It’s hard to argue with the conclusion that intellectual property is a crucial part of the Canadian economy.
But the way the government handles it is something else entirely.
Canada’s Intellectual Property Office, or IPO, is an enormous bureaucracy, with more than 200 employees.
Its mandate is to protect intellectual property rights, which are the basic legal protections for businesses.
But what does it do?
What happens to the rights of copyright holders, patent holders, trademarks holders and copyright holders who do not want to have their work used in products or services?
The answer is unclear, and the office itself is riddled with holes.
As we reported last week, the government has a history of ignoring or misinterpreting key court rulings, and has ignored the law on many occasions.
This week, Canada’s top lawyer for intellectual property told a parliamentary committee that the office is “not in a position to determine” who is or is not infringing on the rights held by Canadians.
It’s a curious response to a court case that was a blow to the government’s position, and an admission that its approach to protecting intellectual property has been wrong in the past.
The Office of the Attorney General, or OAG, is charged with upholding Canada’s intellectual property laws and administering them.
The office is supposed to act in the interests of all Canadians, including copyright holders and other parties.
This is the position the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) believes is broken.
And it’s the position that is also shared by a majority of the federal government’s parliamentary committee.
The committee, which has been conducting a “consultation” with the office since the summer, asked the government a series of questions, including what happens to copyright holders once the Office of Intellectual Property is no longer in charge.
The government’s answer was “not much.”
The committee asked the Office for the Protection of Intellectual Freedom to provide a list of the key decisions made in its mandate and the Office’s position on those decisions.
It also asked for a detailed breakdown of the Office on its decisions, as well as the office’s policies, and how it will respond to the new Office of Justice Policy.
The Government of Canada’s response to the committee was surprisingly light.
In a statement, the minister said that “it is our intention to ensure that the Office has a role in the protection of intellectual property, and that it has the ability to identify infringement claims when warranted.”
He went on to say that the government “will continue to engage in regular consultations with the Office.”
However, there are many questions left unanswered.
Why has the Office not taken a position on whether it can enforce its copyright and trademark laws?
How much is the Office responsible for when it comes to enforcing intellectual property and trademark law?
And how much does it have the power to do?
In the wake of the hearing, CFIB is calling for the Office to release a “full and timely” response to these questions and to publish a full report on the office by April 15.
If we are to get a clearer picture of what the Office does, and what it does not, we need to know who is responsible for enforcing copyright and trademarks law, how much is it involved in enforcement, and who gets the power.
The OAG is an extremely powerful and important body that, according to its website, “provides advice to government and Parliament on intellectual property matters.”
Yet its role in protecting intellectual properties has been confused for far too long.
Its role is to uphold the laws, not to enforce them.
And, while the Office can help enforce copyright and other intellectual property law, the Office itself is largely irrelevant in the face of new technology and the rapid growth of the internet.
The internet has changed the way Canadians consume content, and, as the Canadian Institute of Public Policy’s David Anderson argues, the internet “can’t do much of anything to regulate or control copyright and patent laws without having its own body of rules.”
And yet, despite its lack of relevance in the digital world, the OAG has not been held to account by the government.
Instead, it has been left to enforce existing laws without a mandate.
There are currently three types of cases the Office is in charge of dealing with: infringement of intellectual rights, trademark rights and trademark infringement.
The cases involve cases involving copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and trademark counterfeiting.
When it comes, what is copyright infringement?
Copyright infringement is when a person or company, such as a manufacturer or a bookseller, infringes someone else’s copyright, or creates something that is substantially similar to someone else.
For example, if a book is written by someone else, but someone else has the right to sell it, copyright infringement can occur.
Copyright infringement may be a simple infringement of someone else with no monetary loss.
If the owner of a copyrighted work is able to get it, that person has the exclusive right to use it.
Copyright can also be a complex infringement of multiple parties, with multiple parties having the right of permission to