Original news and analysis on international IP policy
The European Parliament, Council and European Commission on 19 June cut a deal on a new regulation on the free flow of non-personal data. The regulation, which is expected to pass the final votes in Parliament and Council without further issue, is a European answer to concerns over potential data localization obligations, which came into some demand following the Snowden revelations about intelligence services hoovering data from netizens.
The European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) adopted its report on the European Commission-proposed copyright in the digital single market directive yesterday. The vote, by the lead committee vetting the proposal, sparked a continuation of the acrimonious debate that has raged for many months over several controversial provisions: The creation of a new right for online publishers and a requirement that Internet platforms monitor users’ uploads for copyright infringements. The narrow majority that approved the report by German Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Axel Voss, of the European People’s Party, “suggests that the struggle is still long,” telecom consultant Innocenzo Genna blogged.
A new PCT Proposal seeks to amend the PCT Regulations so as to provide Member States to enter into a voluntary or opt-in arrangement that would allow such Member state to ‘outsource’ it’s patenting mechanism to another country/ regional treaty office even if it is not a member of such regional treaty. However, a patenting office with a full-fledged examination cadre acts a core component in capacity building for the Member State and serves to protect against imposition of TRIPs plus provisions by being an active part of the national policy discourse. Instead of opting in for full-fledged ‘outsourcing’ of their patenting function, it may be a better idea (in the long term) to develop their internal patent office cadre, develop appropriate IP policies best suited to their stage of development and at the same time, giving deference to the patenting decisions of like-minded countries. Developing countries will stand to benefit more by showing deference to decisions of like countries, rather than delegating the power to make those decisions. By granting a Contracting state the power to grant and reject patents of another State, this proposal could tantamount to introducing substantive patent law provisions through the backdoor: an endeavour to harmonize substantive patent law that the WIPO has failed to achieve over the years.
The former mayor of Munich, Christian Ude (Social Democratic Party), clashed with the new head of IT of the Bavarian capital over the city's re-migration from Linux to Microsoft at an event organised by the Green Party yesterday.
Whether intellectual property rights are improving lives or whether they should be reined in by tools such as competition law to increase access to medicine, education, and innovation, was debated this week at the World Trade Organization committee on intellectual property. Also on the agenda was a suggestion by least-developed countries to create incentives for developed country companies and institutions to transfer technologies for the benefit of the poorest countries.
Copyright law, to be sustainable, calls for a balance. Under copyright law, creators receive exclusive rights to allow or prevent others from making copies of their works for a limited time as an incentive to create. Users receive benefits from the results of the creator’s labor, perhaps through watching, reading or listening to those results. Users may also benefit pursuant to a license to use the works in other ways. Eventually the works fall into the public domain, allowing further reuse by everyone. Recent litigation involving a graffiti artist and a purveyor of sportswear shows how sometimes a flexible mechanism for balancing the copyright entitlements of creators and users makes sense, writes Roy Kaufman.
The World Intellectual Property Organization copyright committee last week stepped back from a lunge toward a long-debated treaty to protect intellectual property rights of broadcasters, but still concluded with a recommendation for the full WIPO membership to consider taking the negotiation to the final political level later this year.
This week the World Intellectual Property Organization copyright committee is looking at exceptions and limitations to copyright. A range of stakeholders with opposing views delivered long statements explaining their positions. Some proponents of mandatory international limitations and exceptions for certain actors cited the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals inscribing equitable quality education as a right. Others, like publishers’ associations, said the current international system provides ample possibilities to devise national exceptions and limitations.
Sean Flynn writes: At this week’s meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, there was renewed attention to the limitations and exceptions provisions of a proposed treaty for broadcast organizations. Unfortunately, the result of that attention was to make the current draft more restrictive for the adoption of exceptions than prior drafts, and more restrictive than are present copyright treaties or the than the Rome Convention the broadcast treaty seeks to update.
Some three dozen global civil society groups have called on the G20 countries to set a digital agenda that puts the interests of people and their rights front and centre, in particular on privacy.