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 >

    Treaty For Visually Impaired Advancing At WIPO; Countries Ask For More Transparency

    Published on 20 November 2012 @ 4:45 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The first results of the World Intellectual Property Organization negotiations on the draft text of a treaty to facilitate visually impaired persons’ access to books in special formats were presented this morning. Progress was reported by the WIPO secretariat, but some countries asked that more delegates be allowed to participate in the small group drafting discussions.

    The WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) is meeting from 19-23 November.

    Meeting Chair Darlington Mwape of Zambia announced yesterday (IPW, WIPO, 19 November 2012) that three days of the 25th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights taking place from 19-23 November would be devoted to advancing the text of the treaty/instrument in a small setting of country coordinators plus five delegates.

    This morning, the secretariat issued a set of five documents showing progress registered yesterday. They are:

    Preamble of the instrument [pdf]
    Article E [pdf]
    Article F
    Article G [pdf]
    Article J [pdf]

    The preamble is structured in paragraphs, whereas the rest of the treaty appears in articles.

    According to the secretariat, the preamble is much shorter than it was, with 12 paragraphs instead of the 17 in the last document. The twelfth paragraph, which is a text proposed by the African Group, is still pending, the secretariat said. The issue on this paragraph is the proposal that the new instrument be consistent only with the Berne Convention, proposed by the African Group, while the European Union would prefer to add a reference to “other international conventions,” including the Berne Convention.

    A newcomer in the preamble is paragraph eight, which contains several brackets. The eighth paragraph deals with the role of rights holders in making their works accessible to persons with visual and print disabilities in case the market is preventing such access.

    Four articles were addressed by delegates. On Article E on importation of accessible format copies, questions remain about who should be authorised to import an accessible format copy of a work without the authorisation of the right holder. On Article F on obligations concerning technological measures, alternative B is based on the 2012 Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances. Alternative B addresses in particular the question of the protection against circumvention of technological measures, which may hinder the implementation of exceptions and limitations for visually impaired people.

    No consensus was found yet on Article G on relationship with contracts. The article has gained a new alternative, bringing to three the number of options, all of which are in brackets. At stake is the interaction between commercial contracts and the future treaty. Some developing countries are concerned that the treaty might hinder their sovereignty in some areas. The new alternative (c) asks that member states “may establish in their national legislation that any contract which contains clauses contrary to the limitations or exceptions provided for the beneficiary persons under this instrument/Treaty those clauses may be considered null in accordance their national law.” [sic]

    The last article discussed yesterday was Article J on the list of authorised entities. This article was previously titled “registry of authorized entities.” The secretariat said that there had been some clarifications and now “the idea is just to facilitate the recognition and the identification of authorised entities.” The article is now a provision that proposes a list of authorised entities, on a voluntary basis in principle, the secretariat said, adding that various delegations had committed to continue working on the articles presented this morning.

    Delegates Request Larger Room for Transparency and Inclusiveness

    Today, the informal sessions were to start after the short plenary meeting displaying results of yesterday, but a number of delegations, including Venezuela, Egypt, India, and Japan, asked that informal sessions be held in a larger room than the one holding the sessions yesterday.

    Some proposed to hold future informal sessions in room A, which is the plenary room, or in a room in the new WIPO building. The delegations said the room was crowded, making the participation difficult.

    India said that for the sake of transparency, and given that this is the final stage of the negotiations, more coordination is needed between the Geneva-based delegates and the experts coming from the capital. She said the strict format of the informal sessions might create a gap and asked for more participation by member states and more people than one per delegation.

    Japan also said that although informal sessions served the purpose of efficiency, much more transparency is needed.

    The United States, although sympathetic to the concerns of several delegations, said that during informal meetings it was “very important that people can be face to face, and this kind of legislative setting is not conducive to the kind of discussions we need,” referring to the use of room A.

    The secretariat said the meeting room in the new building was already booked and it would be difficult to make arrangements before the afternoon. The secretariat added that in the new building translations would only be available in two languages. It was proposed that a private transcript of the meeting be delivered in a side room near the plenary, for the sole use of member states.

    The chair said he took note of the concerns. For the morning, delegates met in the same room as yesterday, while the chair was consulting with the secretariat about the room in the new building.

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

     

    Comments

    1. In Final Stretch Of Drafting Of WIPO Treaty For The Blind, Tensions High | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] with contracts, and which heading into yesterday was entirely bracketed for lack of agreement (IPW, WIPO, 20 November 2012), was “unanimously” deleted from the text, according to the [...]


    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