially, and I suspect you'll disagree with this, there's a strong case for having a system under which, where the owner of IP is not themselves exploiting it, there should be a right for others to do so, on payment of a reasonable royalty, with some sort of system for the amount or the percentage to be objectively assessed by a quick and independent valuation tribunal.

The rationale is that this is a reasonable quid pro quo for having your creativity protected. Examples might include books that are out of print, patents that aren't being used, and computer code that the owner won't licence.

Your details

Cancel