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 >

    Down To The Wire, WIPO Copyright Committee Seeks Compromises

    Published on 24 July 2012 @ 11:48 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    World Intellectual Property Organization members working morning, noon and night for over a week in order to agree on texts for broadcasters’ rights and a range of copyright exceptions appear to be finding ways forward on all of them as they head into the final day, according to participants.

    The WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) is meeting from 16-25 July. Issues include three types of limitations and exceptions: for visually impaired and print-disabled persons; for educational and research institutions; and for libraries and archives.

    Much of the meeting has been held in closed-door informal meetings that exclude stakeholders such as industry and non-governmental organisations, as well as many delegates.

    Today (24 July), members approved a working document. SCCR/23/8/prov on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives [pdf]. The document had been previously negotiated but was given approval as the text on which negotiations will be based going forward.

    On the visually impaired, progress was made on the text, but it seems unlikely that there will be an outright decision to recommend a diplomatic conference (high-level negotiation) in 2013.

    There were some emerging ideas about how to keep open the possibility of such a negotiation next year, however.

    An idea that gained some attention, according to participants, was a proposal for an “intersessional” meeting after the early October annual WIPO General Assembly, but before the next proper SCCR meeting in November. Then, if there is support, an extraordinary General Assembly could be called in December to decide on a diplomatic conference in 2013. It might be worth noting that the US presidential election is in early November.

    There was optimism among many going into the meeting that a decision might be made this week to recommend a diplomatic conference, but the developed countries appear to opposed to it, though they have not made direct statements about it.

    However, a US official told Intellectual Property Watch today that the US “has always been open as to the nature” of the instrument, as long as they “get the substance right.” That is because if the substance is not right, the rest will fail and it will not be effective, he said. It was also pointed out that negotiations going slowly do not necessarily mean negotiations going badly.

    James Love of Knowledge Ecology International, a strong proponent of a treaty for the visually impaired, said in a blog post tonight: “It is worth noting that the EU proposals are not rooted in EU legal traditions, which include robust exceptions for disabilities, but rather EU publisher wish lists. In effect, the publishers and the EU want to turn the project into a new international norms for turning exceptions in highly regulated extended licensing agreements only to be used in limited cases. The US is not resisting the EU efforts in this regard.”

    Another key area of the week has been exceptions for educational and research institutions, and there a new text emerged today [pdf], and it appears to be heading for agreement as the working document going forward.

    Developed countries such as the United States still have considerable concerns about some language in the educational text, such as a broad proposal related to internet service provider liability. They also hope to trim proposals on exhaustion of rights, importation and exportation, orphan works and others. But those questions will come in the course of negotiations on this document.

    Broadcasting

    Finally, on broadcasting, members appear to be in agreement to proceed on the basis of a single text, which should be issued tomorrow. The latest available broadcasting text, the “chair’s non-paper,” from early today (24 July) is here [pdf].

    This week, Japan took a strong position on broadcasting, adding a new proposal to the South African/Mexican proposal that had begun to gain consensus. A key issue, a Japanese official told Intellectual Property Watch today, is the scope of application. There is general agreement that the treaty apply only to traditional broadcasters, and Japan wants it only to apply to traditional broadcasts, not webcasts or simulcasts. It is supported by Brazil and India, it said.

    All countries except India showed support for it today, many of them noting clearly that major changes can still be made to it. But India saw such profound problems with the text – including direct contradictions between clauses and apparent divergence from the 2007 mandate that it be strictly about broadcast signals – that it said it could not agree to it as a basis for work. In the end, however, it is expected that the committee will move ahead on the basis of the document and will take India’s concerns on board.

    Several non-governmental groups took the floor this week to criticise the idea of the broadcasters’ treaty.

    The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which counts Google among its members, said it is “a physical impossibility” to fix a signal, as it “no longer exists once a device capable of making the programme perceptible receives it.” So granting a copyright on fixations or anything requiring a fixation (such as reproduction) is “to grant a right in a non-existent object.”

    CCIA also cautioned that a treaty making copyright protection technology-neutral would have unintended negative effects, such as turning anyone streaming something live on a platform like YouTube into a broadcaster with decades of broadcaster “signal” protection.

    Broadcasting nearly went to a diplomatic conference in 2007, and might possibly be mature enough to come up again in 2013.

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

     

    Comments

    1. john e miller says:

      From the above:

      “James Love of Knowledge Ecology International, a strong proponent of a treaty for the visually impaired …”

      From the Report:

      World Blind Union (WBU) and Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) Meeting on a WIPO Treaty for Blind, Visually Impaired and Other Reading Disabled Persons, KEI Offices, Washington, DC, July 24–25, 2008

      “The World Blind Union (WBU) and Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) hosted an experts’
      consultation to consider a text for a possible Treaty for the Visually Impaired (TVI). The
      meeting was held on July 24-25, 2008, at the Washington, DC offices of KEI. Participants
      included nineteen experts from eight countries.”

      http://www.keionline.org/misc-docs/tvi/meeting_report.pdf

      The draft Treaty that resulted from this meeting was introduced at WIPO SCCR 18 in 2009 by Brazil and other countries as SCCR/18/5.

      The list of participants begins on PDF page 14: Most all the names will be familiar as persons who have intervened during the WIPO SCCR sessions 18 – 24.

      “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
      But in ourselves …” — Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)


    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 184.72.72.182