Original news and analysis on international IP policy
After years of at times embarrassing political and procedural wrangling, members of the European Union today agreed to create a single patent system for 25 EU member states, including a unified patent court split between Paris, Munich and London. The decision also contains a copyright element.
More than 130 members of the United States Congress have sent a letter to the US Trade Representative demanding greater access to the still-secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, while a new bill is being introduced to reform US trade policy. And another Congress member who earlier publicly leaked the intellectual property rights chapter of the agreement has sent a request to be included as a member of the US delegation to the negotiations.
United Kingdom communications regulator Ofcom today published three documents on digital copyright infringement, including a draft code requiring large internet service providers (ISPs) to inform customers of allegations that their internet connection has been used to infringe copyright, and consultations on the code and on cost-sharing.
It’s been called a patent war, and it’s raging over much of the globe. In at least ten countries - including the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and South Korea - Apple is locked in ferocious legal battles against Google, Samsung and HTC over whose smartphones and tablets infringe whose patents.
There’s a lot a stake: Damages could run into billions of dollars. Even worse, the loser could wind up being forbidden to sell its products in various markets.
This costly, high-stakes global patent war may seem unprecedented. But according to many experts, that’s only partly true. In many ways, this patent war is similar to major patent disputes in the past. And it is likely a foretaste of more patent wars in the future.
The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) today issued a declaration in support of public service media's role in society, including as a driver of innovation and a trusted independent voice.
The freedom to access the internet does not translate into freedom of expression in many countries of the world, including in western economies, according to speakers at a peer forum organised yesterday by the United States mission to the United Nations in Geneva.
At its annual meeting this week in Boston, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), put its name to a report promoting the advantages of intellectual property rights for the industry.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) yesterday released an interim report with the European Union on ways to expand transatlantic trade and investment. But apparently this would not including trying to bridge differences on intellectual property rights.
In an unprecedented move, the European Parliament Committee on International Trade (INTA) today in Brussels passed a report recommending the rejection of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Never before has INTA voted to reject a trade agreement negotiated by the Union.
The South African national anthem comprises the works Nkosi Sikelela’ iAfrika and Die Stem, which was formerly the national anthem. Nkosi has passed into the public domain and contrary to various claims cannot be used as the basis for royalty claims arising out of its use. The music of Die Stem is however still under copyright but its ownership has reverted from the State to the heirs of the composer in terms of the reversionary interest provisions of the British Imperial Copyright Act and is thus the subject of private ownership. In principle royalties can be charged in respect of its use as part of the current national anthem.
A trade association representing music publishers and songwriters today announced a model licensing deal with Universal Music Group that is expected to allow songwriters and publishers to share in the revenue from music videos. Universal is the first record label to make such an agreement, parties said.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and a leading US rights holder group have entered a case involving rights over prior art submitted in patent applications, arguing that it falls under fair use.