Canadian Lawyer

that people need to ask how broad and how long protective rights should be, and what it is that they are actually protecting. "That' answer. At some point there is an inverse relationship between the level of protec- tion and the amount of innovation." Many think Canada has already s a series of questions with no easy to facilitate collaboration rather than as a tool of exclusion. Katz has seen this in the copyright reached that turning point, as evidenced by the multitude of opinions on recent reform efforts, particularly on copyright. "A lot of the current reform is driven by the kind of thinking that stronger is better, "but it is too crude and sometimes just wrong. Reforms only go in one direction — ratcheting up. Places with more relaxed systems sometimes do better. Professor Jeremy de Beer of the Uni- versity of Ottawa's Faculty of Law told the " committee that it should focus on "better IP, not more IP rights." He advocates a recognition that not everyone wants to handle IP the same way. He endorses a more creative use of IP rights known as "open innovation," where you use IP rights " notes Katz, arena, particularly with respect to open- source software. "If you write some code, you allow everyone by licence to change it for free. The only condition is that what they produce is subject to the same terms. This is a defensive use of copyright to ensure the openness of the system. This is also being used in the patent arena by research organizations. It' using intellectual property rights." Apart from the opinion evidence it is s a reverse way of gathering, the committee also has access to a wealth of reports and precedents. The international community has been grap- pling with the same issue and many coun- tries have gone through a modernization of their IP systems in recent years. Can- ada is subject to the World Trade Orga- nization' of Intellectual Property Rights) agree- ment and can access the World Intellec- tual Property Organization' s increasing s TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects resource of templates and treaties for guidance. However, it is important that the goal of global harmonization does not obscure the search for a custom-made Canadian solution. "If we simply copy what other countries are doing, we may be repeating the same mistakes, and we won't know if we have nothing to compare it to. When there are differences that don't serve any purpose and just increase costs, they can be removed, but otherwise there is a lot of value in competition and experimenta- tion," says Katz. At home, there have been five major reports in the last five years addressing changes required to boost innovation. Many cover aspects other than IP, but most at least touch on it. Only five years ago, INDUS undertook an extensive study of IP in Canada and produced a widely endorsed report declaring the need for urgent action. However, of its 19 recommendations, only two or three have been acted on. While some stakeholders have called What's in a name? Everything. There's no trade secret to getting results in ip litigation… Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law 150 York Street, Suite 400, Toronto, Canada M5H 3S5 Tel 416.941.9440 Fax 416.941.9443 E-mail info@dww.com Practical. Experience. www.dww.com Equal parts diligence and experience. When you go with Dimock Stratton for ip litigation, you're getting industry- leading experience, one of the hardest- working teams around, and a track record that speaks for itself. Dimock Stratton llp experience. results. 20 Queen W. 32nd fl, Toronto | 416.971.7202 | dimock.com www.CANADIAN Lawyermag.com JULY 2012 39 ntitled-2 1 11-12-06 11:26 AM ntitled-1 1 12-05-22 1:45 PM

• Cover