°Őłó±đĚý(the “Gowling WLG IPilogue Prize”) was pioneered inĚý’sĚýIntellectual Property class in the Fall 2007 term and has been generously sponsored each year since then by , formerlyĚýGowling Lafleur Henderson LLP. As a sector-focused law firm, Gowling WLG provides clients with in-depth expertise in key global sectors and a suite of legal services, including a and 300-strong .

All blog entries and comments on the IPilogue submitted by Osgoode students are considered automatically for the prize. In each academic semester, one prize is awarded for the best blog post and one prize for the best comment.

This award is a chance to recognize Osgoode students' research and writing in a specialized and technical field and further encourage them to develop their strong interest in Intellectual Property Law. Of course, the subject matter of the IPilogue goes beyond strictly IP. Our stories also delve into related areas including: internet law, privacy rights, broadcasting, social media and free speech.

We are pleased to announce this year’s winners of the Gowling WLG IPilogue Prizes:

Fall 2020 Term:

Best Blog: Summer Lewis on “”

Best Blog Comment: We did not award a winner for this category

Winter 2021 Term:

Best Blog Post: Sebastian Romanutti on “”

Best Blog Comment: We have a tie.

Elif Babaoglu’s comment on “”

Jared Sues’s comment on “”

Congratulations to our winners and thank you to all who make the IPilogue possible. We are most grateful to Gowling WLG for its generous support.

The post Announcing the 2020-2021 Winners of the Gowling WLG Best Blog in IP Law and Technology Prize appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The internship is a part of IP Osgoode’s , which is a unique experiential program that gives students an opportunity to work at an organization that is involved with IP matters for an entire semester. The first two weeks of the program included training from experts in a variety of areas including copyright, trademarks, patent, technology, and privacy law. Then, for my subsequent ten-week internship at CBC, Dan Ciraco was my supervisor and each week I worked with a different lawyer mentor (from either the business or media law teams) to get exposure to new types of files.

One opportunity that the virtual workspace allowed, which otherwise may not have been possible, is the ability to observe virtual cross-examinations and court hearings. One in particular was at the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which was an absolute privilege to attend. The case is a pivotal one for journalists since it dealt with the constitutionality of the Court of Appeal’s policy related to record and courtroom access. The decision will undoubtedly impact how the media will access court documents in the future. In addition to these shadowing opportunities, I was able to work on a variety of research projects related to copyright terms, fair dealing, trademark infringement, and access to information issues. One research project allowed me to practice drafting arguments in preparation for a hearing. I also had the opportunity to review licensing and service agreements and assist with drafting clauses. Another project allowed me to review past agreements to help develop a template resource to increase efficiency and uniformity.

I am grateful that I was able to get exposure to the in-house legal department environment so early on in my career to complement my experience working at private law firms. It was a great change in perspective to see the dynamic of the lawyer-client relationship within an organization. As a media organization and public broadcaster, I learned a lot about the approach an organization like CBC takes to secure and enforce its IP rights.

When reflecting with my supervisor on the goals I had for the internship, I mentioned that I wanted exposure to opportunities that were unique to CBC. While many of those opportunities arose, one in particular was a highlight for me. With a few of the lawyers on the media law team, I was able to attend vetting meetings for stories with the Fifth Estate and CBC Marketplace, which are two programs I have loved watching over the years. Sitting in on these meetings, I observed the teamwork and collaboration that lawyers and journalists engage in to tell compelling stories. There is a delicate balance that must respect the journalistic process, but still manage legal risks. I also observed this balance when I assisted with creating internal training resources for journalists, which help to empower them with foundational knowledge to manage risks as they conduct their work in the field.

This was a pivotal moment in the early stages of my legal career that has given me exposure to a network of supportive mentors and leaders in the legal field. This experience has been added to my exposure to Bay Street firms and an in-house summer student secondment. I am certain my experience with CBC will help me as I continue with my professional endeavours. I am so thankful to my supervisor Dan Ciraco for his guidance throughout the program and his advice on my academic work throughout the semester. I also extend my gratitude to IP Osgoode and Professors D’Agostino and Vaver for this unique and rewarding opportunity.

Written by Summer Lewis, a third year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School, enrolled in Professors D’Agostino and Vaver 2020/2021 IP & Technology Law Intensive Program at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a reflective blog on their internship experience.

The post Embracing the Virtual Workspace: My Semester with CBC (IP Intensive Reflection) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

revealed that since July 2020, non-consensual fake nude photos of have been generated and likely have any idea these photos exist. The concern is not “who” is responsible for making these images, but “what”– a bot operating on the messaging app .Ěý

Deepfake detection company researched the impact of this artificial intelligence (AI) tool, which “removes” clothing from non-nude photos and synthesizes female body parts on the final image. Sensity to urge services hosting this content to take action. The term “” (a combination of “deep learning” and “fakes”) includes videos, images, and audio files generated or altered with the help of AI. Deepfakes are meant to deceive an audience on its authenticity. , deepfakes have a history of helping users create fake pornographic images, initially of celebrities. The and uses of deepfakes are well-cited, but what has changed is the to the code to create and use these documented AI tools. “.”

So, what can be done about a technology that has run rampant, despite attempts to rein it in?

There are a variety of stakeholders who can take steps to help.

• Terms and Conditions of Service Providers
  • °Ő±đ±ô±đ˛µ°ů˛ąłľâ€™s state that no one should “post illegal pornographic content on publicly viewable Telegram channels, bots, etc.” Telegram will process as they are submitted.
  • The open-source code from DeepNude, a similar technology exposed as an “” back in 2019, existed on GitHub even after the app was taken down. When asked about this, that it does not moderate user-uploaded content unless it receives complaints.
  • Having service providers place the onus on users to report violations of their policies is not an effective way to fight pornographic deepfakes, where a majority of the women likely did not know about the images. So, there needs to be a better industry standard that clarifies the responsibilities service providers have to verify the authenticity of content shared on their platforms. This can be addressed by an industry-wide adoption of technology solutions, as described below, to automatically detect deepfakes.

• The Technology Solution
  • The same AI technology that is used to make deepfakes could potentially be used to identify them. There are research teams investigating how to automatically detect deepfakes, such as the and the .
  • The IPilogue previously featured regarding creating a legal framework for AI. In relation to deepfakes, she wrote about Canadian company Dessa, which .
  • Larger companies, like Microsoft, have also announced tools that can .

• Increasing Media Literacy
  • It is also necessary to educate social media users on the signs of how to spot fake media, since “.” Siwei Lyu from the Computer Vision and Machine Learning Lab at the University of Albany shared that “.”

• Legislative Reform
  • Bill C-13, , amended the Canadian Criminal Code in 2015, making it an offence at s 162.1 to share nonconsensual pornography (also known as “revenge porn”, ). It remains to be seen whether this offence could be applied to images falsified through deepfake technology. Ontario courts have recognized “public disclosure of private facts” as a common law tort, which is . This tort may be used in cases, like Doe 464533 v ND, , where revenge porn occurs between former intimate partners. In relation to deepfakes, privacy torts and privacy legislation, such as the , may not be helpful since the images are not true depictions of an individual and . However, the Quebec Civil Code contemplates that it is an invasion of privacy to use a person’s “”, which may fill this gap on a provincial level.
  • Ultimately, it will be important to watch other jurisdictions to see if there is an opportunity to target deepfakes more narrowly in legislation. For example, the U.S. pending legislation, the may serve as a model for how countries can address the harms of deepfakes. The legislation, unlike the existing avenues in Canada, proposes labelling fake content with a watermark or statement regarding the altered content. There are also clear criminal and civil penalties associated with a failure to disclose that media has been altered. The legislation places an onus on software manufacturers who believe their creation could be used to produce deepfakes to ensure the software allows for such disclosures to be made and that their terms of use are updated accordingly to include this obligation. The proposed legislation also contemplates creating a task force to research and develop deepfake detection technologies.

None of these options can operate as a single solution. Detecting technologies cannot decrease the impact of the spread of fake media like human awareness can, and legislative reform cannot work in a silo without collaboration from service providers. The most effective solution will feature expertise from multi-disciplinary teams to ensure that service providers invest in automated solutions to help monitor their content, which can help providers avoid new penalties that hold them and creators of deepfake generators accountable, while both governments and social media platforms share content to improve media literacy.

Written by Summer Lewis, a third year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School, enrolled in Professors D’Agostino and Vaver 2020/2021 IP & Technology Law Intensive Program at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.

The post X-Ray Vision: How the Latest Deepfake Privacy Invasion is Revealing the Dark Side of AI Technology appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Drug manufacturers are currently under pressure to forgo their patent rights to provide “”. The World Health Organization (WHO) , which suggests that companies should voluntarily pool their IP for medical interventions. This would allow governments and generic drug manufacturers to sell the products at lower prices and provide solutions that may have otherwise been inaccessible. Ěý

This is not the first time that pooling IP resources has been suggested as a response to health crises. One past example is ’s patent pool. This . Multiple patents which were required to create treatments were owned by different companies. By creating a pool, the companies could effectively combine several medicines into one tablet, therefore making it easier for patients to receive treatment. Patent pools were also used as .

Costa Rica’s proposed patent pool would be a global resource, not just one that aids low-income countries. While patent pooling could have the negative effect of in this market, it is important to remember that could potentially save lives. For example, creating a pool is a one-stop shop for licensing from several companies and it could prevent stacking licenses, which occurs when the owner of a patented invention used in upstream research is granted rights in subsequent downstream innovations. Nonetheless, establishing a patent pool is a long, complex process which requires companies’ willingness to participate.

In relation to COVID-19, there are , such as and . While countries like Costa Rica are looking for an opportunity to encourage solidarity and create a humanitarian approach, like , and have considered the role compulsory licensing could play in helping fight the disease. Instead of waiting on companies to voluntarily create a pool, would effectively ignore the monopoly rights granted to patent owners and give generic drug manufacturers a license to produce the treatment. While both approaches have strengths and weaknesses, the compulsory licensing method could be helpful as a timely response given the .

At this point, there is a mixed response to how different countries are treating protections for innovations related to the virus. A more unified approach to pool IP resources to create a group of willing innovators could be a game changer.

Written by Summer Lewis, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Summer is also the Content Editor of the IPilogue.

The post Are We There Yet? Pooling Together to Fight the COVID-19 Pandemic appeared first on IPOsgoode.

On Monday February 3, 2020, Professor Abbott, a prominent voice at the intersection between law and technology, joined the IP Osgoode community in his talk: . He discussed recent advancements in technology, such as Alphabet’s DeepMind AI , and how the law should rethink human and robot relationships as AI becomes more useful.

His answer is AI legal neutrality. The argument is simple on its face: the law should not discriminate between behaviour by AI and by humans. While they should not be treated identically, Abbott suggests that through tax, tort, and intellectual property law, it could be beneficial to create a similar standard for assessing AI and human behaviour. This article will explore the economic and tax arguments.

Most tax revenue comes from income taxes and payroll taxes – in fact payroll taxes . So, it is contrary to the government’s interest to incentivize replacing human workers with new technology. Widespread unemployment means a widespread reduction in tax revenue. The concept of AI legal neutrality in the tax realm would mean that humans do not pay taxes. Then, increasing corporate taxes fills the gap in revenue. Professor Abbott suggests that this can level the playing field between people and machines.

have argued for a tax on robots in order to slow down the adoption of AI, which is fuelling automation. add that businesses adopt AI not because it is more productive, but because the tax code urges them to – that is, they will save money on taxes by eliminating human workers. South Korea, , implemented a in 2017—an act one can liken to the first instance of taxing robots, albeit indirectly.

My own view is that rather than taxing businesses outright for using automation, perhaps implementing some other corporate strategies would put humans and robots on a more equal playing field. South Korea did this by starting a “” initiative, where low-skilled workers develop skills to handle robots and automated machines. is one organization that advocates for taxing capital over labour. While there is an obvious benefit to this when it comes to one of their main causes, which is taxing natural resources and pollution, it is more difficult to justify taxing a resource that would lead to a decrease in innovation. Innovation is not all about productivity, but also has implications for social good, such as finding solutions for health issues, pollution, and drawing important insights from data. I believe there is a risk to stifling innovation just for the sake of preserving human employment. For human contribution to be relevant, it is necessary to learn more about the technology, like AI, which is leading to new discoveries. In this way, humans can work with technology to augment it, rather than act as an obstacle to its progress.

Written by Summer Lewis, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Summer is also the Content Editor of the IPilogue.

The post Taxing Robots Could Save Your Job, But What Else? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

provides that the fair use defence applies when copyright-protected works are used in criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. In an era where brand marketing and advertising is pervasive on social media, it would be difficult for fashion brands to rely on a fair use defence since the posts often have a commercial purpose. In fact, many brands after they started using “shoppable” Instagram posts. ĚýTake the example of the copyright infringement lawsuit between . Alexander Wang reproduced one of the photographer’s photos on Instagram, adding shoppable links to each piece of the brand’s clothing, detailing the price and name of the item.

In addition to denying this copyright infringement, Moschino with a copyright lawsuit against Splash News. The floral Moschino jacket that Cardi B wore in the photo is a , which Moschino registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2018. This registration gives the fashion brand the exclusive right to reproduce, display, and create derivative works of the design. Moschino claims that the photos at issue are derivative works of their copyright-protected design and that Moschino nor Jeremy Scott authorized the use of their design to Splash News.

There are several courts will weigh to evaluate the applicability of a fair use defence. It seems unlikely that Moschino can argue that the copyright infringement by Splash News had a negative effect on their use of the design in the market. When images of celebrities in fashion garments are shared on social media, brands benefit from more users getting exposure to their work and potentially buying their designs. However, photographers do not enjoy the same benefit when their work is shared without respect for their licensing fees. If brands do not have to pay for the authorization to use these photos, they stand to gain all the benefit in a one-sided relationship.

As we await the court’s decision in this matter, it is evident that the changing nature of social media and how images are increasingly shared for commercial purposes will impact the types of lawsuits we see from the media and fashion industries and how the courts may view copyright protection and the fair use doctrine.

Written by Summer Lewis, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Summer is also the Content Editor of the IPilogue.

The post The Curse of Iconic Fashion: When Social Media Marketing and Copyright Protection Collide appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Patent protection is a crucial consideration for inventors with new innovations. It ensures that innovation persists in the marketplace, and also guarantees some form of monopoly and profit for inventors who invest in engineering new solutions. However, the recent tension between Google and Sonos forces us to consider: how useful are patents to start-up companies with limited resources?

in two federal court systems for the infringement of five patents. For a collaboration in 2013 between Google’s music services and Sonos’ home speakers, Sonos shared the blueprints to their speakers— a mistake in hindsight which led to the alleged infringement on Google’s part. Sonos is seeking financial damages and a ban on the sale of Google’s speakers, smartphones, and laptops in the United States.

Beyond patent infringement related to the company’s wireless speaker technology that allows speakers to connect and synchronize with one another, the company makes an anti-competition argument: allegedly, tech giants Amazon and Google created an environment in which Sonos would be dependent on them, only to then use their leverage to “squeeze” the smaller company. Despite attempting to enforce their intellectual property rights against Google for years, Sonos has had no luck in attaining a resolution.

This type of lawsuit between Sonos, , and Google, , is . Similar cases have occurred between in relation to anti-competitive practices and between regarding trademark infringement.

Sonos was to innovate in the wireless home speaker market in 2005. While there is a benefit to being first in the market and to attain a monopoly for a specified time period, “bigness” in the technology industry threatens the enforceability of patent rights. For example:

• When Sonos initially found that Google was infringing its patents, it approached the company with a licensing contract. Google responded with a deal that would require them to pay next to nothing for the use of the technology.
• Where tech giants infringe on patent-protected technology, they can out-compete smaller companies by offering new devices at lower prices. Google and Amazon did this by selling their speakers starting from $50, while Sonos speakers typically start at $200.
• Large companies have significant negotiation leverage when it comes to exclusivity. For example, Google has maintained that it will pull its virtual assistant from Sonos’ speakers if users can simultaneously use other assistants from services like Apple or Amazon.

These factors put Sonos in the impossible position of having the right to monopolize a technology they developed, but not having any practical way to enforce these rights, due to a lack of resources and influence in the market.

This lawsuit is a reminder to start-up companies of the importance of a sound IP strategy before entering collaborations in the marketplace. It is important to consider what information should remain private and what protections contracts can ensure, such as an ability to freely collaborate with others in the marketplace (thus avoiding the exclusivity issue).

Written by Summer Lewis, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Summer is also the Content Editor of the IPilogue.

The post The Implications of Commercializing IP: How Patent Rights Get Compromised in Big Tech appeared first on IPOsgoode.

When asked about the most significant changes the new regulations implemented, Gill highlighted that the ability to register without having first used a mark is one of the most significant changes, in addition to joining the Madrid Protocol. There are also a number of challenges that practitioners must deal with when reconsidering filing strategies with their clients.

Challenges with the New Regulations

a) Monitoring and Opposing Trademark Applications

The way that trademark lawyers monitor and oppose applications has changed. Previously, it was easier to oppose applications when it was plainly recorded whether a company used a mark and what the date of first use of the mark was. Now, with no requirement to declare if and when a mark has been used, there are extra steps that practitioners must take when researching existing trademark applications and registrations. This research may not be very accurate, and these additional steps make it difficult to advise clients on whether they should be opposing a trademark application. It would be inefficient and potentially detrimental and costly to clients if their lawyers sent out demand letters to ask other parties to cease their use of a mark, only to have them respond that they have been using the mark before the client.

b) Examiners’ Discretion

Gill also noted that examiners can now refuse applications based on a lack of “”—the ability of a mark to distinguish the source of goods and services with which they are associated. He raised this as an issue as he sees it being used inconsistently, and at times inappropriately. This creates another layer that is slowing applications down and driving costs up. At this stage, there is little jurisprudence or guidance as to how this objection will be used and what will be required in a response where it is raised.

c) Accessibility

Another change to the trademark system is that the is now based on classes of goods and services, as set out in the Nice Classification system. Therefore, the more classes an applicant would like to include in their application, the higher the cost. While this could have resulted in a barrier to accessing trademark protection, Gill explains that not many applicants use a mark in enough classes to make this change prohibitive. Based on his experiences, this change has not impacted people’s willingness to apply for trademark protection.

The Use Requirement

The use requirement previously required applicants to sign a , confirming that they have used the mark.

In anticipation of the new regulations, which eliminates this requirement, speculated that Canada has moved from a first-to-use to a first-to-file system. On the contrary, Gill argues that all that has changed is the basis for registration. Canada still has a use-based system and all rights continue to flow from use. The only difference currently is that you may secure trademark protection before actually using the mark. After this, use is the basis on which you oppose other marks and assert trademark rights, which is illustrated in the example of the demand letter above.

One implication of removing the use requirement for registration is that it is much easier for trademark trolls to register marks they do not intend to use and sell them back to interested parties. While Gill noted that these trolls are an issue under the new regulations, he noted that there are an easily-identifiable group of trolls that have filed hundreds of applications across several goods and services. Thus, the increase of trolls in the trademark database is not a huge concern at this point and Gill has not yet seen any particular negative impact.

Some lawyers have also noted that there are changes that can . For example, includes the following amendments to the :Ěý a) registered trademark owners may not obtain relief for trademark infringement in the first three years after registration and b) registration may be opposed or invalidated based on a new ground of “bad faith”. Gill confirmed that these provisions make it hard for trolls to enforce their trademark protections if they are not using the marks.

What’s Next?

Gill proposed one simple resolution: applicants should be required to disclose if and when a mark has been used. He does not propose use as the basis for registration, but rather explains that this mandatory disclosure could ease the research process for practitioners, clarify any disputes regarding use, and easily isolate trademark trolls. This solution could also help clear the now crowded register and reduce the cost of clearing out marks for use-based reasons. The challenges lawyers currently face with the new regulations are not debilitating. The challenges, however, illustrate inefficiencies and room for improvement in reducing the costs associated with monitoring the trademarks Register and opposing applications.

Written by Summer Lewis, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Summer is also the Content Editor of the IPilogue.

Ěý

A partner at Gowling WLG since 1999, is best known for his intellectual property litigation practice, particularly in the areas of trademarks and unfair competition. Kelly is past leader of the firm's Trademarks, Brands & Designs and IP Litigation & Strategy groups.

Ěý

Ěý

The post From the Practitioner’s Perspective: Are the New Trademark Regulations an Improvement or Hindrance? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

• Is privacy a dead letter?
• Regardless of whether or not you think so, how do we make the world safe and habitable under the present circumstances?

I argue that privacy protection, while at an all-time low in its enforcement, is not completely ineffectual. With better legislation and more technical solutions to strengthen the legal rules, privacy protection can improve.

In today’s age of technological connectivity, I do not believe it is realistic to hold organizations accountable to a standard of privacy as anonymity. Instead, privacy should be framed as the ability to control other people’s access to one’s personal information. So how much control do consumers have over their personal information? At this stage, businesses collect consumer data for purposes beyond the consumer’s control, such as . Even though companies constantly collect personal data, the current Canadian privacy framework provides guidance on how to personal information and even provides consumers some limited power through . Unfortunately, there is always the , which is the reconfiguration of de-identified data. With a number of new legislative frameworks on the rise, such as the , these processes on how to collect, store, and share data can only get more secure.

Contrary to my views, some commentators are of the perspective that if we cannot maintain anonymity completely, then we might as well abandon the concept of privacy. For example, John Suler, professor of psychology at Rider University in New Jersey that both a public and a private (or anonymous) self is necessary to form human identity and both need to be intact for our well-being. Further from Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania found that people sought anonymity as a personal safeguard, which also helped them try new things and express themselves free from judgment. In a modern, connected world, however, I do not believe it is possible to be completely anonymous at all times, whether it be on the internet or just in physical public spaces. This is not inherently a negative thing, and I do not believe it is something everyone wants to feel at all times. Research on the “” demonstrates this point quite well. While people value privacy, they do little to preserve it. I believe that this is one of the issues that has led to the depletion of privacy protection. For a long time, consumers were not showing the government or technology companies that they cared about privacy. However, this was likely due to a lack of understanding surrounding long privacy policies written in complex legal jargon and the idea that if you do not consent to these policies then you cannot use the services.

Is it fair then that all of the onus falls on the individual to protect their privacy? There is a clear power imbalance between big technology companies who provide free, convenient services and individuals without any legal prowess or technical knowledge looking for cost-effective technology. It is very easy to click “I accept” to terms and services and privacy policies when an application is free and everyone you know also uses the service. This has led to the sharing of personal information where individuals had a reasonable expectation that their information would remain private—not shared with, or even sold to, third parties.

I believe that there is hope to turn this trend around. Take the example of California’s . Following the GDPR, this is the next iteration of legislation that can . The Consumer Privacy Act gives consumers the power to request the personal data that companies collect, how the data is used, and even prohibit the sale of their data to third parties. Most importantly, companies cannot charge consumers a different price for the product if they choose to exercise their privacy rights, thus erasing the dichotomy between privacy and convenience.

Strengthening privacy protection also requires further collaboration between regulators and those in the technology industry. One possibility is for the government to provide some form of incentive (likely monetary) to entrepreneurs to build more ethical technology companies. For example, provides consumers with a private alternative to Google Docs, which will not collect their personal information and encrypts all of their work. Another good example came from a with The Blockchain Hub at the Lassonde School of Engineering at 91ŃÇÉ«. The panelists discussed the role the government plays in implementing and regulating new technology like “digital identity”. Essentially, this concept allows people to identify themselves electronically without paper documents. The most important part of this technology is that the individual is in control of their personal information and their information does not have to be stored on a central database that can be sold, or even hacked. In order for the technology to be used for good and adopted broadly, the government would have a key role in distributing digital IDs and providing a way to authenticate digital IDs (so we can trust people are who they say they are). The government could get specific guidance from technology experts and look to case studies of countries that have tried to use this technology previously, like , in order to improve the current state of privacy protections and implement new technology-driven solutions.

Written by Summer Lewis, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Summer is also the Content Editor of the IPilogue.

This post was originally submitted as a reflection for the course and was reworked for publication with the IPilogue.

The post Is Privacy a Dead Letter? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In light of MIAW, we took a look at a few recent innovations that have impacted mental health services in Canada:

• In British Columbia, —a company that developed a workplace Mental Health Platform. The platform provides an on-demand, digital form of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). In recognition that mental illness could prevent Canadians from attending work, the company is using technology to remove these barriers and make health care for mental illness more accessible. Based on anonymous self-reported data, employees saw reductions in stress, anxiety, and depression by using the software. They also saw increased productivity at work (through reduced absenteeism).
• The Mental Health Commission of Canada released a on Stepped Care 2.0—their project to improve mental health care and addiction services through technology and innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador. After a demonstration project, the team received $1.2 million in funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The main impact of the e-mental health platform is reduced wait times for these services. This project will be an to observe in order to create service platforms that are efficient, cost-effective, and minimally invasive.

Global News recently published a series on the state of mental health services in Canada. In the , the series concluded on the issue of Canadian college and university campuses needing better mental health services. The issues with the current mental health supports include long wait times and limited service options, which is all happening amidst an among students. Technology is an important tool that can be used to innovate in this space. Smartphone apps are among the tools that have been , from meditation apps to apps that employ CBT.

Other than e-mental health platforms and mobile apps, it is also important to consider how could impact mental health. For example, has a wide range of clothing to aid persons with Sensory Processing Disorder (SPD). Stress, anxiety, and panic attacks are also symptoms of SPD, which the clothing aims to address. For example, their aromatic scarf can release scents when triggered to help comfort the user. These tools may have the impact of decentralizing the health care system and providing more diverse treatment options if inventors can provide them at an accessible price point and raise awareness about their availability.

Written by Summer Lewis, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Summer is also the Content Editor of the IPilogue.

The post Top Innovative Projects for Mental Illness Awareness Week appeared first on IPOsgoode.