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 >

    UK Parliament Panel Urges Government To Speed IP Reforms

    Published on 27 June 2012 @ 3:11 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    The United Kingdom government has done a “considerable amount” of high-grade policy development work in the year since publication of a key report on the health of its intellectual property regime but must move faster, the Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said on 27 June. It strongly criticised Britain’s approach to the controversial proposal for a unified EU patents.

    The May 2011 review of Britain’s “digital opportunity” [pdf] was headed by Ian Hargreaves, digital economy chair at the Cardiff, Wales School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies and Cardiff Business School. It recommended sweeping changes to the country’s IP framework to help boost growth. The Commons panel report considered what happens next.

    Among other things, the Hargreaves review recommended the creation of a “digital copyright exchange” to attach automated digital rights and conditions information to copyrighted content; a one-stop shop for cross-border licensing; and new laws permitting format-shifting. It also strongly pressed the government to base policy on evidence rather than lobbying (IPW, European Policy, 31 August 2011).

    “Lobbynomics” Discouraged

    Hargreaves identified three key problems inhibiting greater use of evidence in crafting IP policy, the parliamentary report said. There are areas of IP rights for which data is simply difficult to come by, such as unregistered copyrights and design rights, it said.

    The most contentious policy questions usually pop up in areas such as computer programmes, digital communication and biosciences, which are new and inherently uncertain because they involve new technologies or markets, the report said.

    In addition, much of the data needed to develop empirical evidence on copyright and designs is privately held and enters the public domain “chiefly in the form of ‘evidence’ supporting the arguments of lobbyists (‘lobbynomics’) rather than as independently verified research conclusions,” it said.

    Hargreaves “was right that IP policy needs to be more rigorously supported by solid econometrics,” said committee Chairman Adrian Bailey.

    Format-Shifting Exception Likely

    In its consultation on copyright, the UK Intellectual Property Office proposed several legislative options for a format-shifting exception to copyright, the Commons report said: Unrestricted private copying of loaned works; private copying within the family and social circle; copying for individual personal use; and copying only where there is minimal harm.

    If that review shows real evidence of actual lost sales from private copying, then policy should be determined accordingly, the panel said. But there must be “pragmatism about both the pricing of content and the reality of expectations of personal use,” it said. “We suspect that a copyright exception based on personal use or use within the private sphere might prove most practicable and justifiable,” it said.

    The committee said it “did not hear any arguments in favour of retaining the UK’s copyright statute in its current form” because the measure was enacted before computers were commonplace and needs rewriting. It urged the government to bring update the laws “at the earliest opportunity.”

    Lawmakers also urged the government to move forward on Hargreaves’ proposal for a digital copyright exchange, provided it’s kept simple and backed by proper cost/benefit analysis.

    The report endorsed the idea of requiring intermediaries such as internet service providers to shoulder more responsibility for ensuring legal content. It also urged the government to bring into force provisions in the Digital Economy Act 2010 that will allow the use of technical measures such as internet blocking, throttling and access cut-off against suspected pirates.

    Patent Concerns

    While some type of supranational European patent has been deemed desirable for decades, obstacles in the form of permissible languages of the patent, the location and jurisdiction of patent courts, who should pay for them, and the need to build consensus around pan-European patent enforcement have hampered its development, the Commons report said. There is a current proposal for a non-EU international agreement for a patent covering 25 of 27 member states, as well as for a unified patent court, it said.

    But the plan is plagued by several controversial issues, including patent court funding and the risk of litigant “forum-shopping,” the report said. Moreover, it said, the UK government has failed to make a strong case for its negotiating stance in appearances before it and a separate committee.

    The panel might have concluded that the apparent absence of negotiating “red lines” could be due to a desire not to give away the official position, but “combined with the overall vagueness about direction and the lack of command of detail, the impression was instead of a lack of firm direction,” the Business Committee reported. It’s clear that the current negotiating strategy for a unified patent court “is not fit for purpose” and does not adequately protect UK interests, it said.

    The government now has 30 days to respond, a committee press officer said. If officials act on all of the report recommendations, the panel’s scrutiny is complete, he said. If not, the committee will have to decide its next move.

    Dugie Standeford may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. UK Announces Updates To Copyright Licensing | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] week, the UK Parliament committee urged government to speed up IP reforms (IPW, European Policy, 27 June 2012). Related [...]


    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