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 >

    European Parliament Rejection Puts ACTA Future In Doubt

    Published on 4 July 2012 @ 4:31 pm

    By and for Intellectual Property Watch

    Today’s overwhelming defeat of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) by the European Parliament could have a resounding effect on the treaty’s prospects for survival, according to sources. Meanwhile, public interest groups are celebrating and copyright holders fuming.

    “Never in history did a [European] Commission proposal only get 39 votes,” David Martin, rapporteur for the lead committee, the International Trade Committee, said after the vote. “ACTA is dead, not only in the European Union.”

    The vote in Parliament was 478 opposed, 39 in favour, with 165 abstentions. Before the vote the European People’s Party requested a vote on postponement of the vote. The Parliament rejected postponement by a margin of 420 to 255 with 9 abstentions.

    Martin said he expects it will be very difficult to get the necessary six ratifications necessary to enact the agreement.

    “Australian Parliament might next week follow the European Parliament,” he said. While he could not be sure how countries like Canada or Morocco would react, the EP decision certainly would have an impact. Mexico always has seen broad political opposition. Switzerland has been delaying its own signing after the protests and political discussions are ongoing.

    The Swiss Federal Council stated in May that Switzerland wanted to wait for more “decision elements to be at hand, mentioning the status of ratification procedure in the EU as one of these elements,” Mathias Schaeli, head of international trade relations at the Swiss Federal Intellectual Property Institute told Intellectual Property Watch. Accordingly, today’s EP decision would be taken duly into account in the further considerations and procedures, he said.

    The outcome might have resonance for the ongoing negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, the latest round of which is being held this week in San Diego. A key factor in the resistance to ACTA was the closed-door way in which the talks were held, only allowing public scrutiny after the deal was done. The TPP is following a similar path.

    Infojustice.org posted a blog discussing the possible impact on the TPP talks, here.

    Martin said he personally had learned to appreciate how much the under-25-year-olds in Europe were prepared to stand up for internet freedom.

    Canadian law professor and ACTA expert Michael Geist, in an email to Intellectual Property Watch, was a little more sceptical.

    “I think the agreement is badly damaged, but not dead yet,” Geist wrote. “Other countries might still proceed, though ACTA’s influence will be very limited. Moreover, claims that it is a ‘gold standard’ or IP protection that should be adopted by others will be hard to sustain given that Europe has rejected it.” Geist’s public comments on the EP decision are here.

    European Green, Socialist, Liberal and Left Parties all hailed ACTA’s death as victory of democracy and a chance and momentum for real copyright reform in the digital age.

    But the EU Commission has not given up yet. Maroš Šefčovič, vice president of the Commission, announced that the Commission would still stick to its questions to the European Court of Justice. As soon as the Court gives its judgment on the constitutionality and legality of ACTA under EU law the Commission will analyse it closely and will also consider going back to the other signatories.

    Knowledge Ecology International collected a range of comments on the outcome here.

    KEI President James Love said, “There is real democracy in Europe, and a real parliament. And wow, what a social movement for fundamental rights! ACTA could never overcome its deficit in legitimacy and perspective. The US Congress has to take a deep breath and reign in USTR and other rogue anti-democratic agencies that are treating the public like enemies of the state.”

    European publishers issued a statement calling the rejection of ACTA a “travesty” as Parliament failed to wait for the opinion of the European Court of Justice.

    European Publishers Council Executive Director Angela Mills Wade stated: “The European Parliament has totally ignored proper judicial procedure. It has given in to pressure from anti-copyright groups despite calls from thousands of companies and workers in manufacturing and creative sectors who have called for ACTA to be signed in order that their rights as creators be protected.”

    The European Commission “will wait for the Court’s ruling and then will approach other signatories of the Agreement and the Parliament to agree the next steps,” the publishers said.

    The music industry group IFPI published a set of reactions from rights holders, here.

    “Europe’s innovative manufacturing and creative industries consider that today’s vote by the European Parliament will be damaging for European intellectual property, jobs and the economy. The decision on ACTA is a missed opportunity for the EU to protect its creative and innovation-based industries in the international market place.”

    “ACTA is an important tool for promoting European jobs and intellectual property. Unfortunately the treaty got off on the wrong foot in the Parliament, and the real and significant merits of the treaty did not prevail,” said Anne Bergman-Tahon, director of the Federation of European Publishers (FEP), a member of a coalition of over 130 organisations supporting ACTA.

    “Europe could have seized the chance to support an important treaty that improved intellectual property standards internationally. We expect that ACTA will move ahead without the EU, which is a significant loss for the 27 Member States,” said Alan C. Drewsen, executive director of the International Trademark Association (INTA).

    Difficulties in Europe for ACTA had been foreseen last year (IPW, European Policy, 21 December 2011).

    On the public health side, Aziz ur Rehman, intellectual property advisor for the Médicins Sans Frontières (MSF) Access Campaign, said in a statement, “The way it was written, ACTA would have given an unfair advantage to patented medicines, and restricted access to affordable generic medicines to the detriment of patients and treatment providers alike.”

    French activist group La Quadrature du Net issued a statement, saying, “The European Parliament rejected ACTA by a huge majority, killing it for good. This is a major victory for the multitude of connected citizens and organizations who worked hard for years, but also a great hope on a global scale for a better democracy.”

    “On the ruins of ACTA, we must now build a positive copyright reform,” La Quadrature said, “taking into account our rights instead of attacking them. The ACTA victory must resonate as a wake up call for lawmakers: Fundamental freedoms as well as the free and open Internet must prevail over private interests.”

    Access, another public interest group lobbying on the issue, hailed the “fatal blow” to the agreement. “We are overjoyed that the Parliament took this monumental opportunity to protect human rights and an open internet,” it said.

    Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) analyst Ante Wessels in a statement called the vote “a major victory for civil society, Internet freedom, access to medicine and knowledge, and innovative companies.”

    “As an awareness project, ACTA is a big success,” Wessels said. “More and more people realize that maximizing profits at the expense of access to knowledge and space to innovate is wrong. The world deserves better solutions.”

    William New contributed to this story.

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

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

     

    Comments

    1. The Glory of the ACTA vote « Sköne Oke says:

      [...] David Martin: “Never in history did a [European] Commission proposal only get 39 [...]

    2. Christopher Paun says:

      ACTA is dead, long live ATCA!

      As a pragmatic approach, I would suggest to separate the issues of trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. The fight against trademark counterfeiting is a lot less controversial. An international Anti-Trademark-Counterfeiting Agreement (ATCA) could be reached rather fast. The issue of generic medicines in transit could easily be excluded, as it is a patent issue and not a trademark issue. Then it would be possible to take more time to address the more controversial issue of copyright protection on the internet with an Anti-Copyright-Piracy Agreement (ACPA).

    3. ACTA é rejeitado pelo Parlamento Europeu - Observatório Brasileiro de Políticas Digitais says:

      [...] e obscuridade em contraponto a transparência e participação cidadã.  Nessa mesma linha, o Ip-watch.org apontou que a decisão do Parlamento Europeu põe em dúvida o futuro do [...]

    4. Links 5/7/2012: Android 4.1 Reviewed, RHEL 7 Preview | Techrights says:

      [...] European Parliament Rejection Puts ACTA Future In Doubt Today’s overwhelming defeat of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) by the European Parliament could have a resounding effect on the treaty’s prospects for survival, according to sources. Meanwhile, public interest groups are celebrating and copyright holders fuming. [...]

    5. Reinier Bakels says:

      There are already international agreements on the enforcement of “intellectual property rights” for quite some time. Why ACTA on top of it?

      ACTA primarily serves the interest of the American entertainment industry. “Hollywood” wants to make more money without producing more – and enforcement is very helpful for that purpose.

      The problem with IP enforcement is that politicians are not always convinced of the need of 100% tight enforcement, and so are courts courts. So they most be avoided at all cost. Hence the ACTA negotiations were secret, and ACTA proposes regulations bypassing courts.

      If interests are really strong, do not expose them to politicians or courts.

      This is nothing new. Dictators always worked that way, and they always had magnificient control.

      By pushing ACTA, EU commissioner De Gucht proves exactly what opponnetns of the EU always argue against the EU: it is non-democratic, and it fosters the interests of big (American) business.

      Which is a pity because the EU is essential in view of long-term historical developments.

    6. La relación de ACTA con las negociaciones de México en TPP says:

      [...] con el rechazo de Europa al acuerdo, países como Suiza y México recibían presión extra para emitir un posicionamiento (a favor o en contra, el que fuera). Al TPP le conviene la entrada de México, pues serviría como [...]

    7. La relación de ACTA con las negociaciones de México en TPP | Q-Bit – Tecnología e Informática says:

      [...] con el rechazo de Europa al acuerdo, países como Suiza y México recibían presión extra para emitir un posicionamiento (a favor o en contra, el que fuera). Al TPP le conviene la entrada de México, pues serviría como [...]

    8. La relación de ACTA con las negociaciones de México en TPP | El Tenanpa says:

      [...] con el rechazo de Europa al acuerdo, países como Suiza y México recibían presión extra para emitir un posicionamiento (a favor o en contra, el que fuera). Al TPP le conviene la entrada de México, pues serviría como [...]

    9. ROMSCENTRO - La relación de ACTA con las negociaciones de México en TPP says:

      [...] con el rechazo de Europa al acuerdo, países como Suiza y México recibían presión extra para emitir un posicionamiento (a favor o en contra, el que fuera). Al TPP le conviene la entrada de México, pues serviría como [...]

    10. La relación de ACTA con las negociaciones de México en TPP « BlackBerry Warez | Blog says:

      [...] con el rechazo de Europa al acuerdo, países como Suiza y México recibían presión extra para emitir un posicionamiento (a favor o en contra, el que fuera). Al TPP le conviene la entrada de México, pues serviría como [...]

    11. La relación de ACTA con las negociaciones de México en TPP | TECNOLOGIA Y NOTICIAS says:

      [...] con el rechazo de Europa al acuerdo, países como Suiza y México recibían presión extra para emitir un posicionamiento (a favor o en contra, el que fuera). Al TPP le conviene la entrada de México, pues serviría como [...]

    12. La relación de ACTA con las negociaciones de México en TPP | Jobbr es says:

      [...] con el rechazo de Europa al acuerdo, países como Suiza y México recibían presión extra para emitir un posicionamiento (a favor o en contra, el que fuera). Al TPP le conviene la entrada de México, pues serviría como [...]

    13. La relación de ACTA con las negociaciones de México en TPP Noticias says:

      [...] el rechazo de Europa al acuerdo, países como Suiza y México recibían presión additional para emitir un posicionamiento (a preference o en contra, el que fuera). Al TPP le conviene la entrada de México, pues serviría [...]

    14. ACTA é rejeitado pelo Parlamento Europeu | A2K Brasil says:

      [...] e obscuridade em contraponto a transparência e participação cidadã. Nessa mesma linha, o Ip-watch.org apontou que a decisão do Parlamento Europeu põe em dúvida o futuro do Transpacific Partnership [...]

    15. La relación de ACTA con las negociaciones de México en TPP | EmaCorp News says:

      [...] el rechazo de Europa al acuerdo, países como Suiza y México recibían presión additional para emitir un posicionamiento (a preference o en contra, el que fuera). Al TPP le conviene la entrada de México, pues serviría [...]

    16. posicionamiento web asturias says:

      ACTA is dead !!!. Gracias a dios que se ha rechazado el ACTA… y que será complicada su proposición en el futuro.

    17. Wendy Cockcroft Web Design | Happy Independence Day, Internet! says:

      [...] our freedom. ACTA is dead in Europe, and as rapporteur David Martin MEP pointed out, activism has killed any chance of getting it adopted in other [...]

    18. Happy Independence Day, Internet! | Wendy Cockcroft Web Design says:

      [...] our freedom. ACTA is dead in Europe, and as rapporteur David Martin MEP pointed out, activism has killed any chance of getting it adopted in other [...]


    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 54.225.1.70