SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

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.

The Politicization Of The US Patent System

The Washington Post story, How patent reform’s fraught politics have left USPTO still without a boss (July 30), is a vivid account of how patent reform has divided the US economy, preempting a possible replacement for David Kappos who stepped down 18 months ago. The division is even bigger than portrayed. Universities have lined up en masse to oppose reform, while main street businesses that merely use technology argue for reform. Reminiscent of the partisan divide that has paralyzed US politics, this struggle crosses party lines and extends well beyond the usual inter-industry debates. Framed in terms of combating patent trolls through technical legal fixes, there lurks a broader economic concern – to what extent ordinary retailers, bank, restaurants, local banks, motels, realtors, and travel agents should bear the burden of defending against patents as a cost of doing business.


Latest Comments
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »
  • 'Business methods were generally not patentable in... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    German High Court Defines New “IT Basic Law” Curbing Online Searches

    Published on 1 March 2008 @ 2:54 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Monika Ermert for Intellectual Property Watch
    MUNICH – Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court this week decided that infiltration of personal computers, laptops or other information technology devices of possible suspects by law enforcement violates the basic right of “confidentiality and integrity of IT systems.”

    In defining confidentiality and integrity of IT systems, the German judges created a new basic right derived from existing personal rights granted by the German Basic Constitutional Law.

    The ruling came after the State of Northrhine-Westphalia amended state law on domestic intelligence to allow the secret online searches. Several lawyers, including the former Interior Minister Gerhart Baum (Free Democratic Party), and a journalist, Bettina Winsemann, had filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court against the new law that the judges now have decided is unconstitutional and void.

    Yet the ruling of the highest German judges in fact mainly targets a planned federal law that will allow online searches for the German Federal Police in their fight against terrorism. The judges at the lengthy October oral hearing attended by as many IT as legal experts announced they were prepared for a leading decision on the issue of secret online searches and infiltration of citizens’ computers by state agencies.

    “Technological developments in recent years made IT systems ubiquitous,” presiding judge Hans-Jürgen Papier said upon reading the Court’s decision on Wednesday. “Their use is of central importance for many citizens.”

    “Therefore,” he said, “the importance of personal computers for self-development of citizens has grown considerably.” Data stored on hard disks or only cached temporarily – sometimes even unnoticed by the users – make the PC or laptop into an enormously rich resource.

    “The tapping of a set of data of such completeness clearly risks that the data collected allowed conclusions on the personality of the respective citizen including behaviour and communication profile,” reads the 40-page ruling.

    The basic rights granting privacy of telecommunications and privacy of the home did not address the possible new risks for the citizen-user, the judges decided. Privacy of telecommunications does not, for example, cover data stored on the hard disk – like a personal diary – and privacy of the home does not protect the user writing on his laptop in a coffee shop around the corner. A new basic IT right was necessary to close the loopholes in the protection of citizens, they said.

    Yet despite the new basic law, Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, who had been pushing for making online searches part of the law on the federal police, showed full confidence after the ruling. That is because judges also said that in strictly limited cases exemptions for the new basic right were possible – as they are for other basic rights.

    “The ruling does not create barriers, but it creates clarity. And I am grateful for that clarity,” Schäuble said. He announced the quick presentation of a draft of the new law including the possibility for online searches in exceptional cases.

    How high legal barriers for searches are now remains a matter of intense public debate in Germany. The judges first asked that the searches be limited to cases in which danger for life or the state as such is imminent or at least obvious. In any case a judge has to decide on the lawfulness and what is more, a judge possibly has to be involved to check on the material collected by the agents and police forces. Data not related to the case – even if related to other criminal acts, for example tax evasion – should not be obtained by the law enforcement agencies. As far as core privacy data that is protected by the Constitution is concerned, even data relevant to the case has to be deleted.

    While secret phone taps have to be cut when possible terrorists talk about religion for example, according to an earlier judgement of the German Constitutional Court, cutting out core private data during an online search is not that easy. To the degree it is technically impossible, said the judges, the data therefore has to be deleted at the earliest possible moment.

    Some German politicians are now proposing to hand over the collected data to judges before agents get to see them. Yet judges warned against expecting them to do the possibly extensive work that this would involve. State Attorney Christoph Frank, chair of the nation’s largest association of judges and attorneys of state, told the German media that the burden for overworked courts was too high and the plan illusory.

    The Free Democratic Party, meanwhile, has asked for another hearing on the issue in order to clarify constitutional aspects. The Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, Peter Schaar, who welcomed the judgement as a milestone, urged a re-evaluation of the new law on data retention and legislation on the confiscation of PCs or laptops.

    The data retention legislation has been challenged by 34,000 German citizens in the largest constitutional complaint ever filed in Germany. Privacy advocates in Germany fighting back against the flurry of new legislation in the fight against terror hope for another landmark ruling in the coming months.

    Monika Ermert may be reached at info@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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.211.11.241