In terms of IP policy, CTPD shares this responsibility with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) and Canadian Heritage. The benefit of sharing the responsibility of crafting IP policies across two other departments is that as a student you are exposed to a wide array of IP issues this can involve witnessing the formation of broad IP policies (at the domestic or international level) or be as specific as being tasked with examining the viability of reforming a particular subset of legislation found in a statue. Whether the IP issue is broad or narrow in nature, the policy approach is the same: examine the issue from multiples perspectives, consult with stakeholders, balance interests, and make policy recommendations based on evidence. This subset of skills is not something that is readily available in law school, and as a student, you will be tremendously grateful to be able to acquire them before heading out into the legal profession.

Every week as a student you will be invited to attend weekly policy meetings. The reason for face-to-face meetings with the CTPD section or at times individually alongside: the copyright, patents, or trademark teams is to facilitate open-communication and to flag or discuss potential upcoming policy decisions. This was one the highlights of my time at CTPD. For future reference, participation is not optional. As a student, your opinion is not only encouraged but valued.

As law students - especially students enrolled in the IP Intensive program - we tend to have our own ideas on how to properly reform the IP system. The CTPD team is compiled of the sharpest IP minds who also happen to have an open door policy with eager law students. I have spent countless afternoons in the offices of policy-makers in charge of trademarks, copyrights, or international IP files, to debate fine points of law and potential sets of reforms. It is in these earnest conversations where I found myself learning most about the unintended consequences (or havoc) my potential reforms would cause as well as the structural, political, and legal impediments to implementing any sets of reforms. For this reason, I will be entirely grateful for the entire CTPD team.

To cement your policy experience at CTPD, you should consider branching out and exploring the City of Ottawa. The Department’s office is mere steps away from Parliament Hill and the Supreme Court of Canada. If you keep an eye out, you might be able to catch great events: a night with a SCC judge, book talks hosted by the CBC , or a speaking engagement by a prominent politician. In terms of physical activities, I found that Ottawa has great bike trails and endless places to go for a quick run after work.

In the end, the experience is what the student makes of it. I intended to sharpen my policy-skills and learn the most effective manner to craft comprehensive and responsive IP policy. I honestly can say that I was able to achieve this goal. I would recommend this intensive program to any student who has an interest in policy-making and desires to receive a practical and unvarnished experience in this realm.

Mahdi Hussein is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and was enrolled in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property Law and Technology Intensive Program. As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a reflective blog on their internship experience.

The post IP Intensive: A Semester at Innovation, Science and Economic Development (formerly known as Industry Canada) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

It’s rare for the wheel of government to stop spinning, propelled by a necessary inertia. At least within Canada, without the force of government guiding developments, it really is difficult to imagine what the legal landscape might resemble.

When it comes to IP, IC is at the helm, a position it shares with the and . The work of my particular department, the CTPB, is based on a relatively broad mandate that is always bogged down by details. This is because the CTPB is charged with the task of refining Canadian IP laws in a way that fosters business potential (i.e., “Industry”) while accommodating the needs of the country’s economic constituents (i.e., “Canada”). A balanced approach is therefore part and parcel of IC’s . Consequently, the work that I became involved with while at CTPB was diverse – general in some instances and intimately specific in others.

However, the one constant throughout my time with IC was the weekly meetings. The team at CTPB encourage open lines of communication, as a concerted effort is needed for legislation to make its way through the House (it’s a long road to Royal Assent). These meetings ensure that everyone is aware of developments on relevant files, and serve as a pillar through which everyday tasks, ranging from the creation of binders, speeches and briefing notes to the management of long term research projects, gain clarity. Given the “secret” nature of the files I worked on, I can’t provide substantive details. However, I will say that my interest was piqued during my first week and I rarely felt a dip thereafter. In terms of gaining an in depth look into IP policymaking – specifically, the ways in which socio-cultural trends impact laws, thereby impacting people – I could not have asked for a better placement.

Depending on your position, you might also be curious as to what Ottawa has to offer. After all, only 1/3 of your time will be spent at the office. Although moving to a new place can be an extremely lonely transition, that is precisely what makes the experience so spontaneously engaging. And Ottawa, serving as Canada’s capital and legal refinery, places before an unfamiliar face a unique breadth of opportunities. As mentioned, working within a legal department such as IC provides a glimpse into the gearbox of government, but even outside of the placement itself there are a number of venues worth visiting. The history attaching itself to Ottawa is especially visible around IC, which is built on a block that neighbours Parliament to the west. Some of the country’s oldest institutions reside along a strip of land no larger than 91��ɫ’s campus. Work on files in the morning and catch Question Period in the afternoon. Put in a bit of extra effort one week and perhaps even take a seat in the hearing room of the SCC. I was lucky enough to do exactly that when I observed . Seeing a Supreme Court case unfold in person is surprisingly insightful, and it really helped to bridge certain gaps I’d held previously regarding the process of appellate litigation.

In the end, every experience is contingent on what you make of it. Simply put, IC offers insights that no academic course can match. The placement forces you to view law through a public lens, and in that sense it offers the benefit of pre-emptively breaking the mold in which many soon-to-be lawyers find themselves immersed during practice. If your interest lies in policymaking and you wish to capture an honest view of the inner workings of democracy in action, you won’t likely find a better opportunity to do so anywhere else.

Jason Hayward is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and was enrolled in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property Law and Technology Intensive Program. As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a reflective blog on their internship experience.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-CA
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

The post IP Intensive: A Semester at Industry Canada - Policy-Making in Canada's Legal Epicentre appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Right from the outset, I was welcomed as a new member of the CTPD team and was exposed to many of the things that they do. If I had to describe the work that I did with the CTPD, I would divide it into three rough categories. First, there is “research work”, where problematic areas of copyright or trade-mark law are identified. Research is undertaken to understand the issues, articulate it clearly, and explore the potential paths which the government could take to address the problem. During my placement, I was able to explore the problems that face the treatment of IP rights in cases of insolvency.

The second could be characterized as “everyday work”. This involves a variety of tasks that the CTPD is responsible for, including the everyday collaboration with other departments who need to understand the nature and status of Canadian IP law. During my placement, I was able to sample a variety of such projects ranging from docket assignments, to the drafting of briefing notes, to the composition of issue summaries, and to meetings with other governmental departments about the nature of Canadian IP law and policy. Especially prominent during my time at Industry Canada was the close collaboration of members of the CTPD with officials from the regarding the (CETA) and (TPP) negotiations.

The final category is best described as “legislative work”. This work must be done to ensure that a piece of legislation that will change IP law moves successfully through Parliament. In this regard, I was fortunate enough to have Bill C-8, the ��(which would amend both copyright and trade-mark law) making its way through the legislative process. Most of my time was spent aiding the progression of the Bill. The challenge provided by working in these three capacities was a large part of what made my experience at Industry Canada so beneficial.

A significant reason why I was interested in participating in this program was due to my observation that I was being taught in class how to approach the law from the vantage point of a lawyer. Especially in such a technical area of law such as IP, it fascinated me to think that the people who developed and adapted the law were not necessarily legally trained, and thus did not necessarily share the view of the law that I was being taught.

My placement definitely gave me some insight on this. One of the biggest challenges that face policy makers, especially those in copyright and trade-mark policy, is finding an appropriate balance in the law. For example, one piece of policy may be very popular among industry groups, while at the same time very unpopular among consumer watchdogs. The role of Industry Canada is to maximize the beneficial economic effects of the IP regime, while also ensuring that it reflects the expectations of all Canadians.

This was a helpful, new lens through which to view the law. I realized that I had become so accustomed to treating the law as a code by which all actions must abide by, or perhaps more cynically as a means to a defined objective. The policy-maker’s view of the law is often very different. Instead of resisting change to long-established patterns or dismissing suggestions as too difficult to fit in the current legal framework, policy-makers must contemplate how to structure the entire legal framework so as to maximize the benefits and minimize the pitfalls. Often this means adopting a more macro view of the law than lawyers are accustomed to.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed my time at Industry Canada. It taught me a lot about IP, and reminded me that the law is more than a language lawyers speak; it is a living reality with real-world effects. Policy-making is the task of ensuring that living reality is one we all can enjoy.

Samuel Johansen is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and was enrolled in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property Law Intensive Program. As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a reflective blog on their internship experience.

The post IP Intensive Program: “Intellectual Property Policy is All IC” Reflecting on a Semester at Industry Canada appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In response to this statement BCE, Rogers, and Telus (the "Big Three" Canadian telecommunication companies) launched a . They argued that the rules intended to support new entrants into the Canadian wireless market would actually allow large foreign corporations like Verizon to squeeze out Canadian companies and jobs.

Verizon CEO, Lowel McAdam, now says that Verizon the Canadian market. In an interview with Bloomberg news service, he said that the speculation of a Verizon entry into the Canadian market was “way overblown." Nevertheless, Verizon managed to spark a polemic discussion about the new spectrum auction and rules introduced by the government to encourage the introduction of a fourth major telecom competitor into Canada.

In 2012, the government to allow foreign companies to enter the market with some limitations. Companies with are now open to foreign investment, while large carriers are still restricted to one-third foreign ownership. In 2014, the Government plans to����four blocks of the 700-megahertz wireless spectrum to carry voice and data services. As a part of the government’s ongoing attempts to develop competition in the wireless market, the "Big Three" carriers will be restricted to bidding on only one block. The Government further "��from purchasing either Wind or Mobilicity - the current small providers in Canada.

The "Big Three" argue that the rules will favour foreign carriers who enter the market because they would be able to bid on more than one block since they are not incumbents. Two of the four blocks are for new entrants and current speculation is that these blocks will therefore sell for a lower price since the big three cannot bid, making them attractive to a foreign competitor. Verizon is currently four times larger than the "Big Three" combined, which does not seem to be the underdog the government had in mind when it implemented the policy to encourage competition.

The withdrawal of Verizon has not put an end to the protest from the "Big Three". Rogers CEO, Roger Nadir, claims that while welcomes competition, the current policy in place do not provide a level playing field. laid out three loopholes in the rules that still need to be closed. A spokesman for said, “It’s never been about Verizon coming to Canada. It has been and continues to be about fair access to the spectrum.” The "Big Three" maintain that the rules provide an unfair bidding advantage to new entrants at their expense.

In late August, members of the country’s largest private sector union outside of Industry Canada offices, citing their disapproval of the new rules that will open telecom to foreign investment. They fear that the introduction of another provider will result in Canadian job losses as a result of corporate streamlining to remain competitive. The union is also concerned with privacy and security if an American corporation enters the market, especially in light of Verizon’s involvement in recent .

In my opinion, the concern from the "Big Three" may be unwarranted at this point. After all, despite government attempts to diversify the market over the last few years,��remain with the "Big Three". The introduction of Wind and Mobilicity has already resulted in an nearly in the last few years; however, Canadian carriers still have per user. Moreover, Canada has among the most expensive wireless plans according to the and the .��Canada��is a relatively small and rural market, which presents a huge undertaking of development of infrastructure to enter competitively in all areas. Thus, even under the new relaxed rules, one does not simply walk into the Canadian market.

According to digital public affairs analyst Mark Belvis, one poll indicates that��would support entry of Verizon into Canada as they believe it would lead to better service and lower rates. Consumers already feel they have little choice and the attempt by the "Big Three" to gain sympathy did not gain much traction with frustrated consumers who used this campaign to air their grievances against their providers. Continued opposition from the "Big Three" to changes in the Canadian wireless market may prove to be a consumer-alienating strategy in the long run.

Even without the entry of Verizon, feels that “the way we’ve designed our policies, we are going to have more competition in the marketplace from other players.”�� The government does not seem to have changed its position and still wants a fourth major competitor despite the media frenzy caused by the Verizon inquiry.�� The auction remains for January and companies wishing to bid still must submit their applications by September 17^th.

Allison McLean is an IPilogue Editor and a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.��

The post Verizon No Longer on the Canadian Wireless Horizon appeared first on IPOsgoode.

We have a wonderful array of��,��from government agencies to media organizations, hi-tech companies, and innovation centres. For the Fall 2013 term, we have partnered with three brand new placement organizations: Apotex, Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company (the Canadian subsidy of Actavis, Inc.) and CBC/Radio-Canada. We are also pleased to welcome the return of TVO from our inaugural year. Other IP intensive placement organizations include: Canadian Heritage, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada (Copyright and International IP Policy Branch), the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), Stanford Centre for Legal Informatics (CodeX), The Globe and Mail, and VentureLAB.

The IP Intensive is a unique program that gives students practical, experiential education in a workplace setting for an entire term in lieu of being in the classroom.��Our students gain valuable practical experience which will assist them in obtaining employment after law school, and some of our students' research in the program has been published in the (IPJ).

The IP Intensive begins with��, led by IP Intensive Students currently enrolled in the IP Intensive, which will feature presentations and workshops by experts prominent in the IP community. The seminars will cover a wide variety of topics, from “Trade-mark Prosecution” to “Intellectual Property Reform Process”, from “Biotechnology Focus: Pharma” to “Digital Media, Journalism, Freedom of Expression”. ��Our IP Intensive students will be interacting and engaging in stimulating discussions with the Chair of the Trade-marks Opposition Board, a senior policy analyst from Canadian Heritage (Copyright Policy Branch), counsel from the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner’s Office, in-house counsel and top executives from a broad range of industries, practitioners from the major Canadian law firms, academics and members of the judiciary.��Then IP Intensive Student Interns will participate in an 11-week internship with one of our placement partners.

The program director for 2013 will be Professor David Vaver. Throughout the term, the students will be meeting with him periodically to discuss topics relating to intellectual property law, to share their experiences in the work environment, and to participate in a cross-pollination of ideas. The students will also be maintaining a reflective journal and blog on the . They are also responsible to lead their own seminar presentations, which will occupy the wrap-up week of the course.

If you are interested in attending any of our sessions or participating as a placement, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me directly.

Giuseppina D’Agostino is the Founder and Director of IP Osgoode, an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, and the Founder of the IP Intensive.

The post Announcing the 2013 IP Intensive Program appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In the department, policy making is overseen by the Strategic Policy Sector.�� The sector consults stakeholders, academics, and experts in order to determine how existing policies can be ameliorated or enhanced to allow the Canadian economy to adapt to changes in the marketplace.�� The Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate focuses on copyright and international IP issues.�� For the Copyright team – my team – their work this past fall meant assisting the Minister and his staff with the legislation of Bill C-11 (the Copyright Modernization Act), engaging with Canadian Heritage and stakeholders who may be affected by the Bill, and following the Supreme Court of Canada copyright cases that were heard last December.

I began my placement hoping to gain as much exposure to my strongest interest – the process of IP policy analysis and policy development.�� My internship was a roller coaster of experiences, to say the least.�� On the one hand, working with the copyright policy team at the time Bill C-11 was tabled meant that it was an exciting phase for our team.�� On the other hand, it was also a busy and unpredictable phase. My tasks alternated between responding to urgent requests from senior management within 24 hours and having lengths of time to develop policy reports on the side.

Perhaps least surprising, I learned foremost how to think like a policy maker.�� Policy development is about questions and answers.�� Policy makers ask the right questions to lead them to the right answers – the right answer being that policy balance that would treat different stakeholders fairly.�� The Supreme Court cases concerning online music downloading, for instance, touch on more issues than statutory interpretation.�� A policy maker would delve into the purpose of copyright provisions and ask whether online music services ought to compensate copyright owners in a context where the works are not used or altered, merely delivered.�� Similarly, deciding that a cinematographic soundtrack does not include individual sound recordings included in the film could change the way film industries incorporate music into cinematographic works.�� Therefore, policy work involves a close understanding of how industries might react to legal changes, and likewise, how to implement changes to steer that reaction.

My internship with Industry Canada also showed me that policy work consists of translating extensive webs of theoretical concepts into practical solutions.�� In many cases, this means boiling down reams of legal details into high-level, essential points to convey to senior management.�� What I learned is that these skills are not merely germane to policy development but to almost all areas outside of law.�� The law is saturated with details and intricacies which may be important to lawyers but not to those outside our profession.�� Learning to glean the central issues is an important way to ensure that the legal profession is not disengaged from the “outside world.”

Alysia Lau is a JD student at Osgoode Hall Law School. Here, she reports on her experience at Industry Canada, while interning there as part of the inaugural offering of the Intellectual Property Law and Technology Intensive Program (IP Intensive) at Osgoode.

The post Copyright Policy at Industry Canada: More Than a Dilbert Strip appeared first on IPOsgoode.