Login
You are not logged in.
Login | Subscribe

RSS feed 

What is RSS?

RSS (Really Simple Syndication) is an XML format of a web site or a weblog designed to allow the distribution and the sharing of information. An RSS feed or web feed provides headlines, brief descriptions and links to the full original content in a standard format.

More information is available on Wikipedia.

What is the benefit of using RSS feeds?

RSS is an easy way for you to be alerted when new content is posted on your chosen web sites, such as the Intellectual Property Watch website. Instead of visiting the IP-Watch website again and again to browse for new stories, the RSS feed automatically tells you when something new is posted.

What do I need to use RSS?

To start using RSS, you need a news reader or aggregator that displays RSS feeds from web sites or weblogs you selected. There are many different news readers, available as applications to be installed on your computer or as web services. Some web browsers such as Firefox and Safari can display RSS feeds too.

You can find a list on RSS Compendium.

Once you have set up your news reader, you simply subscribe to the RSS feeds you want.

How do I subscribe to the IP-Watch RSS feed?

Copy the URL of the IP-Watch RSS feed as provided in the left margin to your clipboard. Then follow the instructions on your particular news reader for adding / subscribing to RSS feeds.

Email alerts 

You can subscribe for free to receive automatic email notifications whenever new content is available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. Moreover, you can configure the alerts to fit your needs and interests by defining the frequency, the type of content and even the language.

Subscribe/free trial 

Intellectual Property Watch subscribers receive exclusive access to stories published on the website under password protection, plus the Intellectual Property Watch monthly edition, a 16-page selection of the most important stories and features, including the People column and News Briefs section not available anywhere else. These columns contain the latest on personnel changes in the international IP community, and items on IP policy news and reports from around the world. The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available online and in print, mailed to your door.


Global IP Policy in 2010:
What You Need To Know
IP-Watch Year Ahead Series

Advertise Here

Latest Comments
  • 1. In the current institutional and political env... »
  • Here is how each MEP and political party voted on ... »
  • Inside Views

    Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea on any relevant topic to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch, or leave a comment within any piece such as below.

    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.

    Interview With Bill Pollock, Founder Of No Starch Press

    Bill Pollock is the president and founder of No Starch Press, which publishes books on computing. Known to offer the “finest in geek entertainment,” the publishing house has released such titles as “Steal This Computer Book,” “How Linux Works,” “Hacking: The Art of Exploitation,” “The Cult of Mac,” and “The Unofficial LEGO Builder’s Guide.” Its books are largely about hacking, open source, security, programming, and non-Windows-based operating systems, such as Linux. Mr. Pollock shared his thoughts with Intellectual Property Watch about hacking, piracy, and future of the book publishing business.


    Copyright Law Reform in Brazil: Anteprojeto or Anti-project?

    A balancing of the rights of authors and consumers, the re-introduction of a private copying exception, a remixing permission and a new regulatory agency for copyright issues are among the core points the Brazilian Ministry of Culture has planned for the new copyright law. But at the Third Conference on Copyright and the Public Interest in São Paulo a month ago, the Ministry emphasised that the bits and pieces shown to the audience were not from an actual law draft (”anteprojeto”) but only a preliminary proposal for formulating such a draft. The bill still has not been published to date. The delay in releasing the bill for public consultation now threatens the work of more than two years on the reform.


    Intellectual Property Watch
    30 November 2009

    WTO Ministers Say Complete Doha Round Or Suffer Irrelevance

    By Kaitlin Mara @ 9:29 pm

    World Trade Organization members today called for a completion of the Doha Development Round of trade liberalisation talks in 2010, tying its success to the relevance of the organisation as a whole, at the opening plenary session of this week’s WTO ministerial. Members also urged a stronger review mechanism, and the head of the World Intellectual Property Organization questioned the effectiveness of the multilateral system.

    Deadlines set to finish the round have been missed again and again, said the trade minister of Hong Kong, adding the “credibility of this organisation, and the multilateral system, is at risk.… We cannot afford to miss this critical window again.” The Doha Round was launched in 2001.

    Many other ministers speaking on the opening day of the 30 November to 1 December conference echoed these sentiments. Singapore said it is a “matter of WTO credibility to conclude the Round.” Mexico asked “is the WTO system and the [Dispute Settlement Mechanism] sufficiently agile enough to guarantee our producers that they will have fair play” when economic practices move faster than the policies and processes of the WTO, and called for an updated dispute settlement system to reflect new realities.

    The Swedish minister said an ability to meet global challenges is necessary to ensure that the WTO remains relevant. Foreign Minister of Brazil Celso Amorim called the WTO “a valuable asset” that runs the risk of losing relevance unless its “members are prepared to invest the political capital required to equip it for the agenda of the 21st Century, an agenda that will inevitably be linked to sustainable development in all its dimensions.”

    And the following text has been proposed for inclusion in the chair’s summary of this ministerial meeting, currently supported by Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, European Union, Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania on behalf of the Least Developed Country Group, Turkey, the United States and Uruguay:

    “The rapid change in the global economic environment requires the WTO to be agile and responsive in order to preserve its central role in the global trading system. With a view to maintaining the effective functioning of the rules based multilateral trading system, the WTO needs to periodically engage in a process of review of its functioning, efficiency and transparency and consider systemic improvements, as appropriate. Ministers have invited the General Council therefore, to establish an appropriate deliberative process to review the organization’s functioning, efficiency and transparency and consider possible improvements, while bearing in mind the high priority we attach to the successful conclusion of the DDA negotiations. We look forward to reviewing the progress in this regard in our next meeting.”

    The ministerial meeting is expressly not a negotiation (IPW, WTO, 30 November 2009), but that did not stop ministers from discussing the unfinished business of the Doha Round, an issue that will haunt this week’s discussions even though it is officially not on the table.

    WIPO’s View on Trade

    Intellectual property was not brought up in many of the speeches, as delegates preferred to highlight the wider picture, and a few big-ticket items such as the cotton negotiations or aid for trade. However, World Intellectual Property Organization Director General Francis Gurry spoke at the inaugural session, highlighting how much had changed in IP since the WTO was created 15 years ago.

    In the “new era” of innovation, said Gurry, there is an increasingly diverse set of actors, and an increasing possibility for cross-global collaboration. The speed of innovation also has picked up dramatically.

    This, he said “gives us new cause to wonder about the slowness of the multilateral process,” asking whether the process could respond to this new world of innovation. “Could YouTube or Twitter have been achieved by a treaty?” he asked.

    India’s Minister for Commerce and Industry, Anand Sharma, mentioned the necessity of bringing the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement in line with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity as one of a list of development objectives that “cannot be diluted or ignored” in the completion of the round, not least because they will give developing countries incentives to bring more to the table.

    These incentives are important as “the contribution of developing countries would be greater than that given by developed countries in any of the previous negotiating rounds,” Amorim said, adding “it is unreasonable to expect that concluding the Round would involve additional unilateral concessions from developing countries.”

    Many also highlighted the importance of maintaining the international trading system and assistance for small countries, such as Catherine Ashton, who on her last day as EU trade commissioner credited the multilateral system with containing protectionist moves in the wake of the financial crisis, but added that “the poorest countries in this room are also those that are most vulnerable,” and called for an increase in aid for trade, making technical assistance and capacity building a key aspect of the Round.

    Australia agreed, saying “trade liberalisation is not enough in and of itself for developing countries,” and there is “no point in opening markets if those countries are not competitive enough to take advantage. Capacity building is key.”

    To this end, Brazil will provide duty-free-quota-free access for 80 percent of tariff lines on products from least developing countries by mid-2010, increasing to all of them over four years, Amorim said.

    No draft declaration is proposed by the secretariat, and the outcome of this meeting will be in the form of a chair’s summary text, said Mario Matus of Chile, chair of the WTO General Council. The next ministerial meeting is loosely scheduled for 2011 in Geneva, unless there is an offer to hold it elsewhere, he added.

    US Trade Representative Ron Kirk told the plenary session the US is committed to reaching “endgame” in the negotiations for completion in 2010, but that real offers will be needed from all sides. “While work programmes and stock takings [are] useful, we cannot confuse process and substance,” he said.

    Separately, US Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota announced today they would reintroduce the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment (TRADE) Act, which would “revamp US trade policy by mandating trade pact reviews, establishing higher standards, protecting workers in developing nations, and restoring congressional oversight of future trade agreements. The bill would mandate trade pact reviews, establish standards, protect workers in developing nations, and would help restore Congressional oversight of future trade agreements,” according to a press release from Brown’s office.

    “The WTO is you, the 153 members,” said Director General Pascal Lamy at the inauguration of the meeting, adding “you will have to decide whether 2010 as a target can be met … reaffirmation is not enough. We need action - concrete action - to close remaining gaps.”

    William New contributed to this story.

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. WTO Ministers Say Complete Doha Round Or Suffer Irrelevance @ says:

      [...] this entire unabridged article at http://www.ip-watch.org/ [...]


    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.