|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENKÄTER | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visa resultatHär kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.
Intellectual Property Strategies GIBBS, ICM, CSE, ICM-G - module for ICM-G, CIP056/TEK055Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2007-11-07 - 2007-11-23 Antal svar: 23 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 53% Kontaktperson: Anneli Hildenborg»
Your own effort1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.23 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.26 - only lectures are often 6 hours a day, and then reading and stuff until 10-11 or 12.» (At least 35 hours/week) 2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?23 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.95 - Very good lectures» (100%) Goals and goal fulfilmentThe course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.3. How understandable are the course goals?If you have forgotten the course goals, please see http://www.student.chalmers.se/sp/course?course_id=10381 for Intellectual property strategies andhttp://www.student.chalmers.se/sp/course? course_id=9001 for Bioscience intellectual property strategies 23 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.13 - Wasn"t handed out in the beginning of the course. I think they should be in the continuation» (I have not seen/read the goals) 4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.18 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2 - With my business background this was at the perfect level !» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable) 5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?19 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.68 - Maybe it gets too much focus on the writing part more than showing that you got the concept...but maybe that is how it is in the real life?!» (To some extent) Teaching and course administration6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?23 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.56 - Most of the lectures has been helping in my learning process. Although I would have liked to have more lectures in depth, especially since I have a background in law.» (Large extent) Study climate7. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?23 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.73 - Questions on moodle could be answered faster, especially just before the exam. » (Rather good) 8. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?23 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.6 - Lawyers by themselves. A shame not to learn from each other» (Rather poorly) 9. How was the course workload?23 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.78 - All of us want to command and be the best of the field we should work hard all the time» (Adequate) 10. How was the total workload this study period?23 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4 - definately managable» (Adequate) Summarizing questions11. What is your general impression of the course?23 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.34 - on a too basic level. Understandable though» (Adequate) Part II: General Questions12. What is your overall impression of the IP strategy course/module? Please motivate your answer!- on a too basic level. Understandable though»- The module could have been more in depth for the law students. Good overview of the subject.» - To much focus on Patents and to less on copyright and trademark» - it was pretty much ok, the teachers knew what they were doing. the availability of books was a little poor» - A very good foundation to understand further IP based business, licensing, business models, almost everything we do actually.... » - driven education, motivating teachers and class mates» - Very good, like the quizzes because that makes you study more and be prepared. » - Very good introductory course to bring everyone up to speed with IP.» - I think it was excellent because all the lecturers were quite skilled in the specific field because they gave us examples and readings according to the lecture. It was quite ordered and everything was performed on time and according to the schedule. At the beginning we were told about the black cards but I saw only one and I never understood how I could get one » - It is very informative, but feel frustrated that my knowledge has no validation. » - I have a very good impression. I learnad a lot and it is a really good foundation for the future.» - Gave me a solid ground of the interaction between the legal business and administrative arena. Seems very good to have that understanding when are leading a company.» - Very good, a weekly theme gives structure. The exercises was a good learning tool! » - Very good. Felt as a very useful course. Learned alot about how the society around us works which is nice.» - Rather teaching concept, it was more practical in relation to other subjects. » - Very good. The teachers are very knowledgeable and their lectures well structured. The lectures are interesting.» - I think it is very, very good. I wish we could spend a week or two extra so that we learn IP law in greater detail.» - It was a really good mix of exercises and lectures.» - It was well-planned and gave me a lot of input in the subject. The exercises worked very well.» - the overall impression is very good because despite of the high pressure, I learned stuff that I wouldnt have learned otherwise at all. the organization was working and the time planning was also good.» - It was good but sometimes it felt as thogh I wil not use all of the information. I alo got a chock statrt after te summer startingwitgh thi, but good teache and great with all he asgnmens and quizez!» - Very intresting subject, no matter what background or future. Very good incentive structure.» 13. What would you recommend us to do differently next year, do you have suggestions for improvements?- Have relevant legal sections printed on the powerpoints since it helps orientation in the legal text. Inform about how much effort should be spent on the pass and fail-assignments.»- You could wothout problems take one or two weeks from the group things we did in the beginning and put it on IPS instead» - More practical examples of patents. What an actual patent application looks like and how to search for patents. This gives you somethin tangeble to stick the knowledge to.» - Teachers could have have us some framework of doing cases in the beginning not one week before the exam.» - More lectures and structure around the copyright part» - nothing» - This year, we learned how to structure an answer rather late, after already having submitted several. The structure of the answer previously suggested was not as the structure later suggested for the exam. » - Perhaps have a summarizing lecture before the exam. Lots of questions are in peoples heads. And this should perhaps be held even closer to the exam.» - Provide the students with general information about the evaluation system, accommodation etc. Provide the students with Swedish courses because it is hard to keep the track either of a conversation or a lecture when someone speaks Swedish Ensure the availability of the course literature in advance » - exercises are good. Also case stuies are good.This year, one lawyer came in for one morning, I would have appreciated more case studies incorporated in the lectures/ more examples. » - Restructure the questions on the quizzes. They were often missleading.» - Focusing not that much on start up process... it must be very many other parts for IP strat then in the start up.» - Present how you want us to answer on question(exam/exercises) in the beginning of the course and not the days before the exam» - No.» - 1. Show real patent and design claims for different inventions. 2. Give assignment which also include construction of Patents and design. » - Maybe we can spend a few weeks more on IP. The feedback on the exercises should be a little better organized. Perhaps less questions/answers from students during the exercise reviews and more detail from the instructor.» - One thing could be to make the quizzes more clear. Like putting more indiffuse answers to the question.» - It would be good to have more specific feedback on the exercises, although I understand that it would require a lot of resources from your side.» - maybe to cover a little bit less area than this. But i feel I can not express myself as I had difficaulties to understand and catch up to all subjects as it was so very new to me and the work load was a lot. » - Feedback on the assignmens, I becme more and more lazy when I realized no one read the asignment and also the discusion should have been better after the hand in» - Ask us more questions during the IP Exercise Seminars.» 14. What was your general impression of the administration of the course?- good, moodle works well.»- good. No complaints» - Moodle could be easier to naviagate. Especially the discussions section. It is hard to find topics and to navigate it.» - it worked out fine, there is maybe some bureaucracy » - good» - good, the exercises were put out on moddle in good time before hand-in» - The only thing I did not learn from was the NDA and secrecy part from Setterwalls. Perhaps you should make sure that they bring up some predefined topics so that they don"t just mention stuff you could have easily understood from a book. The other lectures were good because you got more from them than from only reading in the book» - Fairly good. Sometimes the handouts were a bit late, but otherwise good.» - Sometimes there are confusion and discordances between professors regarding with the course or assignment directions. However I feel quite satisfied in general.» - good, though I would have appreciated some feedback on the exercises. Very small, as I understand that you cannot spend your whole time grading, but just a word or two commenting on the quality/clearness/expression of the writing and if the work.is good/bad.» - No implications so I guess it worked out fine.» - Good, there is the information you want» - Good!» - Good» - Really focused on every student and helping them to learn more. » - Good.» - very well managed. Koudos to Anneli!» - good, jessica did good job.» - very well administrated in general. » - it worked well. no problem arose.» - Good actually great, compeared wih handels I have never recieved o much info, feels like you care!» - Very well performed» 15. What did you think about the exam?- Time pressure and not the best connection to what we studied. We did study much more copyright than design protection- that should be reflected in the exam questions.»- GOod. But like with all legal exams, a shame that time should be the problem. Unreal situation in comparison to real life.» - Give the exam on computer next year. Being in a computerlab with computers deconected from internet will help our writing and structuring of the answers. We could focus on the content and also maybe not get stressed by the time running out.» - To much to write in to little time.» - complex, but reasonable. i"ll have more to say when i know the grade:D» - It contained what you said and what I expected » - good questions, » - It was ok. Still not sure how to structure an answer though...» - Tough - especially the timelimit. Difficult to say how much time/effort to spend on every question.» - It was too large. I think that more time is required in order to answer this type of questions. I would prefer to do the exam in a computer because it is faster to correct and go back. I do not like the idea of having only one exam because it creates a lot of stress and you can not show all your knowledge in such limited time. » - because I had had no feedback at all on why work up to then, I had no idea how I was doing, and if my writing was literate, clear.... the exam was quite good. the first question was much easier than the second one. » - Fun, rewarding but a lot to write. The best thing would be to use a computer, but I can see the implications.» - good level, the questions touch most of what we learned.» - Good level!» - It was a good exam that contained what to expect from an exam and covered everything useful for us ( emphasize on basic knowledge such as patent and trademark rights).» - Overall exam follows the same pattern as told but it was lengthy.» - I lacked time, but it was pretty much what I expected.» - The exam questions were relevant to our course work. They were entertaining and clear. However, as mentioned above, the grading and feedback were less than impressive or informative.» - good exam with questions that mirrorred the content of what we learned in a good way.» - well representative of what we was taught. » - I think the questions were fair enough but I have comments on the way of correcting.» - Good, followed he expectation!» - Very well written, although it would have been useful to get some comments on the result.» 16. What did you think about the quizzes?- Good but stressing.»- good milestones.» - Good with quizzes, gives you milestones in your learning.» - they were ambiguous» - good. the first one was in bad English and not understandable always.» - Very good.... a must to keep for next year.. maybe expand them with a little free question in the end.» - very fuzzy and they felt a bit unfair because of the grading system...» - Perfect» - Good way to "force" people to study. keep them !» - They were only based on the power point slides and I read everything what took me a long time and was not fruitful. I think the questions were tricky because double negations were used and the language was lawyer’,s argot.» - not much. I dont like quizzes. they are good because they make us read the legal act, but the quizzees themselves were not clear. double negative, confusing, not greatly written.» - As I wrote, restructure the questions. The concept is brilliant and you really have to keep the pace all the time which makes studying easier for the exam.» - Very good because they did prepare us long before the exam. Thin kit was a very good solution to make us study in time.» - Enhanced the learning since you were forced to be in pace.» - They were good. I know some might have "overanalyzed" some questions, but I thought they were straightforward.» - It helps a lot to assess yourself but the objectives in the quizzes were some what unclear and it took time to understand the questions and the options.» - Very good! A great way to get us to study details early.» - Quizzes were good. The english should be reviewed prior to printing of the quizzes to make sure there are no clarity issues» - under question 13.» - It is very hard to formulate this kind of quizzes, but I like the idea.» - they were very stressing because of the time pressure. I myself could not focus under such a time pressure.» - Great!» - A good tool in the learning process, but sometimes a bit unclear questions.» 17. Miscellaneous comments- .»- I think in general is well organized and the material is properly for the aims of the Course. But sometimes the time was not enough to cover all the material and some slides were skipped, therein not explained. It would be helpful having the Power Point presentation before the lectures because you can link knowledge easily » - We need more feedback, (not necessarily extensive) to indicate us how we are doing and what is not good., needs imporvements and work. » - Good teachers with great knowledge in the area. » Part III: Lectures, Exercises and Assignments18. IP & Entrepreneurship in the Matrix (Ulf Petrusson/Bo Heiden)- Very exiting, fires everyone up.»- Good, although the time ran out.» - interesting a little fluffy in the beginning maybe» - Very good» - Great» - Great lecture. Interresting point of view with the matrix.» - Having this lecture inspired me and introduced us to the thinking of the Program. I like in specially the to pills question/reflection. » - fun lecture. a little entertainment always helps to listen, focus and remember. » - good» - In general, I really appreciat both persons" lectures, they are greate speakers and have thoroughly knowledge which makes it really interesting. Most of the things Ulf is talking about is quite abstract and hard to really implement and see the consequences of, especially the figures/illustrations (thinking of the itellectual asset mapping illustration among other things). Do not know how to improve that. Maybe it just takes time for me to make the knowledge ripen.» - Inspiring» - Funny, inspiring » - That was a really good approach to instigate the minds of students. » - They are both very good at motivating us and their lectures are very interesting.» - very good. Bo and Ulf present in a manner which demands your attention. Information was very well communicated.» - inspirational.» - Very interesting!» - this part was the best part. the combination of these two teachers have been the best thing that has happened to me.» - good, fun angle!» - Interesting subject, but I"m not sure we all grasped all of Ulf"s theories.» 19. Patents and Patentable Inventions (Caroline Pamp)- Really informative, good.»- quite structured» - Very good» - Great, Pamp is very knowledgeable.» - A bit fuzzy in the beginning. But I think everyone got the point. Also , everyone was "new" to law.» - In my opinion her lectures are quite concrete and she explains with easy words and examples what helped me got a better understand » - very clear, as always with Caroline. very good intro to the protection of IPR for the other lectures.» - good» - Good teacher, interesting lectures» - Caroline is very knowledgeble/competent and take great responsibility.» - Caroline is very professional and an excellent teacher. She always has a great answer. All of her lectures have been great and I have learnt a lot from her.» - provided very good and clear information. Caroline suffers a little when responding to questions. She doesn"t seem to be able to exactly grasp the questions and responds in a generic manner which doesn"t really address the question asked.» - very good and down to earth.» - The best week» - it was fair.» - Carolin is brilliant, she must be he best in the field! Good techer with a lot f comments and hard but fair» - Very interesting, Caroline is an excellent teacher. Good at explaining and very good at answering questions (usually with another question). » 20. Patent Strategies (Martin Jansson)- dont remember»- Fairly good, fun to see how the industiry look upon their strategies but still this time could be used more effectively from a learning point of view.» - okay. » - Not that good. Bad "time management" and also - the only patent strategies he talked abut were hadled in 10 minutes when the lecture time was over.» - This practical lecture was good but I think we spent a lot of time talking about the company he represents » - not so good» - good» - Good to know that there are some "ordinary" jobs at ordinary companies for this area. Sometimes does it feel like there are only cip-ps or some other "high-tech super smart consultancy business" applicable for this. I think Martin seemed like a "human" person easy for me to relate to.» - That should be taught at the end of this course and some practical assignments should be given to implement these strategies. » - Ok.» - I believe Martin was from SKF. I didn"t feel his lecture provided us with any useful information.» - little diffuse and i think that this was not needed for the course?» - Not good at all, did not seem as if he knew what he was talking about. Although it was an interesting topic.» - That lecture was not giving as the lecturer dod not create a good learning atmosphere and the way of lecturing was amazingly boring.» - not si good, felt unneccsary» - He did not really catch my interest, it was all about building monetary value, not value in any other sense. » 21. The Patent and Patent Claims (Adriana Spinozo de Cabero)- Nice to get more hands on experience on patents, although I think it would have been better if this lecture was not he first time we actually saw a patent application.»- Good to understand how patenting really works, big scoop, narrow scoop.» - the teacher was acting in a superior way.» - Very interesting! Really helped me to deconstruct some of the mysterious parts of the patent system, » - Great. Concrete stuff which is what we need» - Really good and hands on ! Excellent to show a actual patent!» - I liked the way she explain and the examples she used ( pizza rough ). She gave us a practical view of the patent process and how it works in the reality» - interesting as she gave us some case examples. She was dynamic, nice to listen to.» - Ok» - Good to bring in other people with other perspectives. She was really good!» - I did not feel more comfortable after that lesson or that i had learnt anything after that lesson. Could try to stick to a schedule or something and keep an eye on the time management.» - IMP: two things should be added 1. Assignment (how to write a patent claim) 2. How to extract info from real patent claims.» - Very, very good lecturer. She kept my attention and communicated her ideas very well. I liked her lecture a lot!» - farily good and the best part was to get her view of patents because she has much experience.» - It was good to » - the most interesting lectures in this area.» - good but I di dnot get it and compared with preivous teachers not as interesting, but alriight» - A brilliant teacher, interesting subject. » 22. Patent Exercises (Caroline Pamp)- Interesting exercises and good that we lawyers were devided. »- ok. Caroline likes to grill people, though and she has some "favorite" people» - Fantastic!» - Caroline is great» - Don"t remember.» - This exercise was very good because she explained and clarified all the questions we had. Again she used analogies and easy examples to understand. I think all the Exercise (Patent, Copyright, etc) should be taken into consideration when grading because there we could show our learning as well as in the exam » - cahnce to debate and ask questions. Though lectures are really helpful.» - very good» - I would appreciate more specific data here, not that much class discussion that not gave me so much. Like when Caroline is up to speed and give us good facts that enabling the understanding fo rhow it all connect to each other.» - good» - Good» - Excellent.» - Good. Questions were a bit unclear and relied too greatly on assumptions which I wasn"t prepared to make because they were never emphasized during lectures.» - good and these helped with the exam the most, she could have though by putting the structural disposition of the questions earlier.» - Very good.» - I had difficaulties to get in contact with the teacher.she could not have a conversation with me because she refused to listen to my assumptions.» - good, I think this was teh best discussion» - Good feedback on the work.» 23. Managing Information and Knowledge (Ulf Petrusson)- no time to take notes, had to try to follow the speech»- Fantastic!» - Great» - Interresting as always - but perhaps not really sticking to the subject.» - This lecture was good because we started to understand the way of thinking and he clarified some concepts but he does not lick explicitly the lecture with his book.» - very interesting to listen to, though not always clear to outcome of the lecture. » - very good» - Cant remember specifically, probabely good.» - » - Good lecturer» - it was insprirational and really good.» - Very good.» - great. I have no comments on Ulfs lectures because they are just the best lectures.they are totally covering and he just create the atmosphere that » - great, so fun and interesting to listen to» - Interesting and challenging having to question the reality I"m in.» 24. Controlling Individual’,s Knowledge (Agnes Andersson)- boring, she couldn"t really speak interestinglt»- Okey... to information intense slides. Better would be to get us something to read and then have a more free discussion. » - not so good» - Didnt actually say that much. Perhaps integrate more with databases etc.» - This lecture was good because I was about a totally different topic and he explains all the concepts in a simple way. Nevertheless I think we should study deeper the human behavior (or some psychological matters) because it helps to deconstruct people.» - her english was poor, difficult to follow» - ok» - Good to know. Obvious that they do not have as much experience as others teaching here.» - It was good. » - Basic.» - She presented the information very well. I don"t think she knew exactly what CIPs expectations were, especially since this information became useful during the degunkification exercise.» - ?» - We did not have this lecture.» - it was good because she had a very calm and unstressed way of teaching and durin all those lectures which are like this, you can follow everything without any problem.» - Not god, to basic» - The readings for the lecture interested me more thatn the lecture itself. Ok lecture.» 25. Open Source (Ulf Petrusson)- Was it about open source?»- interesting.» - Very good!» - great» - As always , good but maybe not entirely sticking to the topic.» - Because of the time we did not talked about this topic. I think that when this situation happens extra reading material could be provided to fill the lack of knowledge » - very good» - Good.» - This lecture was interesting. Ulf is a charismatic person so one pays attention. However, I wasn"t sure how the lecture discussed open-source... it was a bit abstract.» - It was good a little bit fuzzy.» - Ok, not as interesting as the other lectures I thinl.» - the items he choses to talk about and the way he bind some subjects together is the best way of lecturing. totally great.» - good , diffickt, did not know much about it before, but have learned alot!» - see 23. Managing Info...» 26. Secrecy, Openness and PDA (Fredrik Roos)- too much law»- Fairly good. He seemed to be a little unprepared » - not so good» - Not that enthusiastic lecturer. But topic was good.» - I liked the fact that people from companies come to give lectures because they show you a different view of the problem but this time he merely talk few experiences and cases.» - ok» - ok» - Good to know. Obvious that they do not have as much experience as others teaching here.» - Ok.» - same thing as Agnes» - good» - Interesting, but I didn"t learn anything in this lecture» - I think halve of the class were sleeping during this lecture because although interesting subject, the way of lecturing and talknig and making students engaged was really not good.» - good, real cases adnd reality based,» 27. DRM & Virtual Law (Kristoffer Schollin)- More structured and not so much of a discussion would have been good. »- Good to understand what DRM is.» - dont remember» - Very good but a bit unsorted though » - okay.» - Interesting topic but Kristoffer is not that pedagogic and has a strange way of lecturing.» - He was quite concrete and he went all his way to the target concepts. In other words he pin pointed exactly the key concepts.» - really interesting. good lecture. open discussion too. » - good» - Low quality, lecture was only about that we should ask questions about DRM for 3 hours without any good examples or anything» - I think this was a good lesson. Kristoffer has a special modest way of teaching, but it felt like he had a great knowledge to share with us and that he really had done some serious thinking in the area. He made it easy to understand.» - That was a general discussion and can be made more concrete by showing any case study. » - I found the lecture pretty uninteresting.» - N/A» - good» - Good» - This session was kind of boring. A lot of talk of specific cool computer programs and to what extent the quality of music is damaged when burning files to a CD –, topics that are outside the core of the subject. » 28. Databases and Biobanks (Caroline Pamp)- didnt attend»- I"m in ICM» - good» - Did not take part.» - Does not apply» - -» - Probanely good....(?)» - This exercise would have been very useful if we had been told that it required preparation. Otherwise, the lecture section given bay Caroline was well detailed and organized.» - didnt attend» - I really did not understand the point of that lecture because it was so fast and so not clear.» - Did not attend» 29. Copyright Exercises (Jessika Olsén/Caroline Pamp)- Jessika is a good communicator and explains clearly»- Good, very clarifying » - good» - Do not remember» - I liked to have this lecture only with the ICM class because things flowed faster and more queries were clarified » - was ok, but not as good and clear as the lecture presented by Caroline on patents.» - ok» - Good» - Excellent» - Copyright exercises were well written.» - It was good and helped much to do the exam later» - Good» - very good because she really took time for every point which was important and the best thing was the slides we got in that matter because every important part of law in that field was mentioned and that was a good help.» - Good, but bit unstructred» - Would be good to pose more questions to the students during the feedback session. The exercise itself was good.» 30. Semantic Transformation in Design (Toni-Matti Karjalainen/Lars Andersson/Jessika Olsén)- Very interesting. Gives you a feel of the concept of brands.»- didnt attend» - Good and rewarding to get a more engineering point of the design and it"s protection » - okay-minus, the guy was more a designer and liked design for design itself. I saw little correlation to business. He just showed pictures and said "look, they have distinctive shapes", we got that the first 5 times, but then he continued for 3 or more hours with the same thing. He talked more about individiual companies than the theory behind and what strategy should could be used» - Interresting. Especially with the short cases.» - I am sorry but honestly I don"t remember this lecture » - amusing lecture and exercises, that were in the end instructive. » - ok» - Interesting subject!» - Intresting and funny» - pretty good, a little bit diffuse but Toni-Matti was a strong character that had a nice » - Not that interesting to me. » - the lecture was very interesting because it was totally new to me and the subject was explained in a nice way and with great examples. especially the assignment was really helping to understand.» - Super, more of this!!!» 31. Trademarks and Domain Names (Tomas Faxheden)- To shalow, more in depth would have been better. »- interesting. a little mixed up and all the definitions werent explained clearly » - Very Good and informative » - good» - Good and informative. Learned a lot.» - He used good examples and he spoke about all the important concepts but his presentation was a bit vague and extra reading was necessary » - the information was not so clear. for us non lawyers, it really needs to be spelled out for us. Also, Thomas must make an effort to not say:"euh" all the time. It would greatly improve his speech.» - good» - Good lectures, interesting and useful!!» - Good» - Good» - good lecture, clear and concise slides» - good» - Interesting...» - the most boring law lecture I have ever had during this semester. no one was engaged really and the only talker was the lecturer.» - Tomas, you have to stop ööööh-ing. It is completely distracting. Very interesting lecture.» 32. Design Protection (Lars Andersson)- Really good lecture, especially Lars. Gives you a feel of how it really works.»- the best IPS lecture, he made things make sence» - Good » - great» - Really good and pedagogic. Learned lots!» - This lecture covered all the important concepts but I would like a longer lecture thereby he should go quickly through the concepts. Anyway I like the way he express himself and the way he command the topic. He used easy language and concrete examples» - Dynamic lecturer. nice and clear to listen too. Information on design was clear and concise. also gove good tips on how to proceed with case studies.» - very good» - Many good examples from his experiences» - Intresting. Lars is a very good tutorer with alot of experience in the field. Easy to learn from him.» - Really a good lecture.» - good » - One of the best lectures so far! Lars Andersson was very impressive.» - amazingly good. the examples and the way of telling important facts helped a lot.» - good, but not that stuctered» - Very good and interesting lecture.» 33. Reflections on Some Design Cases (Håkan Sjöström)- Interesting, but why only ICM?»- maybe a little dry» - Very nice to bind the knowlegde to some real case"s » - great, like the concrete stuff. » - Great to get some actual cases to look into. But perhaps someone should inform him about breaks evey 45 minutes.» - This lecture was quite intrusting because I had the opportunity to see concrete examples of design cases. I liked this lecture because he is an experimented person in the field and he was quite open to questions and comments.» - I really enjoyed that lecture. IT concretised all that we had been taught before. » - ok, a bit slow» - Interesting» - This wa super, more like this » - There were no oxygene in the classroom from start, difficult to stay awake. Not very useful information and difficult to apply the knowledge from this lectude.» 34. Trademark and Design Exercises (Tomas Faxheden/Lars Andersson)- gooood! but not really usable after, but good framework»- fine! very good that they provided the structure to us.!» - good» - Do not remember.» - Lars gave us a way of thinking about the Exercises. In my opinion this thinking structure should be given since the begining in order to develop it better during the course» - good» - Good» - ok» - good and inspirational» - (Lars Andersson) Very thought-through lecture. Very good» - the exercise were good as usual but the way of reviewing them at lectures was not so good at all.» - Good, he explained well and gave a good structure» - Very well.» 35. Integrated Exercises and Wrap-Up IPS (Caroline Pamp)- good. grilling. but finally we got to know HOW to do it»- Very good preparation for the exam» - great» - Good to get a feel for how to structure answers etc. But did not really go through the integrated exercises.» - I like the way Caroline preformed this Exercise because she made us participate and think using a structured methodology. I would recommend performing all the Exercises in this way because at the end you understand better and you have found the solution almost by yourself.» - really good. she gave us a great structure to go with for the exam. perfect exam preperation. » - very good and extremely relevant! A must next year in order to understand the solving structure for the exam» - Very good with wrap up exercises before exams» - it should be given more time as it help a lot for the exam.» - very good exercise. Extremely useful for the exam.» - miss exam due to i was sick.» - I think this exercise made big difference for the result of the exam. Good to get the structure.» - it was a help in the way because it is always good to see how teacher wants you to try to solve a problem in her/his way.» - Perfect preparation for exam! Very well performed by Caroline.» Part VI: Course Literature36. How much of the book have you read?Intellectual Property & Entrepreneurship (Ulf Petrusson)22 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.09 - 1/3 read. I like it..» (?) 37. How much of the book have you read?Lärobok i Immaterialrätt (Marianne Levin)22 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.5 - Does not apply » (None) 38. How much of the book have you read?Intellectual Property (Michael Spence)19 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.21 - I"m native in Swedish » (None) 39. How much of the compendium have you read?Article Compendium23 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.26 - Didn"t know we were supposed to read that...» (None)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0%