This morning, I had a telephone conversation with an editor at Oxford University Press to discuss what materials should be included in the third annual update of our looseleaf work, Drafting Agreements in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries. The work originally included commentary from lawyers in the UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. The first annual update added comments from US lawyers. The second annual update was a general update from all 7 countries, with a few new precedents (template agreements). Now we need to decide what goes into the third annual update.
My thinking is that, in the pharmaceutical sector, the main markets are the US, Europe and Japan. It would be innovative and interesting to include Japanese commentary, if we can find someone to write that commentary who has the necessary practical experience, knowledge of Japanese law, and writing skills. But would people pay for this additional material (ie by maintaining their subscriptions to the looseleaf)? Or is it a “nice to have” luxury, and should be we focussing instead on other areas (e.g. adding other European countries, such as Switzerland, Italy or Denmark, or providing a general legal update)?
Please could you let us know what you think? Even if pharmaceuticals is not your field, if you were considering a work on international IP agreements, would Japanese legal commentary be a major selling point?