When evaluators disagree: Perplexities and perspectives

It is often held that one function served by evaluation in the fields of education and social policy generally is to assist the administrator in the making of rational decisions. If, under these circumstances, several evaluators come to different conclusions about a research proposal or a pilot social program, on what basis can the administrator make his decision? He can hardly be expected to resolve any technical dispute between the experts who are his advisors. After discussing the various functions of the evaluation process, and analyzing some of the factors that may lead to such lack of consensus amongst experts, the paper recommends that if the administrator is concerned solely with making a rationally defensible decision, then he should select his evaluating panel so that all members share the same theoretical orientation.     

IP litigation, the new money-spinner

It is a truism that intellectual property litigation costs alot of money. It can be ruinously expensive even for the victor,never mind the beaten, bloodied loser. Much effort has beendirected at reducing the cost of combat in court: streamliningthe trial process, rocket dockets, better case management, toname a few, have produced some relief for costly litigationbut no cure. However, since the reward for the winner is sooften the opportunity of either enforcing a     

Delicate balance or creative conflict?

In this issue Andrés Guadamuz explains the recent troubledhistory of the attempts that have been made to ensure the harmoniousoperation of Europe's software patent laws, and of the sad fateof those attempts. There is something paradoxical about thefact that the attempts at reform were scotched by two opposingcamps consisting of those who stood to gain most from thosereforms: on the one side those who want strong software patentsand on the other those who want no patents at all. At     

Demonstrating 'use' of an earlier registered mark in CTM opposition proceedings

An earlier registered trade mark may serve to oppose a laterapplication to register a Community trade mark, notwithstandingthat the earlier mark is not used in the form in which it isregistered, so long as the actual use had not destroyed thedistinctive character of the earlier mark.