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 Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea 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.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • Congratulations upon re-election;-WHO chief.Priori... »
  • Great article. Ms. Chan may want to read our book ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    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 >


    Complaint Lodged Over EU Parliament’s Exclusive Use Of Microsoft Systems

    Published on 6 March 2008 @ 5:56 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By David Cronin for Intellectual Property Watch
    BRUSSELS – A formal complaint has been lodged with the European Parliament over how its information technology systems rely almost exclusively on software manufactured by Microsoft.

    Advocates of open standard software, which is developed on a not-for-profit basis, allege that the Seattle-based giant enjoys an effective monopoly or ‘lock-in’ within the European Union institutions. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and EU officials are unable to read attachments sent with emails if these are in an open document format that is incompatible with Microsoft’s Windows, the operating system found in most of the world’s personal computers.

    Three organisations have jointly filed a complaint, claiming that the current situation limits the possibilities that EU citizens have to communicate with their elected representatives.

    OpenForum Europe, the European Software Market Association (ESOMA) and the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) say that the open document format has been approved as an international standard since early 2007. Yet the systems found in the EU institutions, it says, only support products that are based on proprietary protocols – codes subject to a patent and which are not made public.

    Graham Taylor, chief executive with OpenForum Europe, said his aim is to ensure that individuals can freely communicate with MEPs. “You can only achieve that if you maintain openness and interoperability,” he said, speaking in the European Parliament on 6 March. “You haven’t got that. You are actually forcing citizens to purchase specific software.”

    The complaint will be considered by the Parliament’s petitions committee, which monitors the implementation of EU law.

    David Hammerstein, a Spanish member of that committee, pledged his support for the complaint. He said that he regularly is unable to read documents emailed to him, simply because of their format. “There are millions of people, who use interoperable, free and open software who cannot communicate with MEPs,” he added.

    According to Hammerstein, the situation in the EU institutions contradicts the strident position that the Union has taken against Microsoft for anti-competitive practises. In 2004, the European Commission – the EU’s executive arm – imposed a €497 million euro fine against Microsoft for allegedly ‘bundling’ Windows with MediaPlayer, an application used to view sound and video files on the Internet. The fine was upheld by the European Court of First Instance in September last year.

    Hammerstein added that the principles of interoperability and of fair competition are contained in EU law. “It is high time that they become European practice,” he said.

    Authorities within the Parliament in charge of public procurement have expressed concerns that allowing attachments from open document formats could have security implications. But these concerns have been rejected by the open standard lobby.

    A number of national and regional administrations have already taken steps to ensure their computer systems can accept open standard documents, they say. Action plans have been devised, for example, by the Dutch government and by the administration in Extremadura, Spain, to ensure that open source software can be widely used by public and, in some cases, semi-private bodies.

    Ciaran O’Riordan, a spokesman for FSFE, said: “If our elected representatives don’t like a software package or its terms of use, they should be able to choose another software package. This issue and the promotion of open standards must be tackled together. Not being able to choose your software often means you’re stuck with one vendor’s proprietary format and using that proprietary format means you, and everyone you communicate with, is shoe-horned into using the same vendor’s software.”

    ESOMA representative Benjamin Henrion stated that the service whereby sittings of the Parliament can be watched online relies heavily on Windows. As a result the EU’s only directly-elected institution is not accessible to those who use open standard software, he said.

    A Microsoft spokeswoman declined to comment.

    Details of the complaint can be found on www.openparliament.eu.

    David Cronin may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Paul Bentley says:

      ODF is usable under Windows, but not under MS Office. Just use one of the Office systems that use ODF such as OpenOffice, Google Office and a couple of IBM systems.

      And remember, ODF is the ONLY ISO standard for document creation (PDF is for archive and display).

      The French police have just switched to Open Source software, so why not the Euro Parliament?

      The BBC were slated for their iPlayer fiasco, which also required Windows Media Player. The fact that you need WMP to watch the EP is even worse, as it places an un-warranted restriction upon our access to governmental debates.

      I do not say “Ban MS products”, but I do want a choice of NOT using MS products.

      PXB


    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.