• Creation of a Digital Copyright Exchange. This would be a centralised digital copyright works marketplace where licences to copyright content could be readily bought and sold, akin to a copyright shop. This would extend what currently happens with through music collections agencies such as PRS. The aim is to have this implemented by the end of 2012. In addition, the UK should support the European Commission’s proposals to establish a framework for cross-border licensing.
• Introduction of legislation to permit use of orphan works – copyright works where the rights owner has not been ascertained. The European Commission has also come up with similar plans recently.
• Allowing wider exceptions for lawful copying, such as to include format shifting between a laptop and mp3 player, which is still unlawful. This may also include copyright exceptions for non-commercial research, such as digital copying of medical journals for computerised analysis in research. Parody and library archiving would also be exceptions to copyright. The exceptions would be enshrined in law and non-excludable by contracting out by agreement between the parties. There is no place in the report for anything as extensive as the “fair use” exception along the lines that US law has, as that would not be compatible with European Union law.
• Increasing the Intellectual Property Office’s ability to give legally binding opinions on changes to intellectual property law in response to economic or technological changes.
• A careful look at the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Government should look not just to enforcement but also education, growing legitimate markets and modernising copyright law. Other countries’ experiences should be considered when the Digital Economy Act starts to become operational in 2012.
• Try to remove patent thickets that stifle innovation. Thickets arise where there are overlapping patent claims by multiple applicants, resulting in delays and extra costs in innovation. This should involve cutting backlogs in patent applications. There should also be a disincentive – perhaps through cost of additional fees for patent renewals – to discourage patents that do not add much value. Computer-related patent rules also need to be clearer and stricter to avoid patents being granted for non-technical inventions or business methods.
• Investigate whether the system of protection for designs should be made clearer. The Intellectual Property Office should conduct an assessment based on evidence within the next 12 months to consider the relationship between design rights and innovation.

It now remains to be seen what the Government will do in terms of implementation of the recommendations within the report. There have been other intellectual property reviews previously – most notably the Gowers Review – which were not then followed-up significantly.

The High Court rejected Burrows’ claims. In respect of the action for breach of confidence, the High Court said that it had not been disclosed to Circle in circumstances importing an obligation of confidentiality. Burrows was simply doing his job and he had not made any suggestion – either when first becoming an employee nor when introducing the idea – that the idea was his from time before he had joined Circle. The High Court also rejected his claims that a design document created at Circle infringed Burrows’ copyright in his earlier personal design document as the only person at Circle who had seen Burrows’ earlier document was Burrows himself.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of www.Upload-It.com, comments: ‘This case shows that disputes may arise in respect of who owned the rights to pre-existing ideas and materials before an employee is employed. It is always a good idea to have a strong employment contract which makes clear that anything that the employer wants to own belongs to the employer, and not the employee through a technicality. This is especially important when employing someone in the creative industries. A key issue in this case was that the employee had not disclosed his pre-existing ideas; had he done so, the employer should take steps to ensure that it is not stopped from using them. If the facts of this case had been a bit different, the employee may well have owned the confidential information and been able to stop his employer from using it.’