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
  • “We want everybody to agree on the science telling... »
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »

  • 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 >

    Possible Treaties Brewing At WIPO Committee On Copyright

    Published on 14 June 2011 @ 3:56 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Potential international legal instruments will be discussed this week and next at the World Intellectual Property Organization where delegates will try to find common language to address the protection of audiovisual performances, the protection of broadcasting organisations and agree on a set of exceptions and limitations to copyright for visually impaired people.

    The 22nd session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) will take place from 15-24 June. SCCR meetings usually run for a week, but during the last session, delegates agreed on three extra working days for the next three SCCR meetings in order to discuss exceptions and limitations to copyright law (IPW, WIPO, 15 November 2010).

    At the last session, the African and Asian groups and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC) submitted a work plan calling for text-based negotiations towards an international legal instrument or instruments on exceptions and limitations in a variety of areas, including for people with print or other disabilities, for educational and research institutions, and for libraries and archives.

    The WIPO secretariat provided delegates for this week’s session with a comparative list [pdf] of proposals related to the subject of limitations and exceptions for the visually impaired persons and other persons with print disabilities. The list compares a proposal by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, based on a proposal by the World Blind Union, a draft proposal of the United States for a consensus instrument, a draft WIPO treaty on exceptions and limitations from the African Group, and a draft joint recommendation by the European Union. Those proposals were all submitted at previous sessions.

    In February, the World Blind Union (WBU) said it wished to distance itself from the WIPO Trusted Intermediary Global Accessible Resources (TIGAR) project, with the worry that this project might keep the prospect of an international treaty at bay.

    The TIGAR project is meant to facilitate access to published works by visually impaired people. It was launched on 23 October 2010. The project will allow publishers to make their titles available to trusted intermediaries so that those intermediaries can create accessible formats, according to the WIPO website. The project is a collaboration between the private sector and public interest organisations, it said.

    The WBU announced that it suspended its participation in the project and reaffirmed the need for an international legal instrument. The union insisted on the establishment of a treaty that would engage countries to issue national copyright exceptions laws (IPW, WIPO, 10 March 2011). WBU said the TIGAR project was “erroneously portrayed by some organisations as an alternative to the underpinning legal framework needed to guarantee equal access to information promised under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”

    However, WBU has high hopes for this session of the SCCR to yield tangible results. Christopher Friend, WBU strategic objective leader, told Intellectual Property Watch: “We understand that as a result of some inter-sessional meetings since SCCR 21 in November the proponents of the four proposals before the committee have seen some solid progress on a number of points and that it is hoped to develop an integrated single text – perhaps with outstanding issues with options in brackets – during the extended SCCR 22.”

    “This is the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get an international copyright treaty to help blind and print disabled people access more books and end the book famine,” Friend said. “WBU and visually impaired readers throughout the world urge their member states delegates to seize this opportunity fully.”

    Meanwhile, proponents of WIPO efforts on limitations and exceptions are slightly wary entering the meeting after WIPO Director General Francis Gurry mentioned a desire to move the committee to a more “positive” agenda than finding ways not to apply copyright (IPW, WIPO, 13 June 2011).

    Audiovisual Treaty

    A number of proposals have been tabled by countries for this session of the SCCR. Brazil submitted a proposal [pdf] to include a new paragraph to be inserted into the preamble of a draft treaty on the protection of audiovisual performances to take into account the WIPO Development Agenda.

    The United States proposed a 20th article [pdf] to the existing 19 articles of the draft audiovisual treaty to “resolve the sole outstanding issue of the 2000 Diplomatic Conference,” referring to the 2000 meeting during which all delegations agreed on 19 articles of an instrument but could not reach agreement on remaining issues.

    The delegation of Mexico proposed an Article 12 [pdf] on transfer of rights for the draft treaty from the year 2000.

    Some open-ended consultations on the protection of audiovisual performances were carried out on 13-14 April, chaired by Osita Anaedu of Nigeria. Anaedu provided recommendations [pdf] to the SCCR. New proposals from Brazil, India, Mexico and the United States were examined and the delegations of India, Mexico and the US “agreed to work towards developing a joint proposal with respect to Article 12 on transfer of rights for consideration by SCCR 22.”

    Anaedu also said, “participants underlined the importance of moving forward expeditiously towards conclusion of the negotiations to conclude a treaty on the protection of audiovisual performances.” They recommended that the SCCR “narrow the outstanding differences, in order to enable the 2011 General Assembly to decide upon the convening of a Diplomatic Conference at the earliest possible opportunity.”

    Broadcasting Treaty

    South Africa presented a proposal [pdf] with draft language on a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organisations. South Africa said its proposal was informed, among others, on WIPO studies and information sessions “which revealed the rapid increase of signal piracy on other platforms other than the ones used traditionally for broadcasting activities including cable,” and the conclusions from the African Group regional seminar hosted by the government of Nigeria and co-organised with WIPO in October 2010.

    Canada submitted a proposal [pdf] based on its submission to the SCCR of June 2007, and Japan provided a comment [pdf] on the draft treaty.

    Informal consultations on the protection of broadcasting organisation took place on 14-15 April, chaired by Alexandra Grazioli, from Switzerland. Grazioli provided recommendations [pdf] to the SCCR. The informal consultations involved technical experts and was meant to clarify outstanding technical and technological issues. The chair is expected to prepare a non-paper “setting out possible elements for a draft treaty” for SCCR 22, the chair’s report said.

    Dialogue on Publishers Featured at SCCR

    WIPO has announced that the first day of the SCCR there will be a special “High-Level Copyright Dialogue on the Book and Publishing Industry.”

    The programme is as follows:

    17.00 – 17.10 Welcome by the Director General of WIPO, Mr. Francis Gurry
    17.10 – 17.15 Introduction by moderator: Ms. Ruth Marshall, ghost-writer and translator, Paris
    17.15 – 18.00 Presentation by Speakers:
    – Mr. Jason Epstein, Chairman, On Demand Books, New York
    – Mr. Alaa Al Aswany, Writer, Cairo
    – Mr. Richard Charkin, Executive Director, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, London
    18.00 – 18.30 Questions and Answers

    William New contributed to this report.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. john e miller says:

      As attributed to the American author Mark Twain: I did not have time to write to you a one page letter so I wrote to you a two page letter.

      I posted last year on Ip-Watch.org at

      http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/09/20/musician-stevie-wonder-just-calls-on-wipo-to-improve-books-access/#comment-3518528

      which included a link (on WIPO Vision IP)to a 3 paragraph Braille-based Treaty proposal based on the Copyright Law of Japan and the following comment from Paul Schroeder of the AFB:

      “Braille generally isn’t a problem for rights-holders because obviously only people who are blind will read it… However, publishers fear e-text because it is too easily pirated.”

      Also that ASCII BRF Braille files can be read by DAISY players … but as this is deemed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity I guess only the whole enchilada will be acceptable to those seeking to end the ‘famine’.

    2. john e miller says:

      Once again TRIPS 13 is being raised by opponents of a binding International Treaty at WIPO SCCR 22 and why would they not so raise?

      How large a disabled or otherwise disadvantaged population can be defined and still be considered a ‘certain SPECIAL case’?

    3. Les bibliothèques, champ de bataille pour le renouveau de la propriété intellectuelle à l’OMPI | :: S.I.Lex :: says:

      [...] sortie fracassante de Francis Gurry s’explique certainement par le fait que cette semaine, du 15 au 24 juin, se tient une réunion du Comité Permanent sur le Droit d’auteur et les Droits voisins de l’OMPI, qui doit [...]


    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 54.198.26.110