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.

Advertisement


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.

To What Extent Can Global IP Rules Be Responsive To Public Interest Demands? The Case Of The Treaty For The Visually Impaired

To what extent can global intellectual property rules address in an effective manner the needs of the most vulnerable members of society? This is the key question with which member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) are faced as they prepare to meet next week for a diplomatic conference, in Marrakesh, that should result in the adoption of a treaty to facilitate access to copyrighted works by visually impaired persons and persons with print disabilities.


Interview With Tanja Rajić: The Impact Of EU Enlargement On Trademark Practice In Croatia

Ten years after applying for membership, Croatia is finally joining the European Union on 1 July 2013. Tanja Rajić, senior associate at PETOSEVIC, explains how six years of accession negotiations and the adoption of the acquis communautaire have affected intellectual property protection in Croatia and prepared it for becoming a member state.





Latest Comments
  • We in India should not change our policy, speciall... »
  • We in India should not change our policy, speciall... »

  • 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 >


    European Interoperability Framework Nears Final Stage Of Revision

    Published on 2 July 2008 @ 10:39 am

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Juliette Ancelle and William New
    A unit of the European Commission has presented a new version of a proposed European framework on interoperability which it hopes will encourage member governments to further enable information sharing, such as through the promotion of open standards. The revised draft framework, expected to be made public this month, is slated for completion later this year but still faces questions.

    Possible revisions to the strategy focus on improving understanding, “synergy” between the European and national levels, inclusion of stakeholders, clarification and further development of standards, and governance, according to the Commission presentation of the framework.

    One of the “main messages” from the new framework is that European governments, firms and users should “be prepared and volunteer to share and reuse,” including to “adopt open standards and specifications,” the presentation said.

    The draft second version of the proposed European Interoperability Framework is expected to be made available online in mid-July for external stakeholders to comment and propose suggestions by end of September, to be taken into account when the second version is finalised possibly by year’s end, according to Serge Novaretti, programme officer at the European Commission unit called Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services to Public Administrations, Businesses and Citizens (IDABC).

    The IDABC information day, in Brussels on 25 June, allowed the Commission the opportunity to present the new version of the European Interoperability Framework (EIF). After several presentations on the context of the revision and the interoperability frameworks that exist in some member states, the information day focused on the modifications and developments implemented since the previous version.

    The event was part of a revision process of the EIF that aims to include the evolution of technology and other progress made in this area, but also to give the framework more weight by taking it out of the IDABC context and making it an official position of the Commission with the publication of a communication of the Commission to the European Council and to the Parliament, according to the IDABC.

    The revision process started with the preparation and publication in May 2007 of the Gartner Report, a preparatory study ordered by the European Commission. That report has been analysed but not endorsed by the Commission and the member states who worked on a draft of the EIF new version, according to IDABC.

    The new version met with some concerns among industry participants at the event. Benoît Müller, Business Software Alliance director of software policy for Europe, expressed concern about “narrowly defined” open standards that he said might conflict with the more inclusive approach of most member states’ policies and that could lead to the exclusion of many well-established technologies. Instead of better interoperability, he fears that it would cause “greater confusion among both the public administrations and the marketplace.”

    Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology, took a similar position, adding that the new version risks hurting small start-up companies that rely on intellectual property protection to compete in the marketplace.

    A few days before this event, European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes made a speech on “being open about standards” on the occasion of an OpenForum Europe event on 10 June. She presented standards as the foundation of interoperability and stated that she could not see any interest for consumers in including proprietary technology in standards.

    Kroes said intellectual property rights should be extended to technology only if justified, that is, “on the basis of evidence that such extension will lead to more innovation and will therefore promote consumer welfare.” She concluded her speech by saying that the Commission is committed to promoting the use of products that support open standards, claiming that choosing open standards is “a very smart business decision.”

    Juliette Ancelle may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Vin says:

      Well, Zuck and Muller make much noise before the release of the first draft. Their comments show the plain stupidity of their lobbying fundamentalism. There is a clear definition of open standards as found in the EIF1, you cannot redefine terminology. Nobody implied that the EU would only use open standards, they just define open standards as it is supposed to be defined. And even if the Commission chose to migrate to open standards only (which is not at stake here), why should the lobby frontends of a well-known American software vendor get any influence on the decision of the European authorities. The should rather go home and leave us here alone.

      If find it unacceptable that an American astroturfer as Zuck comments on European policy as if he was he was at home here. The European small and medium sized software industry supports the EIF and the Commission.

    2. More Dirty Deals in Europe Involve Microsoft, Microsoft Lobbies | Boycott Novell says:

      [...] is also this report about what the opposition to open standards has to say. Again, it’s filled with Microsoft [...]


    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 50.16.132.180