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
  • David, thank you for the note. It appears there is... »
  • The link to the US proposal seems to be broken, an... »

  • 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 >


    European Patent System, Court Top Priority Under Swedish EU Presidency

    Published on 1 July 2009 @ 4:09 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    COPENHAGEN – A top priority for Sweden as it takes over the EU presidency on 1 July is to boost negotiations on a Community patent system and a European Patent Court, the government says. Its work programme also emphasises the need for “effective protection of intellectual property rights” and lists a conference on enforcement. Officials, however, deny that enforcement is among the presidency’s main IP focus. And the Pirate Party is concerned.

    “I would not say that it is a priority to have stronger sanctions or IP enforcement, but the Swedish government is in favour of an efficient and well-balanced IP system,” Christine Lager, director of the Division for Intellectual Property and Transport Law at the Swedish Ministry of Justice, told Intellectual Property Watch, adding that this also applied to a well-balanced enforcement system. She notes that there are always different interests involved in the area of intellectual property, and the government aims to “listen to all.”

    During the Swedish EU presidency, a conference on “The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights” will be held in Stockholm on 15-16 December. This is the only IP-specific conference scheduled. In its work programme for the six-month presidency, Sweden also states that, “Effective protection of intellectual property rights is also crucial to how well the EU can make use of existing innovation capacity.”

    But to achieve as much progress as possible on a Community patent and litigation system – the draft European Patent Litigation Agreement – is “definitely [a] top priority,” Lager said (IPW, Enforcement, 23 November 2007). She adds that this is not only a priority when it comes to intellectual property, but “among the highest priorities within the area of the [EU] Internal Market.”

    The Pirate Party – which with its objections to the patent and copyright system as a party platform won one seat in the European parliamentary elections recently – sees the government’s plans “with a great deal of concern,” vice-chairman and Member of Parliament Christian Engström told Intellectual Property Watch (IPW, Access to Knowledge, 5 June 2009). He said they had “in no way at all” been consulted on this issue but would be active both in Sweden and Brussels. Engström said the Pirate Party is very critical to what they regard as “an attempt to expand the patent system.”

    “It is obvious that the Swedish government has a maximalistic line when it comes to IP,” Engström said, referring to the implementation of the EU Enforcement Directive on 1 April, and the presidency plans (IPW, Enforcement, 3 August 2007). “We hope the government will seek a dialogue with us,” he said.

    The ideas of the Pirate Party are indeed not featured in the presidency’s work programme.

    But Carl Josefsson, chair of the EU Working Party on Intellectual Property and deputy director at the IP Division of the Swedish Ministry of Justice, told Intellectual Property Watch that the presidency will continuously have consultations with the Swedish Parliament and also the European Parliament.

    “This will eventually be on the table for the European Parliament” if it succeeds, he said. No specific hearing is planned, but Josefsson said the Swedish government is meeting with concerned parties on a regular basis. “[Our] ambition is to be transparent and open,” he said.

    Since the 1970s

    The idea of creating a Community patent system, meaning that one patent applied for and granted in one of the 27 European Union countries would apply to any member country, have been underway for many years. The discussion is also part of a “package” in which a European litigation system, or a European Patent Court, is a second component.

    In its work programme, Sweden states that, “The presidency will work towards making as much progress as possible in the negotiations on the Community patent and the European Patent Court.” It continues: “The creation of a cost-effective Community patent and a patent litigation system is important for the innovation climate in Europe and thus for EU competitiveness.”

    The Community patent discussions have been slowed down by a number of protests from civil society, arguing that one patent and litigation system would make it difficult to identify misuse of the system and to reverse a patent that has been wrongly issued. Today one can apply for a patent in a single EU country, or in a group of countries through the European Patent Office, but these will be a bundle of nationally enforceable patents. But there is not a system in place through which one gets a blanket patent ticket for all of Europe.

    One may ask why this is the Swedish presidency’s top IP and Internal Market priority considering that the negotiations have been underway in various forms since the 1970s. But Josefsson said that negotiations had restarted in 2007, and since then there had “been a steady progress.”

    Josefsson said the Swedish presidency would build on this momentum and what he said had been “real progress” made under the Czech presidency, which has been at the helm since January. For example, on 25 June the Council of Ministers requested an opinion from the European Court of Justice [doc] “on the compatibility with the EC treaty of the envisaged agreement creating a Unified Patent Litigation System.”

    Moreover, on 28 May, the Competitiveness Council adopted the conclusions of a progress report [doc] from the Czech presidency on the Community patent discussions, Josefsson said. It states: The Council instructed its preparatory bodies “to continue work on the patent litigation system and the Community patent with a view to finding solutions and reaching agreement in both areas as a matter of urgency.”

    Josefsson said these developments constitute “a strong political momentum.” He added that the Swedish presidency will continue work “intensively” in the working party, which is a preparatory body under the Council of Competitiveness, meeting in Brussels.

    But the main argument for continuing the discussions is the need for it, Josefsson said: “The urgency of making the patent system in Europe less costly and more accessible to particular small and medium-sized enterprises is there.”

    The software industry supports the Swedish efforts. Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology, said: “The Swedish presidency’s commitment to move the EU Community Patent forward is a breath of fresh air. We wish the new presidency all the success in their negotiations to achieve the agreement that SMEs have been waiting for so long.”

    Other Priorities

    Among other IP priorities will be to work on ongoing projects such as the EU Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and discussions in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) regarding blind people’s access to copyright-protected material. Sweden will especially work for better transparency in the ACTA negotiations, Lager said. IP issues may also be touched upon in the area of research and innovation, Lager said.

    According to the work programme, Sweden will also “submit a contribution to a European Innovation Plan, with links to the European Research Area.” It states, “Innovations will be extremely important in transforming Europe’s business sector so that it becomes more sustainable and makes use of sustainable production and consumption requirements to strengthen competitiveness.”

    Pirate Bay to be Sold

    Separately, another Swedish initiative that has challenged traditional IP over the past years, The Pirate Bay website, will be sold to the listed gaming company Global Gaming Factory X (GGF) for SKr60 million ($7.83 million), according to GGF. The idealistic site dating back to 2003 will thereby be turned into a commercial site.

    There is some confusion about exactly how the site will work. But GGF says it wants to develop a new business model so that the file-sharers earn money, and copyright owners and content providers get compensated. When downloading music and film, however, users have to pay like the iTunes sysem, according to Dagens Nyheter. GGF will also have ads on the site and get deals from broadband operators. But the idea has been met with strong criticism.

    Peter Sunde, one of the founders of The Pirate Bay, told Svenska Dagbladet that they sold the site because they were not able to take it forward and develop it further. GGF is not concerned that Pirate Bay is involved in a court case (IPW, Access to Knowledge, 26 April 2009). The GGF does not at the moment have the kind of money the purchase requires, but it says private Swedish investors will soon be revealed, according to Dagens Nyheter.

    GGF has also purchased the company Peerialism for Skr100 million. It has developed a new technique for filesharing, P2P 2.0, according to GGF.

    Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Microsoft Still Lobbies for Software Patents in Europe, via ACT/Jonathan Zuck | Boycott Novell says:

      [...] But on the patent front, this group continues doing Microsoft’s dirty work. From IP Watch (subscription needed): But the main argument for continuing the discussions is the need for it, [...]


    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.