Nikita Munjal is a 3L JD/MBA Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

Using the Internet inevitably requires consenting to have your personal information used, collected, and disclosed by the websites you visit. A common reason for individuals, corporations, and non-profit organizations to collect your personal information is to influence your behaviour online, from your to your . One of the most effective ways to influence consumer behaviour online is through targeted advertising.

Value for Advertisers

Access to personal information has become necessary for advertisers to convert potential leads into customers. Think back to 2012, for example, when a suggested that a statistician working at Target predicted a teenage girl’s pregnancy based on her shopping habits. What did Target do with this information? It mailed her coupons for baby clothes and cribs.

that the value of your personal information to advertisers depends on various factors. Factors influencing value include your gender, race, and sensitivity of the information (that is, cost more than ). If, for example, the target audience for a new sneaker launch is young males of middle eastern origin, the spent to acquire your personal information is a minor investment to incur to influence you to purchase $180 sneakers.

Value for Users

Traditionally, users have valued the ability to share their personal information while using online services, like search engines or social media platforms, citing their .

However, increasingly, . This trend has mobilized startups in Silicon Valley to appeal to privacy-conscious users by providing them an incentive to share their personal information. Known as paid-to-surf models, companies in this space require their users to install browser extensions to track their browsing.

What monetary value do some privacy-conscious users demand to share their personal information? $20 a month for users of . Others are . While these paid-to-surf models have the potential to be disruptive, they are not yet a viable alternative, as users must surf a certain amount before they can cash out.  

Value Going Forward

The tech industry has built empires based on collecting, using, and selling its users’ personal information to third-party advertisers. Surprisingly, some factions of the tech industry are modifying their business models to limit the tracking of personal information. Apple, for example, introduced a new iOS in 2021, s. Similarly, on its Chrome browser is estimated to impact millions of advertisers.

Apple and Google argue that these changes are necessary to respond to increasing and customer sensitivity to sharing personal information (the IPilogue has documented increased regulation in the and ). However, , including , lament that the changes are veiled anti-competitive practices.

Interestingly, increasing barriers to the online advertising ecosystem may benefit users. If access to personal information becomes impeded, interested parties may need to incentivize users to share their personal information, increasing users’ bargaining power. Although it is unclear what effect Apple and Google’s changes will have on the ecosystem, I am hopeful that users can leverage more control over their personal information for fair compensation by technology companies or advertisers for their valuable commodity.

The post How Much is Your Personal Information Worth? And What Will It Be Worth in the Future? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Mac Mok is a 3L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have entered every facet of our daily lives. The availability of massive data sets has been leveraged by AI systems to . The healthcare field has been no exception, with the Humber River Hospital now housing “”, an AI system that can track the flow of patients from their intake to discharge, and help healthcare providers make more informed decisions to improve overall efficiency and deliver better care.

, however, can produce discriminatory consequences. Examples include the Amazon recruiting algorithm that penalizes resumes containing the word “women” and the COMPAS algorithm used in criminal sentencing that was more likely to penalize African-American defendants. During AI system development, biases can appear in the training data when historical human biases contribute to the generation of such data, or when the data is imbalanced, that is, some groups are overrepresented and others are underrepresented.

can also impact healthcare AI systems. Recent regulatory efforts have begun addressing this issue. Health Canada, in a joint effort with the US Food and Drug Administration and the U.K. 's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, has identified to inform the development of Good Machine Learning Practices (the dominant method used to train AI systems). In particular, the third guiding principle requiring that clinical study participants and data sets are representative of the intended patient population raises the importance of managing any bias. Another regulatory effort is the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) that was tabled as part of Bill C-27 to regulate the use of AI systems in Canada . of the AIDA puts the onus on the person(s) responsible for the AI system to “establish measures to identify, access and mitigate the risks of harm or biased output that could result from the use of the system”. Healthcare AI systems could also fall under such regulation.

The guidelines and regulations above put much responsibility to mitigate bias on the shoulders of AI developers. Logically, would be in the best position to recognize and address biases in the system as they have direct access to the training data and may correct important deficiencies. Arguably, however, such as the doctors seeking AI to solve a problem, and the end users of the system such as patients should also provide critical feedback to AI developers. Particularly in the healthcare field, where understanding training data and interpreting system outputs may require years of medical training, medical practitioners may play a key part in spotting biased inputs and outputs, allowing for correction of AI system deficiencies. Thus, the guidelines and regulations on preventing biased AI systems should consider what role doctors and patients have in developing responsible healthcare AI tools.

The post Who is responsible for discriminatory AI systems in healthcare? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Cynthia Zhang is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Recently in , a jury of the US District Court of the Southern District of Illinois that tattoo artist Catherine Alexander has a valid copyright claim in the designs she tattooed on World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. megastar Randy Orton. Orton’s likeness was licensed through defendant WWE to defendant Take-Two Interactive Software, a video game publisher. Since 2005, Take-Two has owned the that produces the popular WWE 2K series of pro wrestling sports simulation video games. Interestingly, the jury only awarded plaintiff Alexander $3750 USD in damages. This is a far cry from the revenues earned on the WWE 2K games, which have sold . This development has led legal commentators to observe that, unfortunately, the copyright law surrounding celebrity tattoos .

Copyright protection over tattoos has been a hot topic for some time. IPilogue writers have previously discussed the Kat Von D and the NBA 2K , the latter having also featured Take-Two as defendant. Some tattoo artists may see copyright protection and the ability to raise an infringement claim as a just outcome or a validation of their art. However, numerous considerations give pause for thought when it comes to copyright and tattoos.

An oft-deliberated concern is that the medium of tattoos is a human body. This discussion raises questions of personal agency and asks how an artist can have ownership over their client’s body, even though it’s how their work is physically fixed. Another important factor that’s less often discussed is how increasing copyright protection will affect the tattoo industry itself. Tattoo artists currently benefit greatly from lax copyright enforcement – popular subject matter for tattoos includes famous artworks, celebrity portraits, and quotes from books and movies. As seen in the Kat Von D case, treating tattoos identically to other artworks can open the door for claims in the opposite direction as well. Furthermore, many popular tattoo designs are very similar to one another and can be virtually indistinguishable from one artist’s execution to the next. Take Orton’s tattoos that were the subject of debate in the Alexander case, for example. They were as “tribal tattoos, skulls, a bible verse, and a dove and rose”. All these elements have been common building blocks of tattooing since the early days of the industry. Their combined application on Orton’s body may be technically unique but is certainly not groundbreaking. Indeed, copyright vests in any original work – but are these common types of tattoos original enough?

If copyright protection of tattoos becomes more rigorous, celebrities will likely circumvent the issue by always demanding a contractual assignment of rights before getting tattooed. The tattoo process could follow the model of other commissioned work, such as logo design. For now, the law is still hazy. Alexander has shown that even a successful claim of infringement in such cases may not be worth the effort for a tattoo artist.

The post Still No “RKO” for Copyright Law After US Court’s Damage Award in Randy Orton Tattoo Dispute appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Egin Kongoli is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Innovation Program.

Canada is getting serious about consumer privacy, or so our lawmakers claim.

Parliament has recognized the public’s need for a data framework that ensures proper transparency and accountability.[i] Ottawa’s response is and the proposed Consumer Privacy Protection Act��(CPPA), meant to govern the future collection, use, and disclosure of personal information for commercial purposes. However, while the law modernizes elements of the privacy framework, it leaves out exceptions for de-identified data practices that undermine the very trust the legislation is meant to foster. Standing tenuously on technological assumptions, the exception creates a wild-west scenario ripe for harmful data practices. 

Under the CPPA, organizations are not required to obtain user consent to de-identify, a process that modifies data so that “an individual cannot be directly identified.”[ii] The legislation creates an offence for re-identification and, as such, seems aware of the risk.[iii] Nonetheless, further exceptions are made for data anonymization, by which an organization “irreversibly and permanently modif[ies] personal information… to ensure that no individual can be identified from the information, whether directly or indirectly, by any means.”[iv] The CPPA excludes the anonymized data from its purview because, by their definition, there is no reasonable prospect of re-identification.

This logic rests on several problematic assumptions. First, the line which separates de-identified and anonymized data is vague and rarely obvious until re-identification occurs. De-identified data is by its nature not meant to be re-identified, and thus anonymous by the government’s definition. Moreover, the law assumes organizations have the technological capabilities to ensure irreversible and permanent anonymization. While identifiers may be removed, many other seemingly innocuous data points can be used to . Research from Oxford recently found that . One might imagine many disturbing consequences, from identity fraud to the cancer patient whose allegedly-anonymous data is used to change their insurance coverage and rates.

How can the disclosure and use of data be monitored if the law excludes anonymized data from regulation? Privacy enforcement may require individuals to come forward with complaints about the misuse of their data.[v] The system thus asks users to not only be aware of their data anonymization (which they never consented to) and its subsequent disclosure (kept secret from them) but to catch the bad actors re-identifying information the regulators turned a blind eye to. Our framework’s release-and-forget de-identification model thus opens the door to potential misuse of personal information that will remain altogether hidden from the regulator’s or public’s view. Where is the transparency or accountability?

While the anonymized exception answers the growing demands of businesses seeking to use personal data, the current state of de-identification practices does not satisfy the standards of the CPPA. The European GDPR includes data that does not contain direct identifiers but is capable of re-identification, “,” as within the scope of the law. That our lawmakers decided against regulating allegedly-anonymous data begs whether their priorities indeed lay with the needs of the public or of commerce.

[i] Bill C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, 1st Sess, 44th Parl, 2022, preamble, para 8.

[ii] Ibid at s 2(1).

[iii] Ibid at s 128.

[iv] Ibid at s 2(1).

[v] Ibid at s 107.

The post Anonymous for Now: Demystifying Data De-Identification appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Androu Waheeb is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

Gone are the days when businesses were valued by their ability to market tangible goods. and reported that intangible assets (IP and data) are crucial to wealth creation and represent the “world’s most valuable business and national security assets.” In 2019, they accounted for 91% of the S&P500’s value. Canada has struggled to meaningfully partake in this intangible economy.

Canada’s patent portfolio is incommensurate with its enviable workforce and publicly funded research. Domestically, Canadian patent filings decreased by 3% annually and 7% in the last ten years. Non-resident filings swelled by 1% and 4%, respectively. In 2019, Canadians contributed 12% of the patents filed in Canada, whereas Americans accounted for half. Contrarily, reports that Americans owned 60% of patents filed in the USA.

Internationally, Canadian patent filings decreased after 2012, stagnated after 2014, and are geographically clustered. In 2018, 2/3 of Canadian international applications were filed in the USA – a meagre 2% of applications filed there.

Canada’s struggle to protect ideas has dire economic consequences. As Canada’s IP footprint diminishes, Canadian corporate operations face increasingly onerous restrictions, with portfolios too anemic to leverage. Consequentially, our GDP per capita has declined by 3% since 2010 and job quality by 15% since the 1980s. New jobs generate 2/3 of the income they did in the 1980s.

and blamed this on deficiencies in IP awareness, access, resources, expertise, capacity, laws, and funding. Neither report performed competent modelling or statistical analysis, which led to inadequate recommendations. To implement those recommendations, Canada developed the ; Ontario established the and .

Meanwhile, Peter Nicholson of the blamed Canada’s inability to foster and retain innovative corporations. The technology sector, a driver for innovation, contributes only 5% of the . Conversely, the 75 technology corporations in the constitute 1/3 of the index. Without innovative corporations to develop IP, Canada will never amass the portfolio it deserves. Public funds and talent earmarked for innovation will benefit other economies to the detriment of our own, cementing Canada as an innovation farm for hire.

Innovation emigrates from Canada because of what calls its “buy versus make” economic structure which results in passive posturing and ambivalence about market dominance in Canadian C-suites. Canada’s refusal to acclimate to new global economic realities disincentivizes local innovation independently of the patent system, and the “trend of investment in innovation is not encouraging.”

Canadian innovations’ short-lived victories exemplify this. and revolutionized telecommunications, yet their failure to continue innovating led to their demise. Canada’s abandonment of the shuttered .

Canada must foster a fertile corporate environment and broad innovation incentive structures to fend off the pending economic degradation. All policy instruments must be recruited, including taxation, trade, and regulation. Unfortunately, the current strategy of developing IP awareness, access, resources, and law alone will not suffice.

The post Like a Moth to the Flame: Attract Corporations and IP Will Come appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Ivana Peloza is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was submitted as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

Bill C-18, the , which was introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage in April 2022, seeks to ensure that news outlets are fairly compensated for their news content by digital platforms. The bill establishes a framework for bargaining and negotiation between dominant digital intermediaries (DNIs), like Google and Meta-owned Facebook, and eligible news businesses.

Bill C-18 authorizes the to initiate mandated arbitration between an eligible news business and a digital platform or group of digital platforms. Under Section 53 of the Act, the CRTC has the power to compel commercially sensitive and undisclosed editorial material from eligible news businesses under Bill C-18. Section 58 outlines the CRTC’s power to order production of any record, report, electronic data or other document. If the operator or eligible news business fails to provide all assistance that is reasonably required for the CRTC to exercise their powers and perform their duties, the DNI or news business is in breach of subsection 3 of this section.

The CRTC has emphasized that the is designed to maximize transparency and minimize government involvement. According to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, the promise of minimal government intervention is ensured by the exemption order outlined in Section 11(1) of the bill. While this criteria may incentivize voluntary commercial agreements, it does not exempt the parties of these pre-existing agreements from the duty to provide information under section 53 or the .

Advocates and critics of Bill C-18 agree that the Canadian news market is in dire need of long-term structural supports in a rapidly evolving digital age. What they disagree on, however, is whether the Online News Act is a solution or a threat to that cause. , for instance, have suggested that Bill C-18 actually poses a more significant threat to the news industry and Canadian democracy press; it gives the government and its regulator dangerously vague powers to intervene in the news sector.

Without a thriving news industry and robust protection of ethical journalism, the foundations of Canadian democracy are jeopardized. There is, regrettably, no entirely harmless solution – to at least some or certain stakeholders and journalistic entities. While there are recommendations that must be considered in regulations, such as an amendment to designate a section of legislation – if not an entirely separate Act within the bill – and a regulatory body to consider the eligibility of freelance journalists and start-up news outlets, to take an anti-regulatory stance is a defeatist approach. Given the nature of how content is generated and the interconnectedness around the world, it’s easy to forget that digital content is not accessible everywhere and to everyone. Forcing entities to enter into negotiations for the sustainability of the larger news ecosystem, therefore, is a more worthwhile approach than attempting to enforce existing (and failing) initiatives such as and or worse yet – doing nothing at all.

The post Bill C-18: Policy Concerns for the Independent Press appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

More recently, we have seen digital art open doors for artists to experiment with conceptual artwork like never before. Stijn van Schaik, a second-year Advertising student, on OpenSea, making it the . In addition, hosted Aitken's exhibition in four galleries, allowing visitors to view the exhibition alongside others around the world, within the same virtual space. As a result, are increasingly seen as not just a “referential pointer to the physical but a place of primary experience, worthy of being collected”.

Doug Aitken, installation view of Open on Vortic VR. © Doug Aitken. Courtesy the artist; 303 Gallery, New York; Galerie Eva Presenhuber, Zurich; Victoria Miro, London; and Regen Projects, Los Angeles

Last year, released a 7-part series titled “”, to examine how NFTs affect institutions that collect digital art, and highlighted that NFTs may possibly be the “unifying mechanism” used to package [work] done in the digital space. As well as encouraging the collection of , NFTs are a way for artists to financially benefit from works traditionally non-commodifiable (ex. conceptual or ). But before we all scatter to “NFTize” our souls, we need to address some legal issues surrounding the overall sustainability of digital artworks.

Are smart contracts “smart” enough?

discusses one of the most commendable features of NFTs - the automatic resale royalties. Blockchain smart contracts track payments and distribute a percentage of the resale profits back to artists. However, there are , which include transacting on a marketplace platform on another blockchain, so that the NFT’s smart contract is not notified of the resale. Therefore, keeping collectors transacting on platforms that recognize the existing code triggering the resale royalty remains a constant challenge. For now, the best way to avoid this issue remains a specifically drafted contract with a resale royalties provision, tailored to the individual NFT.

Sustainable Models and Practices for Digital Conservation

A sustainable model will offer benefits to both the artists and the collectors. Allowing for ensures that collectors are committed to the integrity of the resale royalty process and increases the likelihood of the system functioning as it should. Sustainable practices involve the artists’ clear statement about the rights and licences being transferred with the work. Would the artist allow the owner to transfer the work to another platform in the event of blockchain issues or technological obsolescence? Can the owner lend the work to other venues? A digital work's conservation depends on these legal considerations.

The post Beyond the Frames - How Sustainable is Digital Art? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Mona Karimi is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

If you're a fan of Hip-Hop music, you might just find your favourite artist fighting to protect themselves from their own lyrics. Jay-Z, Meek Mill, Big Sean, others have joined forces to openly endorse the . New York Senators Brad Holyman and Jamaal Bailey drafted the legislation to amend the state's criminal procedure law to strictly limit the admissibility of a defendant's lyrics, videos, or other creative expressions as evidence. The bill argues that musical works being admitted as evidence against artists violates their . However, the issue's racial component prompted Hoylman and Bailey to take action. The Senators reasoned that seldomly do we see lyrics from other genres utilized as evidence in criminal courtrooms, but rap lyrics and videos have been used as evidence in hundreds of cases. States like California have taken a stronger stance on this issue with Gov. Gavin Newson recently signing the Decriminalizing Artistic Expressions Act, effectively restricting the use of rap lyrics in courtrooms.

If you thought this was a foreign practice in Canada, think again. Crown in Canada have also relied upon an accused person's artistic creations, unsurprisingly in the form of rap music, to establish guilt. In the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in , the Trial Judge permitted the accused's rap music to bolster the Crown's case for first-degree murder and devised a new method for admitting this type of evidence, which suffers from some flaws. The admission of rap lyrics (disproportionately more often than other genres) feeds into racial bias and perpetuates damaging racist stereotypes. In his article, "," University of Windsor Law Professor Tanovich offers a compelling case that when rap lyrics are used in court, their cultural and artistic context is stripped away and substituted with one of apparent legal relevance, which can then be distorted to reinforce racial preconceptions. The criminal justice system in Canada has long struggled with systematic anti-Black racism, and the establishment of practices and egregious bias against certain genres of music that are typically linked to Black culture only serves to exacerbate the problem. Rap lyrics’ admissibility doesn’t just sacrifice art for a quick conviction, but arguably enables a racially discriminatory and biased practice to flourish in the legal system.

Where the Crown can use a person's artistic expression as incriminating evidence, the system risks limiting such expression and clashes with the to foster and promote the enjoyment and production of artistic works and threatens growth in the Canadian music scene both domestically and internationally. Imagine how different your favourite Drake song would be if he had to remove every potentially incriminating lyric. It will be interesting see how the judicial system's particular focus on hip-hop affects how people make music and how these competing objectives, in two different areas of the law, will reconcile.

The post RAP MUSIC ON TRIAL: Artistic Expression or Confession of Guilt? When IP Meets Criminal Law appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Mariela Gutierrez Olivares is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

Controversy ensued when a Mexican food restaurant in the UK, �ղ���ܱ��í��, issued a  to a similar restaurant, Sonora �ղ���ܱ��í��, for infringement of their registered mark "Taqueria." Yet is Spanish for a place where tacos are sold. Trademarking is akin to trademarking "pizzeria" or "café."

Across social media platforms, what they perceived as an act of ������ (owned by �ղ���ܱ��í�� Worldwide "TW"). A group called MexiBrit even launched which has collected over 100,000 signatures to date, hailing, "The Mexican UK community is outraged and we won't stop until we see justice. Stop the cultural appropriation!" However, Sonora �ղ���ܱ��í�� is not the first business TW's trademark is enforced against. In 2020, TW of their mark and successfully opposed a competitor’s mark, "Taco Ria" claiming it was "visually similar and phonetically and conceptually identical" and would confuse consumers.

Conflicts surrounding marks that many consider generic, descriptive or worse culturally appropriating (or misappropriating) are . The recent �ٲ���ܱ��í�� highlights the following issues in the global trademarks (and IP) regime:

1. The role of trademark examiners interpreting the statutes that grant trademark rights is increasingly challenging in a global economy. In cases like the one here, trademark examiners and officers consider the average consumer's knowledge in the jurisdiction they are acting. Here, a trademark examiner would examine the understanding of the UK public when reviewing the "Taqueria" mark. Presumably, when it was granted in 2004, the mark was not considered generic or descriptive.
2. The use of generic and descriptive marks will inevitably cause harm. Owners who invest resources to build a reputation suffer when they have to discontinue use of a mark. Inversely, non-owner users who become excluded from using a term where no other exists also suffer. Here, TW could choose to surrender its mark, but not without facing a considerable financial setback – forfeiting the investment made to build its name and re-distinguishing its business under a new name. Sonora �ղ���ܱ��í�� and others who wish to defend their use of the mark must also spend their resources and potentially face more significant losses if those actions fail.
3. Protecting traditional and cultural heritage requires adequate legal tools. Whether "Taqueria" ought to remain a generic term available for anyone to use in their business name is a legal question. Though various have called for the , legal tools to determine how such protection is to be accomplished are lacking. Despite the moral reprehension associated with , legally-binding solutions are few and far between, left to each jurisdiction.

Trademarks indicate the source of a product or service. Where intellectual property rights (including trademarks) exist, accusations of cultural appropriation are insufficient to cancel or invalidate those rights. All things considered, more �ٲ���ܱ��í��s means more tacos and that is a great problem for the UK and the world to solve.

The post Tacos with a Side of Cease and Desist appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Mona Karimi is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

My internship at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (“ISED”) started long before the semester actually began. ISED works with Canadians in all sectors of the economy and across Canada to create a more favourable environment for investment, strengthen Canada's innovation capacity, boost the country's share of international commerce, and create a market that is efficient, fair, and competitive. Eighteen federal departments and agencies make up the ISED portfolio. I had the pleasure of working with the Copyright and Trademark Policy Directorate Marketplace Framework Policy Branch. A mouthful, I know, but fitting for the highly impactful work they do. The Marketplace Framework Policy Branch is mandated to develop and coordinate policies, laws and regulations concerning corporate and insolvency law, foreign investment, competition, copyright, trademarks and industrial design, patents, and data protection.

So why did I start preparing for my internship months in advance? ISED’s work can deeply impact any industry or marketplace and requires a high degree of confidentiality and security. How high? You need Secret Clearance Level II. This was not a quick criminal check, it required a lot more detail and took months. So long in fact, I did not receive my clearance until almost two months into my placement. I was a little worried for a bit there about what they might find. Of course, I had nothing to hide, but you never know!

While I can’t speak too much about my work for security reasons (I’ve always wanted to say that), I can say that my MBA my approach to policy analysis.  At the Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, I witnessed consultations with a myriad of stakeholders for drafting policies. I have come across something similar during my MBA when I was being taught Edward Freeman's Stakeholder Theory. According to the stakeholder theory, a firm's stakeholders comprise pretty much everyone who is impacted by the firm and how it operates. Although this theory refers to an organization, the same can be applied to a policy, regulation, or legislation. While, it may seem like common sense to make sure to get perspectives from impacted when drafting policies, it’s not always that simple. Identifying all the impacted groups is one task but identifying who should be consulted out of those groups is another. It prompted questions such as, ‘why should this organization speak for the entire group?’, and ‘are we consulting with all the voices represented?’.

I witnessed the collaborative nature of policy work. No one person can capture everything. On quite a few occasions, I thought I understood the reach of a legislation’s impact only to be enlightened by a question another team member posed, a question I had never even considered. It reminded me to employ the following strategies I learned from my MBA Strategy courses. When posed with a problem and/or question, we often kick-start our brains to find a solution as fast as we can. We attribute so much of being a good employee to being able to find a solution before someone else. However, we seldom pause and ask if we are asking the right questions and if the problem is stated correctly. We accept the problem as it was posed. If the problem is not stated correctly, the solutions would not address the real problem. One strategy I learned in that course was to ask, ‘what assumptions am I making and are they valid?’. You learn a lot when you challenge your own assumptions whenever you approach an issue.

That’s the beauty of diverse perspectives, they ignite deep discussions that may be missed if everyone had the same perspective. Unfortunately, much of law school is an isolated experience; but in practice, the law is extremely collaborative. Through the clinics, mooting and intensives like this one, you really get to experience the collaborative nature of legal work before embarking into that world after you graduate. If you would like to sharpen that skill and have an interest in IP, this intensive is for you!

The post Reconciling the Isolated Process of Law School with the Collaborative Nature of Legal Work appeared first on IPOsgoode.