You could probably guess that this was a work book although, fun fact: it was a self-imposed read rather than a voluntold read (more of the latter coming up in about 3 reviews). I have no recollection of taking this class in school, but somehow I have a copy that looks suspiciously like I both read AND highlighted portions of it. Ah, the magic of youth, lawschool and a ton of other practical law experience that pushed this right out of my brain (sometimes I picture my brain back in those early associate years as a leaky lifeboat- anything that wasn’t going to carry me across that billable hours target was thrown overboard, like sleep and reading for pleasure and apparently intellectual property law).
So. I was being asked to do legal work that is far outside of my expertise area, and although I have been paying experts I was starting to feel underwater (these metaphors are getting unwieldy. Maybe I’ve jumped off the lifeboard and am now hoping this IP textbook floats?). It was time to return to some textbook reading! The version I read was old, and I was aware of this, but it was very convenient (already on my shelf) and I was looking for the foundations, not the latest case law. On foundations, I would give this book a solid 4 stars- it had a section each on copyright, trademarks and patents, as well as some ‘recent’ issues that were less helpful (over a decade old). It did answer my question about why we refer to things like ‘moral rights’ when talking about copyright (because the creator always owns that and has to specifically waive it or they still have a say over it). It also reminded me to be thankful I don’t get asked questions about patents (not for dabblers, the way that copyright and TM may allow).
As far as enjoyability goes, its not one I would recommend to anyone for pleasure reading, so downgrade to a 3 stars- its still definitely a textbook. That said, its readable and Vaver attempts to tease out some of the larger philosophical issues about how and why Canada has organized its IP system the way it has (highlighting things he thinks could be eliminated or revised or improved). I appreciated the occasional bigger picture view all while the main focus remained on the basics (I can’t remember what my opinions on things like this were in law school. I remember being outraged by some of the earlier constitutional law decisions (mostly on the rights of women, or lack thereof), but I also remember being very focused on trying to just read what was required- the Coles notes rather than the whole case, because otherwise you could have spent your entire life reading case law, and we were all 25 with lots of beer to drink and gym time to fit in between classes). Time is a flat circle (credit to the writers on the first season of True Detective, and with that I’m off to steal a photo to go with this review).