Login
You are not logged in.
Login | Subscribe

RSS feed 

What is RSS?

RSS (Really Simple Syndication) is an XML format of a web site or a weblog designed to allow the distribution and the sharing of information. An RSS feed or web feed provides headlines, brief descriptions and links to the full original content in a standard format.

More information is available on Wikipedia.

What is the benefit of using RSS feeds?

RSS is an easy way for you to be alerted when new content is posted on your chosen web sites, such as the Intellectual Property Watch website. Instead of visiting the IP-Watch website again and again to browse for new stories, the RSS feed automatically tells you when something new is posted.

What do I need to use RSS?

To start using RSS, you need a news reader or aggregator that displays RSS feeds from web sites or weblogs you selected. There are many different news readers, available as applications to be installed on your computer or as web services. Some web browsers such as Firefox and Safari can display RSS feeds too.

You can find a list on RSS Compendium.

Once you have set up your news reader, you simply subscribe to the RSS feeds you want.

How do I subscribe to the IP-Watch RSS feed?

Copy the URL of the IP-Watch RSS feed as provided in the left margin to your clipboard. Then follow the instructions on your particular news reader for adding / subscribing to RSS feeds.

Email alerts 

You can subscribe for free to receive automatic email notifications whenever new content is available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. Moreover, you can configure the alerts to fit your needs and interests by defining the frequency, the type of content and even the language.

Subscribe/free trial 

Intellectual Property Watch subscribers receive exclusive access to stories published on the website under password protection, plus the Intellectual Property Watch monthly edition, a 16-page selection of the most important stories and features, including the People column and News Briefs section not available anywhere else. These columns contain the latest on personnel changes in the international IP community, and items on IP policy news and reports from around the world. The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available online and in print, mailed to your door.


Global IP Policy in 2010:
What You Need To Know
IP-Watch Year Ahead Series

Advertise Here

Latest Comments
Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea on any relevant topic to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch, or leave a comment within any piece such as below.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Phillip Articola: The Forest Group Decision Has Led to a Great Rise in Patent Marking Lawsuits

The recent Forest Group case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has made it more financially viable for plaintiffs to sue for under the false marking patent statute (35 U.S.C. § 292). However, legislation currently before Congress, as well as another patent marking case to be decided by the CAFC in the near future, Pequignot v. Solo Cup, may level the playing field more towards defendants in such lawsuits.


The US-Cotton Case: The Truth Behind Brazil’s Cross-Retaliation Against US Intellectual Property

In a recent speech at the Export-Import Bank’s annual conference, US President Obama said the US Trade Representative will use its “full arsenal” to combat “practices that blatantly harm” US businesses, and that includes “enforcing existing [US] agreements.” The question is: will the US comply with its multilateral obligations under the WTO agreement in the US-Brazil cotton case, says Brazilian academic Pedro Paranaguá.


Intellectual Property Watch
1 November 2006

Copyrights, Knowledge Access, Democracy Debated At Internet Forum

By William New
ATHENS – Whether intellectual property rights protection is inhibiting the free flow of information was hotly debated at the Internet Governance Forum on 31 October.

“Just about every aspect of the free flow of information is now hampered” by technologies, laws and other reasons, said Joichi Ito of Creative Commons. “Suddenly the sphere of copyright is everywhere.”

Ito said openness is “already severely constrained and only getting worse.” Creative Commons, a licensing system encouraging free redistribution of content, is “trying to work within the constraints” of the existing copyright law, he said.

Ito added that the editing of multimedia has become an essential part of social discourse in the United States, and that “being able to share and remix video and music is vital” to political debate. But he said copyright law is interfering with political commentary by preventing the use of video material. “I think we’re inhibiting an entirely new form of free speech,” he said. Ito also said there a lot of laws viewed as rational in the United States that have negative effects when applied in other countries.

James Love of the Consumer Project on Technology said a broadcasters’ rights treaty being discussed at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) comes at a time when there is an “explosion” of digital content. YouTube, a landmark US video website, has been “a huge source of political criticism.” Love said “the people” and “the lawyers” are on opposite sides on these issues, and asserted that the people should win out.

Richard Sambrook, director of BBC Global News, said the company is “encouraging people to take our content,” which is different than other content producers. But he added that BBC is prepared to take action against anyone using the content “inappropriately.” Asked whether BBC had achieved maximum openness with its content, Sambrook said, “Nothing like it, no.”

Andrew Puddephatt, who works on human rights issues, said copyrights didn’t exist in the time of Shakespeare, but “nobody believed Shakespeare’s creativity was impaired by not having copyright.”

Senator Paschal Mooney of Ireland said there has been an obligation in the United Kingdom to put a lot of material in the public domain such as through libraries at least since the 19th century.

A participant from South Africa said he would like to find a balance between intellectual property rights, especially copyrights, and access to information. Most information is controlled by digital rights management, he said, which has eroded the sharing of scientific and other critical knowledge.

He raised a proposal at WIPO for an access to knowledge treaty that would set a baseline of rights for public access. Love supported the proposal. “A lot of big decisions go wrong when people don’t have information,” he said.

Hanne Sophie Greve, a former judge at the European Court of Human Rights, said corporations should make a commitment to distribute information, and that certain information such as medical research should not be constrained. “Of course there are rights for authors but there are also rights for others,” she said.

Openness was debated after Greek Minister of State Theodoros Roussopoulos denied knowledge of a Greek blogger arrested this week for linking to a website critical of the Greek government. Roussopoulos ignited discussion of democracy [which originated in Greece] and the Internet with the suggestion that a “professional code of ethics” might be needed for bloggers, and that a way is needed for victims to deal with slander or defamation on blogs.

Ito said that anyone not able to win an argument in the public debate should not try to stifle others but rather should try to make their voice louder. But Greve said there are types of speech that are restricted, such as hate speech. Mooney said there are laws governing speech and that it is not as simple as making one’s voice louder if illegal forms of speech are involved.

Open Standards Coalition Launched

Separately, this week also saw the launch of a group referred to as the Dynamic Coalition on Open ICT Standards, aimed at ensuring openness and interoperability in information and communications technologies. The group is looking at standards for open document formats to enable easy sharing.

Participants in the launch event included Susan Struble, Sun Microsystems; James Love, Consumer Project on Technology; Robin Gross, IP Justice; Georg Greve, Free Software Foundation Europe; Edan Katz, Yale Information Society Project; Daniel Dardieller, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards organisation; and Magdy Nagi, Bibliotheca Alexandrina.

“We are concerned that there is a growing trend for privatization of technology standards,” Struble said. “Technology is not an end goal. It should be as easy as switching on the light.”

Struble added that with open document formats, document applications are the “next big IT thing” in technology, especially as Microsoft prepares to launch a system to compete with Google and others. Many governments are on board, she said.

Struble also said Sun is eyeing the potential of the 5 billion people on the planet who are not connected to the Internet, but it is even more excited to get them on board “to see what ideas they come up with.”

“I think this the first serious effort at norm-setting activity within the IGF [Internet Governance Forum],” Love said, adding that the distinct nature of the forum as a non-negotiating body creates opportunities. While other UN agencies must have full agreement to put something on an agenda, the IGF will “decide on very little, which creates a space for people to do anything.”

William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

 


Leave a Reply

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.