Original news and analysis on international IP policy
NEW YORK – At a conference of hundreds of performers and agents in a hotel perched on Times Square this week, panellists told some interesting stories about intellectual property rights and protecting – or failing to protect - creations and performances.
Modernisation of EU copyright and intellectual property rights enforcement law tops Europe's agenda in 2016. Trademark reform legislation approved last year takes effect this year, and a preliminary deal on trade secrets protection is expected to be finalised. Work on the unitary patent system continues, and there's an increased focus on the issue of patents versus plant breeders' rights.
Familiar intellectual property concerns will continue to vex the United States in the coming year. The scope of patent-eligible subject matter, the requirements for safe-harbor protections against copyright infringement, and the registration of disparaging trademarks will be among the top IP issues to watch in 2016, according to experts.
America’s International Trade Commission is a tempting venue for US intellectual property owners. The agency acts quickly, has a history of supporting IP owners, and offers a powerful means to stop infringing products from entering the US. So when the ITC expanded its jurisdiction last year, claiming the power to stop online infringements, many IP owners cheered. And many internet companies fretted. Until last month, when the Federal Circuit had its say.
For the first time in its history, the G10 Commission, an oversight body over the German Intelligence Services, will go to court to challenge decisions by the German government and the services, German Public Broadcasting and the Süddeutsche Zeitung revealed last night.
Ten sites allegedly disrespectful to Kemal Attaturk, founder of modern Turkey, were enough for the courts in Turkey to ban a whole platform - YouTube - from 2008 until the end of 2010. But a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights today declared the blanket blocking a violation of the right to receive and impart information freely, protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Jonathan Band writes: During the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, many concerns were voiced about how TPP would mandate adoption of US-style statutory damages. Under the US Copyright Act, a court can award damages of up to $30,000 per work infringed, which can be ratcheted up to $150,000 per work infringed in cases of willful infringement. Scholars have found that statutory damages in the US have discouraged investment in innovative technologies while incentivizing the emergence of copyright trolls. So how bad is the statutory damages provision in the final TPP agreement?
The US government has been less than candid about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. While the agreement was being negotiated, the US Trade Representative stated that a much-criticized arbitration process included in the TPP would not apply to intellectual property. Turns out, it does apply to IP. And it provides foreign corporations with a huge advantage in IP disputes – private arbitrations that can override courts and statutes, effectively rewriting a nation’s IP laws.
The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling on 29 October related to the definition of a “database,” more especially of the “independent material” constituting a database.
A cybersquatter based in Indonesia who created a website falsely using the Electronic Frontier Foundation name but offering malware did so in bad faith and with malicious intent, a World Intellectual Property Organization panellist has found.
European reproduction schemes for compensating authors don't cover publishers, the European Court of Justice said in a 12 November judgment in Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v. Reprobel SCRL and Epson Europe BV.
NAIROBI, Kenya - After a five year gruelling court battle, the indigenous Maasai community in Northern Tanzania has lost the right to its traditional land after the High Court handed it to a US-based tourism company in a court ruling on 27 October.