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 >


    US Congress Hastens Through Flurry Of IP Legislation Before Departure

    Published on 1 October 2008 @ 9:39 am

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Liza Porteus Viana for Intellectual Property Watch
    In the waning days of this congressional session in the United States, US lawmakers are passing a flurry of intellectual property-related bills.

    One of the bills awaiting President Bush’s signature would create a position of a top intellectual property official in the White House. Another bill would add protection to works whose rights owners are unknown, and a further bill would extend negotiations on internet radio royalties.

    The first bill, S 3325, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2008, passed the Senate Friday and the House of Representatives on Sunday.

    Under the bill, sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, copyright registration would not be a prerequisite to a criminal action, and a civil infringement action could be brought regardless of errors in registration unless those errors were made knowingly.

    It also:
    -Gives copyright owners the same rights as trademark owners to impound records documenting infringement.

    -Increases the maximum statutory penalties for counterfeiting that endangers public health and safety and enhances penalties for recidivists (repeat offenders) in criminal cases.

    -Increases the resources available to both federal and local law enforcement, and requires a 50 percent match by state and local governments.

    -Calls for at least 10 more agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section; ensures that Department of Justice computer hacking and IP crimes units are supported by at least one FBI agent; ensures necessary forensic training for experts; and ensures that the attorney general will develop and implement a comprehensive plan to prosecute international organized crime that’s benefiting from IP theft.

    Groups like the National Association of Manufacturers, Motion Picture Association of America, Innovation Alliance and the Copyright Alliance hailed the bill as a win.

    “This bill truly is music to the ears of all those who care about strengthening American creativity and jobs,” said Recording Industry Association of America Chairman Mitch Bainwol. “Additional tools for intellectual property enforcement are not just good for the copyright community but for consumers who will enjoy a wider array of legitimate offerings.”

    But not everyone agrees with that assessment.

    “The bill only adds more imbalance to a copyright law that favours large media companies,” said Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn. “At a time when the entire digital world is going to less restrictive distribution models, and when the courts are aghast at the outlandish damages being inflicted on consumers in copyright cases, this bill goes entirely in the wrong direction.”

    White House IP “Czar”

    S 3325 also creates an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) within the Executive Office of the President to replace the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council, an interagency group responsible for coordinating the US’ domestic and international intellectual property enforcement activities, co-chaired by the USPTO director.

    Lawmakers said this provision aims to alleviate concerns that the current governmental structure is preventing coordination among agencies from “reaching its full potential.”

    The IPEC would chair an interagency committee that will produce a Joint Strategic Plan to combat piracy and counterfeiting that would include Senate-confirmed officials from the Office of Management and Budget, DOJ, US Patent and Trademark Office, Office of the US Trade Representative, US Copyright Office, as well as the State, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services departments.

    It is imperative the IPEC be in the White House, Congress says, so the official has the best “vantage point for viewing the efforts underway in each department and agency, that the coordinator does not have institutional loyalties and obligations to any particular agency or department, and that the coordinator has both the visibility and the access” necessary.

    But not everyone thinks such an IP “czar” will be effective.

    “We’re not high on the idea,” said Public Knowledge spokesman Art Brodsky.

    “The ‘top cop’ appears to be more of a figurehead, a chance for everyone on the Hill to take credit for a legislative accomplishment in an IP-dismal year of little having been accomplished,” added Harold Wegner, a patent lawyer at Foley & Lardner.

    The Commerce and Justice departments last week sent letters to Congress opposing the bill, particularly an IPEC, saying its creation constitutes a “legislative intrusion into the internal structure and composition of the president’s administration.”

    “This provision is therefore objectionable on constitutional separation of powers grounds,” department lawyers wrote.

    Sources say it is so far unclear whether the administration is going to support S 3325 as is.

    Orphan Works

    The Senate also on Friday unanimously passed bill S 2913 to encourage the use of “orphan works” – content that may protected by copyright but whose owners cannot be identified or found.

    The bill, sponsored by Sens. Leahy and Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, was supported by the Register of Copyrights, the Software and Information Industry Association, Public Knowledge, and the College Art Association. It allows users to display or employ orphaned works if the owner is not found after a thorough, documented search. Currently, users of orphan works can be held liable for up to $150,000 in statutory damages if they are found to be inappropriately using such works.

    Enactment of the bill before the close of this Congress “would be an extremely important accomplishment,” said Association of American Publishers Vice President for Legal and Government Affairs Allan Adler. It has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Groups opposing the bill include cartoonist, illustrator and photographer societies, as well as music recording groups.

    S 2913 also:

    -Provides specific search criteria, and the Copyright Office is expected to post guidelines for the best practices for finding a copyright owner.

    -Provides for court review to determine if an adequate search has been conducted in good faith.

    -Gives protections for copyright owners who may surface later, and provides a path for compensation if users exhibit bad faith.

    “It is important to recognise that this bill does not dramatically alter the structure of current copyright law,” Leahy said. “If users do not follow the procedures set out in the bill, they are in the same place they are now – facing full statutory damages. This bill does not create a licence to infringe.”

    “By limiting liability and providing reasonable compensation for copywriter owners, this bill strikes an appropriate balance between protecting against copyright infringement and making publicly available work that adds immeasurably to the preservation of our national and personal history,” Hatch said.

    Internet Radio

    [Editor's Note: The Senate passed HR 7084 on 30 September, which clears the bill to go the White House for signature.]

    Meanwhile, the House on Saturday unanimously passed HR 7084, the Webcaster Settlement Act, which would allow internet radio stations and the music industry to continue negotiations on lowering Web royalty rates.

    “This is a truly historic moment for internet radio and its listeners,” said Representative Jay Inslee, a Washington Democrat who helped introduce the bill earlier and who last week helped get the National Association of Broadcasters on board. “There may now be a light at the end of the tunnel in the fight over internet radio royalties.”

    Webcasters and SoundExchange – a nonprofit that collects royalties on behalf of recording copyright owners and artists from internet and other digital radio services – have been negotiating new rates since the federal Copyright Royalty Board hiked them in early 2007. Webcasters said the higher rates would be their death knell.

    The bill would enable the two sides to continue negotiations through 15 February, even with Congress on recess, and make any deal struck legally binding.

    The Senate may take up the bill this week before it adjourns.

    Over the weekend, the Senate also passed HR 2638, a continuing resolution to extend funding through 6 March, 2009, for the US government until regular appropriations bills are passed. Funding for the USPTO would be the same as in fiscal year 2008. The bill has been sent to Bush for signing. Funding authority for 2008 expired at midnight Tuesday.

    Liza Porteus Viana 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 67.202.9.192