1 Chronology
2 Timeline
-
2008-09-18..09 KnowRight
2008 in Kraków – conducted by the Austrian Computer Society
with involvment of the European Commission’s patent policy unit
and many patent industry players; Benjamin Henrion of FFII is speaking
there on “Who Stole My Software?”
-
2008-09-13 phm giving talk about software patents at Buskeismus
Festival
-
2008-09-11..12 Reinforcing
IPR in Emerging Markets –
-
2008-09-08..09 tabling deadline for amendments on the Susta report
on ACTA in the INTA committee of the EP (see below)
3 Brief News
-
2008-09-24 EU Stop Software
Patents World Day, video
-
2008-09-24 CA Innovation
Partnership Report: “`Blocking patents’ are delaying
advances in cancer medicine and food crops”, “the full
benefits of synthetic biology and nanotechnology will not be realised
without urgent reforms to encourage sharing of information”.
-
2008-09-18 EU EPO examiners on strike in Brussels; SUEPO
PR: “Whilst the management of the European Patent Office
is meeting with EPO President Alison Brimelow in Brussels, staff of
the EPO from Berlin, Munich, The Hague and Vienna are travelling to
Brussels to demonstrate against the policies she has pursued to date
during her term of office. They demand the reform of one of the key
management bodies, the Administrative Council. The Staff Union of the
European Patent Office (SUEPO) believes that the Council needs to be
restructured. “The Administrative Council does not act in the interests
of a quality European patent which reinforces business, science and
innovation,” states SUEPO.”
-
2008-09-12 DE EPA-Mitarbeiter
wollen für Reformen demonstrieren
-
2008-09-01 US Microsoft
has patented page scrolling (?)
FFII participating in KnowRight 2008
phm 2008-09-18 in Munich
2008-09-24: The Conference was very interesting, I hope I can comment
more, based on my extensive notes, very soon.
KnowRight 2008, see also
Google
Groups, takes place in Kraków/Cracow/Krakau on 18-19 September
this year, sponsored, among others, by FFII.
The Commission’s patent policy unit is there with Jens Gaster
et al.
Benjamin Henrion of FFII is delivering a speech on “Who stole
my software?”, Georg Jakob and Hartmut Pilch will present a paper
on grammar of patent claims.
3.1.2 Gaster
-
patent reform: in charge of expert level
-
balanced composition
-
computer lawyer, no slides
-
ip vs competition law
-
existence vs exercise of rights
-
ECJ cases
-
microsoft ruling
-
patent, ec, pharma sector inquiry
-
belief: need balance, my job is there
-
agencies, one in the pipeline
-
debate: de lege ferenda
-
draft resolution: EU anti counterfeiting plan
-
European Observatory
-
OECD: significant damage: 700 bn eur p a by organised crime
-
acta: counterfeiting trade agreement
-
enforcement as such, not substantive law
-
should patents be involved?
-
europarl elections 2009/05-6
-
2005: worse than earthquake, only case in EU history of rejection of
Council majority, super-catastrophe, out of question to ever propose
sth again; pity, need of harmonisation, divergency is per se a bad
thing
-
privacy issues
-
US customs, electronic strip searches
-
stealing of client data
-
need for transnational action
-
database law
-
ECJ innovative ruling reduces scope of protection
-
godfather: different from what lawmakers wanted
-
problem: single source data: generating is not substantial investment
in the meaning of art 7
-
clash database rights vs public sector info access: exemption for data
generated for public sector?
-
patent reform
-
debate since 1962, 46 yrs of suffering
-
initiater mr debré from fr, fr presidency has 5 views
-
7% of EU GDP; idea: make patent system accessible to SMEs; boost to
innovation;
-
waste: translations not consulted, of interest only to translators
-
litigation expenses: millions; transnational forum shopping, lack of
legal certainty
-
european central bank vs data ?su? systems: 2 invalid 2 valid
-
epla failure: reason: selfishness & national pride
-
2003-03 common approach: community patent; translate patent claims
only; legal effect? only es yes; –> failure, 2006 consultation
exercise, results published, hearing 2006; nobody wanted law harmonisation
& mutual recognition
-
epo our friends, i am admitted in admin council, i insist insist insist
-
some countries insist on comprehensive reform
-
2007-04 communication, enormous progress by pt presidency, momentum
regained, focus on litigation system;
-
ultimate decision by council to set up cp regulation, judiciary etc
-
forward-looking package
-
amend copyright term: extend term for performing artists and phonogram
producers
-
greenpaper
-
private copying, levy = license fee
-
2 attempts in past to harmonise
-
improving quality of IP system
-
how to use OHIM 200 mn eur; reduce fees?
3.1.3 Wiebe
-
1900 Warren/Brandeis and photography: new tort to protect against picture-taking
-
1960 mainframes; de data protection law: “information division
of power”
-
1983 census decision: fundamental right to informational self determination
-
internet → crisis of dataprot law
-
new bverfg decision: fundamental right to the integrity and confidentiality
of infotech systems
-
new dangers for personality rights due to interconnection
-
complexity precludes users from self-protection
-
existing rights
-
art 10 gg: telecom secrecy: applies only to transport phase
-
art 13 gg: inviolability of home: physical space
-
art ?2?: general personality right, insufficient basis
-
contours
-
confidentiality of data
-
integrity of infosys
-
limitations
-
proportionality: only if paramount public interest, subject to judicial
approval
-
procedural safeguards asto core area of priv life: no spying on diary,
tech safeguards & additional screening
-
outside scope: publaccinfo: spying in chat fora allowed
-
informaction security: integral part of data protection
-
bridge between system security and fundamental rights
-
liability for software authors and service providers
-
employee surveillance
-
review data protection laws: behavioral targeting etc; lots of illegal
behavior, also of google
-
resumee
-
law is not the only regmech
-
new constright will have important practcl conseqs
-
US: no constright to privacy, only tort, skeptical about constright
-
discuss
-
uk lady: skeptical about hr approach; however upon reading found that
it works well
-
camus: you are always free at the cost of someone else
3.1.4 Wroclaw / Willy Brandt Centre / Ms Agata Dimmich
-
Prot Nr 1 / Art 1: intprop a fundaright
-
moralrights have stronger claim to protection
-
Balan v Moldova: moralrights unadressable under Prot 1 Art 1
-
moralright << art 8 echr (privacy) and art 10
-
freedom of artistic expression, right of the public to be properly
informed
-
berne right to integrity of the work
-
caselaw
-
Jersild v DK: art 10 echr protects also form
-
Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v AT: public interest to have info accompanied
by perspic
-
vereinigung bildender künstler v AT: sexpics with public person faces
satire?
3.1.5 Berlin / Christian Czychowski
-
nontriv problem: german situation
-
data retention decision
-
ecj pro-musica decision pro balance
-
dynamic ip address
-
substantial losses due to illegal filesharing
-
upload illegal; download too UrhG16, since 2008/01 2nd basket
-
internet changes situation from bipole to tripole: authors, isp, users
-
privacy coming up now, datprot law not known for ages
-
1990 offline product privacy act already creates tripole situation
-
de laws: tmg+tkg
-
inventory data / bestandsdaten v use data / verkehrsdaten
-
criminal dead end, private path without clear solution:
-
TKG96
-
BDDSG28: well balanced but probably inapplicable
-
UrhG101
-
“if BVerfG stops data retention in main court action, IP enforcement
in Internet will come to an end”
-
us concept “personal data as intprop”
-
infosoc_directive art8 abs1: ms shall ensure that rh are in a position
to apply for inj ag intermediaries
-
ECJ Promusicae: calls for balancing
-
proposal: go back to 1990, border seizure in EU, very effective; 80-90%
without court decision
-
rightholder takes over liability for non-infringement
-
administrative body e g bundesnetzagentur as intermediary, injunction
after contradiction
-
discuss
-
v gjakob: ipr enforcement falling apart; would like to discuss on legal
framework
-
v uk lady: if we dont enforce copyright, ipr in general will deteriorate,
patents will be next
3.1.6 Justyna Ozegalska-Trybalska
3.1.7 Koscik
-
vigilantibus iura
-
criminal: trips 61 & cybercrime convention 2001: wilful on commercial
scale
3.1.8 PL ZPAV Staszewski
-
successes in fighting p2p-based infringement in PL
-
graduated response making legal action less necessary
3.1.9 PL BSA Sowinski mikolaj.sowinski@skslegal.pl
-
software directive: not liable unless knowledge provided
-
after 3 months no data –> in reality only crimproc efficient
-
police action simple enough only within poland, interpol etc not viable
-
no chance after 3 months
-
a few competent police units available, prosecutors & judges more
difficult; prosecutor asked “who owns the internet?”, judges
have no clue, court experts play leading role
-
sarkozy: caught 3 times no access to internet cut for 1 year; “no
reason internet should be lawless zone” “hit illeg downl
where it hurts”
-
bsa concentrates on illegal commercial users; pursue drm, don’t
focus so much on internet enforcement
4 Resources
|
