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.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • 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 >

    EuroDIG: Will Governments Let Civil Society Rescue Net Governance?

    Published on 18 June 2012 @ 4:08 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    The roles of governments, civil society and industry in ruling the internet – and other spaces – seems to be in a profound change. With governments in cross-border law enforcement situations increasingly unable to protect fundamental rights, as European Parliament Member Marietje Schaake said during a session of the European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) in Stockholm last week, it seems to be civil society that can do something about it.

    The June 14-15 EuroDIG, the regional version of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), brought together legislators, civil servants, non-governmental organisations and some industry representatives for the fifth time.

    Schaake, a member of the Liberal Party Group in the Parliament, said in a session on territoriality, jurisdiction and internet-related laws that complaints by citizens about the enforcement of third-country laws against them, might be one way to clarify the situation.

    “Civil society organisations could start court cases to find out where jurisdiction actually lies,” she said. Schaake and fellow MEP Sophie In’t Veld have been pointing out for some time that there is a growing trend of extraterritorial law enforcement against users of the internet and digital services.

    Extraterritorial Enforcement as an Answer to Borderless Net

    A case to be tested, according to Staffan Jonson, a former Swedish civil servant and now senior policy advisor at the registry of Sweden’s country code to- level domain .se, could be the controversial Swedish snooping law, the National Defence Radio Establishment (Försvarets Radioanstalt, FRA). The law does allow the Swedish authorities to scan all outgoing and incoming communication traffic crossing Swedish borders.

    “It should have been tested in court,” said Jonson, who added that he is personally critical of the law. “But amazingly, that has not happened yet.”

    Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, in a short discussion about digital arms sales – opposed during the EuroDIG by European Parliament Vice President Alexander Alvaro and Schaake – said countries investing a lot in intelligence gathering on the internet in the end collect so much that they see nothing.

    “It is the American thing of connecting the dots,” he said. “They have machines completely clogged with dots, but they can’t connect them.” He did not say if this was true for FRA.

    The FRA is only one of many examples of the growing mismatch of national borders and law enforcement. From a new regulation in France to monitor peering relations between information technology operators to the United States takedown of the sharehoster MegaUpload to the domain seizures effected in recent years by US authorities based on their direct access to domain name system infrastructure providers.

    With potentially more registries and registrars in the future set up outside of the US, there is the possibility of US authorities taking it up a step to the US-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which holds the contracts. If ICANN goes down the road of exerting pressure on or sanctioning new registries overseas, they would be “slowly politicising the infrastructure,” Jonson said.

    “Are we potentially transforming the domain name system into a content control panel?” French academic Bertrand de la Chapelle, who moderated the territoriality session asked during the EuroDIG session on copyright. Copyright questions currently seem the hottest fuel for the extraterritorial law enforcement debate, but de la Chapelle pointed to the fact that the EU also pushes for extraterritorial enforcement in another field.

    “On copyright there is an extremely strong pressure for an extraterritorial implementation of US law, and on the other hand there is an extremely strong European push for the extraterritorial application of privacy rules,” de la Chapelle said.

    According to Rolf Weber, professor of law at the University of Zurich, the Swiss High Court just ruled that Google Street View is under Swiss data protection law. Also, there have been strong statements from Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission, that the future EU privacy directive would be applicable to US companies not based in the Union, but targeting its citizens.

    For the time being, Schaake observed that it seemed as if governments were unable to protect their citizens from having even constitutional rights violated, be it by foreign private law contracts not in line with EU fundamental rights, or violations of the right to privacy granted in Europe, especially as the US constitutional rights – contrary to European fundamental rights – cannot be claimed by non-US citizens.

    Schaake recommended that the issue of extraterritorial enforcement be urgently discussed by politicians. “We have to raise this with the Americans and develop scenarios that show why extraterritorial measures with a one-sided view can backfire in a way that is unprecedented,” she said, pointing to other jurisdictions potentially going down the same road.

    Weber recommended: “On the nation-state level, I think we should move away from the concept of sovereignty to a concept of cooperative sovereignty, and on the society level again civil society should be better integrated in lawmaking processes.”

    Push from Civil Society Groups for Changes in Copyright

    In copyright, pressure from parts of the civil society – and also parts of the IT industry – has become a considerably loud voice. A panel on copyright at the EuroDIG seemed close to consensus on the need for change of the current system, even if this was made easier by the absence at the EuroDIG of one of the more aggressive rightsholder community members. The World Intellectual Property Organization had been invited, but declined, organisers were quick to say.

    Yet, from former or current public servants to representatives of the international library, the internet service provider or academic communities, and to citizen activist Jérémie Zimmermann from French civil society group La Quadrature du Net: all called for reforms.

    Nigel Hickson, a former British public servant and now ICANN staff, said: “The model is broken and governments have no idea how to take things forward.” Hicks said that the Digital Economy Act in the UK had been in fact fought by civil servants. “We did not want to penalise 16- or 18-year olds that were doing filesharing – these were our daughters and sons.” Yet the government had been under pressure from the electorate, content owners and big corporations.

    Stuart Hamilton, director of policy and advocacy at the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), said that in legislative initiatives like SOPA, PIPA, TPP or ACTA the “public interest had been shunted to the side” and flexibilities called for by the library community had not been updated. These refer to the Stop Online Piracy Act, Protect IP Act, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, all of which have run into public resistance after being privately negotiated.

    On top of IFLA’s agenda currently is a WIPO treaty on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. “But in that arena that moves at a glacial pace.” While a plurilateral treaty like ACTA moved quickly, he said at WIPO, blind people have been waiting for 25 years for an international treaty to ease their access to modified reading material. “I think the solution – though I cannot tell where we need to go to – is that we must have the voice of the users in every single copyright consultation being louder and louder.”

    Zimmermann said he hopes that “if we manage to kill ACTA in the [European] Parliament, we will have a momentum with enough people participating in the debate so we can counter the influence of industry on governments.” It was certainly time to move on in the copyright discussion, he said.

    Governments Prepared to Share Decision-Making Power?

    The very developments around ACTA, with protests of a quasi-global civil society, have scared many people in governments, said Schaake, in another of the high-level debates at the EuroDIG.

    She sees that “the movements against the proposed SOPA bill in the US or ACTA protests in Europe, massive forces from the bottom up” were wake-up calls for some in the established circles of politics. “On the other hand, I think some people got quite scared and also got quite upset about this sort of massive voice that influenced colleagues.” And there is also a concern that well-organised minorities should not dictate the political agenda.

    With regard to multi-stakeholder initiatives, there also is a risk, Schaake said, that more self-regulation could mean less democratic oversight. “More power goes to the private sector, away from democratic control,” she said.

    The very recommendation in ACTA that governments should encourage industry self-regulation in enforcing copyright has been seen by many critics as another step toward privatizing enforcement, something that was well-reflected in discussions about cybercrime at the EuroDIG. In cybercrime and cybersecurity, authorities backed by legislators are calling for help from private parties, namely the operators to store data for data retention, or check on their customers for copyright violations.

    But when it came to the core question of this year’s EuroDIG, about who makes the rules and how prepared governments are to share decision making procedures, politicians like Carl Bildt did not give a lot of answers. Bildt applauded the multi-stakeholder model for internet governance, citing ICANN and especially the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as pillars of the success of the internet that must be defended against proposals for change from countries at the United Nations level. He also said he saw that political parties are already changing and that he uses net platforms to gather a lot of information. Still it could be considered a meagre answer to a bigger question.

    Thorbjorn Jagland, secretary general of the Council of Europe, which has been a co-host for all EuroDIG meetings since 2006, said there is a missing link between the spheres of the new net activism and classical politics. In some way, this might be said for EuroDIG, too, as EP Vice President Alvaro confirmed.

    Jagland said: “You cannot shape politics on Twitter or Facebook,” adding, “what kind of political system will be the result of this revolution? I do not know. But I am quite sure we will not have the one we have today.”

    A glimpse of how change might look like came from the youngest politician, Schaake, reporting that she for her work as legislator is for example was experimenting with crowd-sourcing in legislative work. Multi-stakeholder is perhaps the most viable model for future policymaking, she said. “But we have to make sure it is not an empty phrase and that it is inclusive, also of users.”

    The EuroDIG, supported by the Swiss government, and the Council of Europe, will continue to try to bring the spheres together in 2013 in Lisbon, Portugal and 2014 in Berlin.

    The messages on the variety of topics including calls for internet neutrality, a ban on digital arms sales, digital inclusion and Her Majesty Queen Silvia’s speech about protecting – but also listening to – young people on the internet, will after more consultation be sent on to the upcoming global Internet Governance Forum in Baku, Azerbaijan.

    Monika Ermert may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Was sonst noch interessant war › netzpolitik.org says:

      [...] Intellectual Property Watch – Monika Ermert The roles of governments, civil society and industry in ruling the internet – and other spaces – seems to be in a profound change. With governments in cross-border law enforcement situations increasingly unable to protect fundamental rights, as European Parliament Member Marietje Schaake said during a session of the European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) in Stockholm last week, it seems to be civil society that can do something about it. TwitternDieser Eintrag wurde veröffentlicht in Aus der Reihe und getagged Bill of Rights, EuroDIG, facebook, Flame, Links, Netzneutralität, Übersicht, Virus. Bookmarken: Permanent-Link. Kommentieren oder ein Trackback hinterlassen: Trackback-URL. Dieser Beitrag steht unter der Lizenz CC BY-NC-SA: Andre Meister, Netzpolitik.org. « Heilbronner Polizei überwacht alle Besucher ihrer Webseite, bezweifelt selbst Rechtmäßigkeit [...]

    2. Netizen Report: Copyright Edition – The Netizen Project says:

      [...] as European Parliament Member Marietje Schaake called for an increased role for civil society in Internet policy processes. The EuroDIG organization is the regional chapter of the United Nations’ Internet [...]

    3. Global Voices | 网民报导:著作权专刊 - 中国数字时代 says:

      [...] • 翻墙必读• 科学上网• 防火长城• 墙外导航(整理中)• 禁书禁片• 禁片目录• 禁书列表• 有关部门• 中宣部• 国新办• 网络监控• 国保警察• 真理部• 敏感词库• 河蟹档案• 五毛大观• 网络审查• 真理部指令• 新浪微博搜索敏感词列表• 马勒戈壁• 网络民议• 时政漫画• 网络段子• 热传视频• 歌曲精选• 草泥马语• 民主宪政• 人权记录• 天安门母亲• 良心犯• 异议人士• 国家安全罪• 强制堕胎• 结石宝宝• 黑监狱• 维权律师• 政治改革• 新闻自由• 司法独立• 宗教自由• 更多专题• 食品安全• 强制拆迁• 新疆• 西藏• 南海• 香港• 台湾• 朝鲜• 中美关系• 中俄关系• 中日关系• 中法关系• 中德关系• 中印关系 Global Voices | 网民报导:著作权专刊 原文Image by Flickr user Leo Reynolds (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).侵害著作权而重罚的情形在日本随著今年六月通过的法案而变本加厉,新法未来将对受著作权保护物件的下载行为,施以拘役或罚金的处分。与过去不同的是,以前拘役的处罚只适用于上传资料者,不过这回的立法则扩及下载者,这个法令将在10月1日生效。无独有偶,加拿大也加入将违反著作权行为课以刑责的行列。加拿大众议院近日通过著作权法案,此法除惩罚破解数位版权管理、也将对违反著作权的行为施以罚款。此法预计在参议院会顺利过关。另外,香港艺术家也群起抵抗一个法律修正案,该案将立法处分某些程度上已达到「超过轻微经济损害」的违反著作权行为,此举限缩了合理使用的范围及衍生性作品的创造。在法国,2009年制定的「支持网路创作传布及保护法」(简称为HADOPI)要求网路服务供应商(ISP)在察觉使用者下载具著作权法保护内容达三次后,即应切断使用者连线,此法被联合国言论自由保护特别专员Frank la Rue称之为「违反世界人权宣言第19条」关于言论自由的规定。(译注:第十九条规定「人人有权享受主张和发表意见的自由;此项权利包括持有主张而不受干涉的自由,和通过任何媒介和不论国界寻求、接受和传递消息和思想的自由。」)在欧洲,由于受到公民团体的压力,政府日渐注重著作权如何影响人权和言论自由发展的情形。有鉴于此,欧洲的国际贸易委员会建议欧洲议会驳回反仿冒贸易协定(ACTA),该协定寻求制定跨国智慧财产权标准。这也是欧盟第五次对此协定举行投票。欧洲议会将在7月4日投票。(译注:欧洲议会于7月4日,再度以478票对39票的结果,否决此协定)。暴行在苏丹,好几个社群网路推特的使用者被警方及国家情报安全单位逮捕,被捕的有Mohammed Ali,他在推特上发表关于6月22日在首都喀土穆示威游行中有人遭逮捕的讯息,并鼓励更多人出席6月30日的游行。在喀土穆举行的游行是为了反对政府在去年南苏丹酝酿独立时所做一连串削减支出的措施。部落客在推特上搜寻#FreeUsamah或#Sudanrevolts这些字以追随抗议活动。言论审查在苏丹,还有部落客在推特上发布关于政府打算切断网际网路以防止对政府削减支出措施不满的抗议声音持续发酵的谣言。网路搜寻引擎Google为配合美国的禁运政策,关闭了古巴境内的Google网站流量分析(Google Analytics)网页。这类Google功能在包括缅甸、伊朗、叙利亚、苏丹和北韩等国家中也同样遭到限制。白俄罗斯警方6月21日在格罗德诺(Grodno)逮捕了波兰报纸记者安德烈波佐布(Andrzej Poczobut), 罪名是诋譭白俄罗斯总统卢卡申科(Alexander Lukashenko),卢卡申科自1994年起即担任总统至今。波兰外交部副部长要求立即释放波佐布。去年波佐布也曾因类似理由遭囚三个月,这次则可能面临高达五年的刑期,其他运动人士认为,波佐布的被捕,可能助长未来媒体的自我审查行为。网路治理网际网路名称与号码指配组织(ICANN)日前宣布,将任命法迪.切哈德(Fadi Chehadé)为该机构首席执行官,ICANN是负责分配网域名称和协调网际网路协定位址空间的非营利机构。切哈德在ICANN六月于布拉格举行的第44场公开会议中曾发表演说,承诺未来在决策时将时时以公共利益为念,并以透明度为先。欧洲电信运营商协会(European Telecommunications Network Operators, ETNO)提案修改由国际电信联盟(ITU)制定的规范,提出一个关于传送线上内容的费用,试图要在网路内容及应用提供商获取的利润里分一杯羹。非营利组织民主与技术中心(Center for Democracy and Technology)则提出警告,指出同一个提案也将出现在世界电信会议(World Conference on Telecommunications, WCIT),认为此举可能会对发展中国家的网路成本造成负面冲击,进而影响到使用者的言论自由。在今年6月14-15日举办的欧洲网路治理对谈(European Dialogue on Internet Governance, EuroDIG)电信会议中,包括欧洲议会委员Marietje Schaake等讲者的讨论都呼籲公民团体在网路政策过程中应该扮演更吃重的角色。欧洲网路治理对谈组织隶属于联合国网路治理论坛(Internet Governance Forum)的地区项下,该论坛作为平台,提供不同的利害关系人针对全球的网路政策进行论辩。在6月20日,国际电信联盟(ITU)秘书长图尔(Hamadoun Touré)指派工作小组筹画12月间将召开的世界电信会议,强调务求过程的透明度。图尔在公开信函中即对透明度念兹在兹,该信已于5月寄出,并取得公民团体成员签名。该信函表达了未来资讯通讯科技的扩张,可能会进一步将网际网路纳入国际电信联盟的传播治理架构中。国家政策俄罗斯政府正打算创建自有的脸书风格社交网络,预计在六月问市并吸引私人资金投资。俄罗斯近日取代德国,成为欧洲国家中网路使用人口最多的国家,因此这个决定也遭受批评,因为政府虽未压迫网路,但却试图将其收服。中国的政府预计在7、8月间审查一个名为「宽频中国计画」(Broadband China Project),透过该计画,将扩大宽频近用参与人数到城市和乡村中近3千5百万个家户。德国的汉堡地区则通过关于提升透明度的立法,要求政府在资讯范畴中出版所有公开资料。网民倡议随著墨西哥总统选举在7月1日到来,线上的倡议行动“Yo Soy 132”(“我是132”)举办了线上总统辩论做为其诉求媒体和总统候选人在竞选过程中应该更公正客观的活动之一。许多大学生在推特上传影片,反驳媒体将他们抹黑成收受左派政治人物好处的混混,他们用#yosoy132做为讨论关键字,最终聚集了数以万计的游行民众,一齐抗议尼托(Enrique Peña Nieto)。尼托是该场竞选中的领先者,同时也是国内大党Institutional Revolutionary Party(PRI)的成员。陆军刑事上诉法庭(The Army Court of Criminal Appeals)驳回了宪法权利中心(Center for Constitutional Rights)要求取得陆军士兵曼宁一案相关法院文件的上诉。曼宁是美国军方情报分析人员, 因洩露外交电报和伊拉克战争情资给维基解密网站,被控通敌。曼宁因为这项罪名,可能面对终身监禁的刑责。维基解密创办人朱利安.亚桑杰则恐怕将以同样罪名遭到美国驱除出境,因此身为澳洲公民的亚桑杰,在英国法院考虑将他遣返回瑞典接受性侵害审判之后,前往伦敦的厄瓜多大使馆中寻求政治庇护。网路空间主权6月21日,推特遭受到强烈的断电影响。该公司稍后澄清断电并不是由于骇客入侵,而是源自于系统问题。隐私权资讯安全研究者指出一项可将脸片上传至脸书的同时进行人脸辨识的行动应用程式KLIK有漏洞,可能会让使用者的脸书或推特帐号资讯在过程中外洩。使用者的资讯可能在稍后就被用来盗贴其他图片。日前,脸书才以1亿美元的代价买下KLIK程式的软体开发者Face.com 网站。著作权丹麦的网路服务供应商正在研拟一套志愿性的守则,未来即便某一个单一国家的法院强制要求某些网页不能出现在网路服务中,供应商同意承认这样的法律效力,共同抵挡这些网站。英国的法院要求网路供应商阻挡知名档案分享网站海盗湾(Pirate Bay)的内容,而英国电信也已同意;但屏蔽已被破解。电子安全最近的ZDNet报告指出,潜伏在PC里的恶意软体对数以千计的印表机造成干扰。这些恶意程式在印表机的工作等候列里放置档案,只要在印表机通电、而且纸匣内有纸的状态下,机器就会不断地列印资料。新鲜事奈特基金会向六位「奈特新闻挑战」计画得奖人颁发奖金,总额高达137万美元。这个计画是试图用线上网路的方式解决新闻学上遇到的困境。得奖者包括Tor Project,因其向来致力发展软体,用来帮助身处政治高压环境中的使用者匿名安全地发表意见以及与他人沟通。出版与研究Mobile Active: mClerk:Enabling Crowdsourcing in Developing RegionsOpen Society Foundations: Mapping Digital Media: MacedoniaNew York Times Op-Ed by Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu: ‘Free Speech for Computers?‘ 若需更多数位时代公民权利未来的相关事件资讯,请见全球之声事件行事历。作者 Rebecca MacKinnon · 译者 Yachi · 阅读原文 en · 则留言 (0) 分享: HEMiDEMi · MyShare · Shouker · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper本文由自动聚合程序取自网络,内容和观点不代表数字时代立场 定期获得翻墙信息?请电邮订阅数字时代 [...]


    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 173.208.205.202