TheGuardian.com, here.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Open data: Unlocking innovation and performance with liquid information
McKinsey Global Institute, here.
Improving the Patent System to Promote American Innovation and Competitiveness
US Committee on the Judiciary, here.
Open Data Institute creates 13 'Nodes' around the world
Wired.co.uk, here. Trento (my University town) is one of the "Nodes".
Modernising Copyright
Irish Copyright Review Committee, here. A terrific reading, to be discussed with my "innovation management" students asap.
Copyright Review Committee comprised Dr Eoin O’Dell of Trinity College (Chair), Professor Steve Hedley of University College Cork and Ms Patricia McGovern of DFMG Solicitors.
Incipit "Copyright reform is in the air"
"In the same way as Molière's Monsieur Jourdain spoke prose without realising it, copyright vests even if the author does not realise it", p. 33.
Copyright Review Committee comprised Dr Eoin O’Dell of Trinity College (Chair), Professor Steve Hedley of University College Cork and Ms Patricia McGovern of DFMG Solicitors.
Incipit "Copyright reform is in the air"
"In the same way as Molière's Monsieur Jourdain spoke prose without realising it, copyright vests even if the author does not realise it", p. 33.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Individuazione di criticità concorrenziali nel settore degli appalti pubblici
Vademecum per le stazioni appaltanti, AGCM, qui.
Worldwide Competition Database
Competition Law Center, George Washington University Law School, here.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Friday, October 25, 2013
Bibliotheksverband fordert Gesetzesinitiative zur Gleichstellung von E-Books
Institut für Urheber- und Medienrecht, hìer.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Emerging markets like Brazil, South Africa initiate reforms in patent laws in line with India’s IP policy
Economictimes.indiatimes.com, here.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Turning the Page on Business Formats for Digital Platforms: Does Apple's Agency Model Soften Competition?
Ø. Foros, H. Kind, G. Shaffer, here.
Réponse à la consultation du Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication sur l’Open Data
Open Knowledge Foundation, here.
Proposed EU Data Protection Regulation: Unofficial Text published (single file)
Legalmemory.blogspot.com, here.
Librarians, Distributors Weigh in on Macmillan Ebook Lending | PubCrawl
Lj.libraryjournal.com, here.
Profiting from Free: The Scourge of Online Piracy and How Industry Can Help
A. Keen, sponsored by the Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (ICOMP), here (pdf file).
DOJ and FTC release model confidentiality waiver for international civil matters
Nortonrosefulbright.com, here.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Thursday, October 17, 2013
The Legal Status of Video Games: Comparative Analysis in National Approaches
WIPO Study, A. Ramos, L. Lopez, A. Rodriguez, T. Meng, and S. Abrams, here.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Hotfile on the Internet- What You Don’t Know Can Hurt Your DMCA Safe Harbor
Aaronsanderslaw.com, here.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Patent Challenges for Standard-Setting in the Global Economy: Lessons from Information and Communication Technology
National Academy of Sciences, here (pdf file).
To Infinity And Beyond: Business Model Adaptation In The Video Game Industry
Project-disco.org, here.
Plattformmärkte und vertikale Beschränkungen – insbesondere: Meistbegünstigungsklauseln
D. Zimmer, Präsentation hier.
Do Recruiters "Like" It? Privacy and Online Social Network Profile in Hiring: A Randomized Experiment
M. Manant, S. Pajak, N. Soulié, here.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Saturday, October 12, 2013
A very bad week for tobacco industry opposition to standard packaging
Tobaccounpacked.wordpress.com, here.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
Procompetitive regulation of personal data protection in the EU
S. Vezzoso (this blog's author), Presentation here.
Monday, October 07, 2013
Saturday, October 05, 2013
Erst jetzt erfahren...Mein TedTalk über UsedSoft in der FAZ
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 01.07.2013, Nr. 149, S. 22
Für ein Stück vom Software-Kuchen
Usedsoft AG kämpft immer noch gegen Widerstände
magr. FRANKFURT, 30. Juni. Vor zwei Monaten erfuhr der Gebrauchtsoftwarehändler Usedsoft einen Ritterschlag, wie ihn nur das Internet bietet. Im Rahmen der legendären amerikanischen Technikgesprächsreihe "Ted" stellte die italienische Juristin Simonetta Vezzoso die Geschichte von Usedsoft und dessen Gründer Peter Schneider vor - "einen meiner persönlichen Helden", wie Vezzoso bei der Veranstaltung Ende April im norditalienischen Trient sagte. Die Italienerin lehrt an der dortigen Universität Wettbewerbsrecht und präsentierte den Usedsoft-Gründer als einen David, der erfolgreich gegen die Goliaths der globalen Software-Branche gekämpft habe. Der Höhepunkt dieser Auseinandersetzungen liegt inzwischen ein Jahr zurück. Am 3. Juli vergangenen Jahres entschied der Europäische Gerichtshof in einem wegweisenden Verfahren zwischen dem Software-Hersteller Oracle und Schneiders Usedsoft, dass es grundsätzlich erlaubt sei, mit gebrauchter Software zu handeln - und zwar unabhängig davon, ob diese Software auf einem Datenträger, etwa einer CD, gespeichert ist, oder sie der Erstkäufer über das Internet auf seinem Rechner installiert hat. In beiden Fällen erschöpfe sich das sogenannte Verbreitungsrecht des Software-Herstellers - und das macht Computerprogramme eben handelbar. Für Peter Schneider ist dieser Handel ein Jahr nach dem Urteil nach eigenen Angaben wieder ein einträgliches Geschäft. Wie viel er genau damit verdient, nicht mehr verwendete Lizenzen für Office-Pakete oder Betriebssysteme des Software-Hauses Microsoft von Unternehmen aufzukaufen und an andere weiterzuverkaufen, behält Schneider lieber für sich. "Seit Juli vergangenen Jahres hat sich unser Umsatz mehr als verdoppelt, und wir erwirtschaften solide Gewinne", sagt Schneider nur. Auch die Zahl der Käufer wachse wieder. "Vor dem Urteil haben wir drei neue Kunden in der Woche gewonnen, seitdem sind es drei am Tag. Und inzwischen sind wir nahe dran, in Europa 5000 Kunden zu haben." Es kehre Normalität in den Markt ein, "mit Betonung auf einkehren", wie Schneider es ausdrückt. "Wenn der Markt zehn Jahren lang verunsichert war durch lächerliche Gerüchte und Behauptungen, dann kann man sich auch vorstellen, dass das nicht in einem Jahr zu ändern ist." Seit November versucht auch Hans-Olaf Henkel, diese Änderung voranzutreiben. Der ehemalige Vorsitzende des Bundesverbandes der Deutschen Industrie ist zusammen mit dem früheren Siemens-Chef Heinrich von Pierer einer von zwei Verwaltungsräten der in der Schweiz sitzenden Usedsoft AG. Henkel und Pierer überwachen ähnlich einem deutschen Aufsichtsrat das Unternehmen. Nach Henkels Worten versuchen die etablierten Spieler auf dem Software-Markt weiter Usedsoft Barrieren in den Weg zu legen. "Mir sind ein paar Dinge zu Ohren gekommen, die zum Teil groteske Formen annehmen", sagt Henkel. "Es hat zum Beispiel Korrespondenzen zwischen Microsoft und Kunden von Usedsoft gegeben, in denen Microsoft die Briefe von der Abteilung für Software-Piraterie hat unterschreiben lassen. Das ist ein übler Trick, um Kunden vorzugaukeln, dass es sich bei den Lizenzen von Usedsoft um Piraterieprodukte handelt." Ein Microsoft-Sprecher teilt auf Anfrage mit, dass Usedsoft seinen Kunden regelmäßig verschweige, aus welchen Lizenzverträgen die gebraucht gekauften Lizenzen stammen und wer der ursprüngliche Lizenznehmer sei. "Ohne diese Information kann ein Usedsoft-Kunde keinen lückenlosen Lizenznachweis führen. Die Interessen von Microsoft vertritt in solchen Fällen die Anti-Piraterie-Abteilung." Es sei generell frustrierend zu sehen, mit welchen Mitteln Software-Hersteller versuchen, das Geschäft zu behindern, sagt dagegen Usedsoft-Verwaltunsrat Henkel. Doch sei auch zu spüren, dass der Widerstand kleiner werde. Sein Geschäftsführer Schneider glaubt indes nicht, dass Unternehmen wie Microsoft oder auch der Kreativprogrammentwickler Adobe mit Abomodellen für Software dem Handel die Geschäftsgrundlage nehmen könnten. Außerdem machen die neuen Cloud-Geschäftsmodelle "nicht die Milliarden Lizenzen obsolet, die ohnehin schon im Markt vorhanden sind", sagt Schneider. Und mit diesen Lizenzen will er weiter Geld verdienen. Auf seine Adelung als Goliath kann er nach eigenen Angaben übrigens verzichten. "Ich will hier nicht als Robin Hood für Arme berühmt werden und mich auch nicht am Goliath abarbeiten", sagt Schneider. "Ich will einfach nur vom großen Kuchen des Software-Marktes ein Stück abhaben."
Für ein Stück vom Software-Kuchen
Usedsoft AG kämpft immer noch gegen Widerstände
magr. FRANKFURT, 30. Juni. Vor zwei Monaten erfuhr der Gebrauchtsoftwarehändler Usedsoft einen Ritterschlag, wie ihn nur das Internet bietet. Im Rahmen der legendären amerikanischen Technikgesprächsreihe "Ted" stellte die italienische Juristin Simonetta Vezzoso die Geschichte von Usedsoft und dessen Gründer Peter Schneider vor - "einen meiner persönlichen Helden", wie Vezzoso bei der Veranstaltung Ende April im norditalienischen Trient sagte. Die Italienerin lehrt an der dortigen Universität Wettbewerbsrecht und präsentierte den Usedsoft-Gründer als einen David, der erfolgreich gegen die Goliaths der globalen Software-Branche gekämpft habe. Der Höhepunkt dieser Auseinandersetzungen liegt inzwischen ein Jahr zurück. Am 3. Juli vergangenen Jahres entschied der Europäische Gerichtshof in einem wegweisenden Verfahren zwischen dem Software-Hersteller Oracle und Schneiders Usedsoft, dass es grundsätzlich erlaubt sei, mit gebrauchter Software zu handeln - und zwar unabhängig davon, ob diese Software auf einem Datenträger, etwa einer CD, gespeichert ist, oder sie der Erstkäufer über das Internet auf seinem Rechner installiert hat. In beiden Fällen erschöpfe sich das sogenannte Verbreitungsrecht des Software-Herstellers - und das macht Computerprogramme eben handelbar. Für Peter Schneider ist dieser Handel ein Jahr nach dem Urteil nach eigenen Angaben wieder ein einträgliches Geschäft. Wie viel er genau damit verdient, nicht mehr verwendete Lizenzen für Office-Pakete oder Betriebssysteme des Software-Hauses Microsoft von Unternehmen aufzukaufen und an andere weiterzuverkaufen, behält Schneider lieber für sich. "Seit Juli vergangenen Jahres hat sich unser Umsatz mehr als verdoppelt, und wir erwirtschaften solide Gewinne", sagt Schneider nur. Auch die Zahl der Käufer wachse wieder. "Vor dem Urteil haben wir drei neue Kunden in der Woche gewonnen, seitdem sind es drei am Tag. Und inzwischen sind wir nahe dran, in Europa 5000 Kunden zu haben." Es kehre Normalität in den Markt ein, "mit Betonung auf einkehren", wie Schneider es ausdrückt. "Wenn der Markt zehn Jahren lang verunsichert war durch lächerliche Gerüchte und Behauptungen, dann kann man sich auch vorstellen, dass das nicht in einem Jahr zu ändern ist." Seit November versucht auch Hans-Olaf Henkel, diese Änderung voranzutreiben. Der ehemalige Vorsitzende des Bundesverbandes der Deutschen Industrie ist zusammen mit dem früheren Siemens-Chef Heinrich von Pierer einer von zwei Verwaltungsräten der in der Schweiz sitzenden Usedsoft AG. Henkel und Pierer überwachen ähnlich einem deutschen Aufsichtsrat das Unternehmen. Nach Henkels Worten versuchen die etablierten Spieler auf dem Software-Markt weiter Usedsoft Barrieren in den Weg zu legen. "Mir sind ein paar Dinge zu Ohren gekommen, die zum Teil groteske Formen annehmen", sagt Henkel. "Es hat zum Beispiel Korrespondenzen zwischen Microsoft und Kunden von Usedsoft gegeben, in denen Microsoft die Briefe von der Abteilung für Software-Piraterie hat unterschreiben lassen. Das ist ein übler Trick, um Kunden vorzugaukeln, dass es sich bei den Lizenzen von Usedsoft um Piraterieprodukte handelt." Ein Microsoft-Sprecher teilt auf Anfrage mit, dass Usedsoft seinen Kunden regelmäßig verschweige, aus welchen Lizenzverträgen die gebraucht gekauften Lizenzen stammen und wer der ursprüngliche Lizenznehmer sei. "Ohne diese Information kann ein Usedsoft-Kunde keinen lückenlosen Lizenznachweis führen. Die Interessen von Microsoft vertritt in solchen Fällen die Anti-Piraterie-Abteilung." Es sei generell frustrierend zu sehen, mit welchen Mitteln Software-Hersteller versuchen, das Geschäft zu behindern, sagt dagegen Usedsoft-Verwaltunsrat Henkel. Doch sei auch zu spüren, dass der Widerstand kleiner werde. Sein Geschäftsführer Schneider glaubt indes nicht, dass Unternehmen wie Microsoft oder auch der Kreativprogrammentwickler Adobe mit Abomodellen für Software dem Handel die Geschäftsgrundlage nehmen könnten. Außerdem machen die neuen Cloud-Geschäftsmodelle "nicht die Milliarden Lizenzen obsolet, die ohnehin schon im Markt vorhanden sind", sagt Schneider. Und mit diesen Lizenzen will er weiter Geld verdienen. Auf seine Adelung als Goliath kann er nach eigenen Angaben übrigens verzichten. "Ich will hier nicht als Robin Hood für Arme berühmt werden und mich auch nicht am Goliath abarbeiten", sagt Schneider. "Ich will einfach nur vom großen Kuchen des Software-Marktes ein Stück abhaben."
Friday, October 04, 2013
Copyright and Creation - A Case for Promoting Inclusive Online Sharing
B. Cammaerts, R. Mansell, B. Meng, here.
Thursday, October 03, 2013
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
Dutch Minister answers parliamentary questions about copyright and the distribution of e-books
Futureofcopyright.com, here.
Global eBook: Current Conditions & Future Projections
Rüdiger Wischenbart Content and Consulting, here.
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
Hotel Online Booking: The OFT announces its intention to accept binding commitments
Kluwercompetitionlawblog.com, here.
New UK competition law landscape begins to take shape with creation of new authority
Edwardswildman.com, here.
Brazil’s patent reform: innovation towards national competitiveness
Chamber of Deputies, Center for Strategic Studies and Debates, here.
UK isolated in Data Protection Regulation discussions; is it a result of NSA shenanigans?
Amberhawk.typepad.com, here.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
Mastercard et Visa: baisse significative de leurs principales commissions interbancaires respectives
Autorité de la concurrence, ici.
The Future of Reverse Payment Settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis
Symposium, Preprints here (antitrustprof_blog)
Friday, September 20, 2013
Exception "handicap" au droit d'auteur et développement de l'offre de publications accessibles à l'ère numérique
Ministère de la Culture, Inspection générale des affaires culturelles, ici, ici.
Solving the Orphan Works Problem for the United States
D. Hansen, K. Hashimoto, G. Hinze, P. Samuelson, J. Urban, here.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
The Role of Voluntary Agreements in the U.S. Intellectual Property System
US House, Hearing, written testimonies here.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Understanding the Role of Search in Online Piracy
Prepared by Millward Brown Digital for the MPAA, here.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Challenges in Competition Policy and Regulation in a Globalizing World
Panel, Video here.
- Justus Haucap (Monopolkommission)
- Kai-Uwe Kühn (Europäische Kommission)
- Jorge Padilla (Compass Lexecon Europe)
Monday, September 16, 2013
The 2013 Marrakesh Treaty: Providing Access to Copyrighted Works for the Blind and Print Disabled
Program on Information Justice and the Public Interest, American University Law School, Public Forum, Video here.
Parliamentary questions in The Netherlands about copyright and the distribution of e-books
Futureofcopyright.com, here.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Opposition to Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers’ request to exempt e-readers from the accessibility requirement
Organizations representing the interests of people with disabilities, here.
Status of the Proposed EU Data Protection Regulation: Where Do We Stand?
C. Burton, A. Pateraki, here.
Monday, September 09, 2013
The Commissioner of Competition v. VisaCanada Corporation and MasterCard International Incorporated
Competition Tribunal, File No.: CT-2010-10, here.
Sunday, September 08, 2013
Saturday, September 07, 2013
Friday, September 06, 2013
Thursday, September 05, 2013
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
AU Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Go for Fair Use) Bill 2013
Submissions received by the Committee, here.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
Monday, September 02, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
My Take on the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty/14/END
(Previous episodes here).
Thus, for instance, the compatibility, under
the second prong of the three-step test, of the commercial availability of
accessible format copies with the enjoyment of limitations and exceptions for
the print disabled has not been questioned in US copyright law, where the so called “Chafee
Amendment” does not require authorized entities to check for the commercial availability
of accessible format copies prior to making copies.
Nevertheless, countries are in principle free to enact limitations and exceptions in their national copyright legislation
that are located well below the “upper” limit indicated by the test. The 2006
Sullivan Study noted in this respect that
exceptions for the benefit of the visually impaired in some national copyright laws included a requirement that the work to be used had not been
published already “in a special format” or “in an accessible format."
When national legislators insist on the absence
of commercial availability, there is often the recognition that the mere presence of market offerings does not normally
suffice to facilitate access to works by disabled persons, though. Thus, for instance,
the recently amended Canadian Copyright Act states that the exemption under Section
32 for the benefit of “persons with perceptual disabilities” does not apply
where the work in a format specially designed to meet the needs of any person
with a perceptual disability is commercially available,
by that meaning “available on the Canadian market within a reasonable time and for a reasonable
price and may be located with reasonable
effort” (emphasis added). Also the UK proposed exception for the benefit of disabled persons,
currently under review, would apply only if accessible format copies “are not
commercially available on reasonable
terms with the authority of the copyright owner” (emphasis added).
The Marrakesh Treaty does not
contain any mandatory reference to “commercial availability”. Under Art. 4 of
the Treaty, devoted to “National Law Limitations and Exceptions Regarding
Accessible Format Copies,” paragraph 4 merely states that “a contracting Party may
confine limitations or exceptions under this Article to works which, in the
particular accessible format, cannot be obtained commercially under reasonable terms
for beneficiary persons in that market”
Moreover, an Agreed statement confirms that the commercial availability
requirement under Art.4(4) does not prejudge whether or not a limitation or
exception under Article 4 is consistent with the three-step test.
--------------------
This post concludes Waves' first Feuilleton estival Coming "soon" a paper loosely based on these posts (working title: "Marrakesh Treaty for the Print Disabled: Limitations and Exceptions in Transition)."
Thursday, August 29, 2013
My Take on the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty/13
(Available episodes so far here).
Furthermore, as mentioned above, the three-step test formed the dense background against which the domestic and the cross-border contours of the mandatory exemptions for the benefit of the print disabled were negotiated at the WIPO. Particularly illustrative in this respect is the issue of commercial availability, which negotiators could solve only in the very last hours of the Marrakesh diplomatic conference.
Briefly put, the question was whether it was appropriate to impose the lack of commercial offers of accessible/special format works as a condition of the applicability of the limitations and exceptions established by the Treaty. In other words, whether it was necessary to check for commercial availability of publisher offerings with accessibility features able to meet the needs of the print disabled, before invoking the exemptions covered by the new international instrument.
During the treaty negotiations, the World Blind Union and other stakeholders raised deep concerns especially regarding the requirement to check for commercial availability in another country, considered a serious obstacle to the fulfillment of the aim of the Treaty, that was notably “to ensure that a greater number of books and information were available to print disabled and blind people.” According to those opposing the introduction of commercial availability into the language of the treaty, the requirement would have entailed bureaucratic burden and liability risks, seriously hampering the cross-border circulation of accessible formats copies for the benefit of print disabled persons. Instead, publishers and other organizations mainly representing rightholders supported the introduction of that requirement, noting that commercial publishing and commercial products were an important aspect of providing access to persons with print disability, in developed and developing countries, and that the bureaucracy and liability burdens could be substantially reduced by spelling out simple, easy to use, and effective mechanisms. Moreover, the principle of priority for commercial works was needed in order to incentivize publishers to create accessible copies.
Apparently, one more “technical” argument made by some negotiators against the introduction of commercial availability language into the final text of the treaty for the print disabled, was that the requirement was already included in the second step of the three-step test. The reply from the publishers' side was that “(B)eside the fact that the three step test represented as essential principle of the copyright system, there was a need to have a clear statement in the text that incentivized publishers to provide accessible formats from the outset at the same time, place and price.”
The second step of the well-known test states that limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights are confined to cases which “do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work.” The Main Committee I at the Stockholm Conference introducing the test into the Berne Convention, gave the practical example of photocopying: “If it (photocopying, SV) consists of producing a very large number of copies, it may not be permitted, as it conflicts with a normal exploitation of the work.” However, what exactly constitutes the normal exploitation of the work has not ceased being debated since the Stockholm Conference. The WTO Panel noted in this respect that “... not every use of a work, which, in principle is covered by the scope of exclusive rights and involves commercial gain, necessarily conflicts with a normal exploitation of that work. If this were the case, hardly any exception or limitation could pass the test of the second condition.” Only under an absolutist understanding of IP protection, refuted also by the WTO Panel, the potential of commercial gain should bar per se the application of limitations and exemptions.
(Last episode of Waves' Feuilleton de l'été 2013 possibly tomorrow).
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
My Take on the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty/12
(Available episodes so far here).
Short of incorporating a stand-alone three-step test into the final language of the Marrakesh Treaty, the “general clause” of Article 1 should be read as preponderantly referring to the non-derogation of the obligations concerning the three-step test that contracting parties have to each other under any other treaties. Furthermore, Article 11, under the heading “General Obligations on Limitations and Exceptions,” states that contracting parties, “in adopting measures necessary to ensure the application of this Treaty,” need to comply with their extant obligations concerning the application of the various iterations of the three-step test under Berne, TRIPS, and the WCT.
At the close of the intense Marrakesh negotiations, a carefully achieved compromise emerged also on the “Berne Gap” issue. Under Article 5(4)(a), when an authorized entity of a non-Berne country receives accessible format copies from another country, it will ensure that those copies “are only reproduced, distributed or made available for the benefit of beneficiary persons in that Contracting Party’s jurisdiction.” In other words, a non-Berne country is not under any obligation to apply the three-step test as long as the relevant copyright activities (reproduction, distribution, and making available) are for the benefit of visually impaired persons of its own jurisdiction. In this respect, the final wording of this provision is less strict than proposals to bridge the Berne Gap by incorporating into national legislation the Berne version of the three-step test in connection with the cross-border receipt of accessible format copies, without distinction as to the country of the beneficiary person.
Article 5(4)(b) envisages a slightly different solution with regard to non-WCT countries. An authorized entity in a country which is not party to the WCT is under the obligation to confine the distribution and the making available of accessible format copies to that jurisdiction, unless the contracting party “limits (sic) limitations and exceptions implementing this Treaty to the right of distribution and the right of making available to the public to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.” As such, Article 5(4)(b) of the Marrakesh Treaty contains a specific obligation directed at contracting parties that are not party to the WCT, in the shape of a condition for letting authorized entities in those countries export accessible format copies to other contracting parties. In this specific case, non-WCT countries need to implement the Marrakesh Treaty by providing for limitations and exceptions in the national copyright law that apply the instrument-specific three-step test to the right of distribution and to the right of making available to the public. Thus, the Marrakesh-specific three-step test would apply, it seems, not only to exporting activities, but also to domestic acts of distribution and making available.
The first of the two agreed statements concerning Article 5(4)(b) isolates the Marrakesh-specific obligation to adopt the three-step test from obligations under other international instruments. Moreover, it clarifies that Article 5(4)(b) should not be seen as a “Trojan horse” expanding the application of the three-step test beyond the area of exceptions and limitations for the print disabled covered by the Treaty. The second agreed statement clarifies that the Marrakesh Treaty does not create any obligation “to ratify or accede to the WCT or to comply with any of its provisions.” At the same time, the Marrakesh Treaty does not prejudice “any rights limitations and exceptions contained in the WCT.”
In sum, the Marrakesh negotiators have avoided inserting into the new copyright treaty a full-fledged three-step test, to apply on top of the already existing obligations under other binding instruments. After the Marrakesh Treaty, it is possible to refer to the precedent of a treaty in international copyright law without its own version of a comprehensive three-step test. More importantly, the point has been made that the respect of the contracting parties’ obligations under the existing copyright treaties and conventions is compatible with an international legal instrument introducing clear, manageable mandatory exceptions and limitations in the interest of the general public. The only, minor extension of the three-step test concerns non-WCT countries in connection with the export of accessible format copies to other contracting parties. As seen above, the Marrakesh-specific three-step test is likely to apply on acts of distribution and making available without distinction as to the destination of the copies in accessible formats.
(To be continued)
Short of incorporating a stand-alone three-step test into the final language of the Marrakesh Treaty, the “general clause” of Article 1 should be read as preponderantly referring to the non-derogation of the obligations concerning the three-step test that contracting parties have to each other under any other treaties. Furthermore, Article 11, under the heading “General Obligations on Limitations and Exceptions,” states that contracting parties, “in adopting measures necessary to ensure the application of this Treaty,” need to comply with their extant obligations concerning the application of the various iterations of the three-step test under Berne, TRIPS, and the WCT.
At the close of the intense Marrakesh negotiations, a carefully achieved compromise emerged also on the “Berne Gap” issue. Under Article 5(4)(a), when an authorized entity of a non-Berne country receives accessible format copies from another country, it will ensure that those copies “are only reproduced, distributed or made available for the benefit of beneficiary persons in that Contracting Party’s jurisdiction.” In other words, a non-Berne country is not under any obligation to apply the three-step test as long as the relevant copyright activities (reproduction, distribution, and making available) are for the benefit of visually impaired persons of its own jurisdiction. In this respect, the final wording of this provision is less strict than proposals to bridge the Berne Gap by incorporating into national legislation the Berne version of the three-step test in connection with the cross-border receipt of accessible format copies, without distinction as to the country of the beneficiary person.
Article 5(4)(b) envisages a slightly different solution with regard to non-WCT countries. An authorized entity in a country which is not party to the WCT is under the obligation to confine the distribution and the making available of accessible format copies to that jurisdiction, unless the contracting party “limits (sic) limitations and exceptions implementing this Treaty to the right of distribution and the right of making available to the public to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.” As such, Article 5(4)(b) of the Marrakesh Treaty contains a specific obligation directed at contracting parties that are not party to the WCT, in the shape of a condition for letting authorized entities in those countries export accessible format copies to other contracting parties. In this specific case, non-WCT countries need to implement the Marrakesh Treaty by providing for limitations and exceptions in the national copyright law that apply the instrument-specific three-step test to the right of distribution and to the right of making available to the public. Thus, the Marrakesh-specific three-step test would apply, it seems, not only to exporting activities, but also to domestic acts of distribution and making available.
The first of the two agreed statements concerning Article 5(4)(b) isolates the Marrakesh-specific obligation to adopt the three-step test from obligations under other international instruments. Moreover, it clarifies that Article 5(4)(b) should not be seen as a “Trojan horse” expanding the application of the three-step test beyond the area of exceptions and limitations for the print disabled covered by the Treaty. The second agreed statement clarifies that the Marrakesh Treaty does not create any obligation “to ratify or accede to the WCT or to comply with any of its provisions.” At the same time, the Marrakesh Treaty does not prejudice “any rights limitations and exceptions contained in the WCT.”
In sum, the Marrakesh negotiators have avoided inserting into the new copyright treaty a full-fledged three-step test, to apply on top of the already existing obligations under other binding instruments. After the Marrakesh Treaty, it is possible to refer to the precedent of a treaty in international copyright law without its own version of a comprehensive three-step test. More importantly, the point has been made that the respect of the contracting parties’ obligations under the existing copyright treaties and conventions is compatible with an international legal instrument introducing clear, manageable mandatory exceptions and limitations in the interest of the general public. The only, minor extension of the three-step test concerns non-WCT countries in connection with the export of accessible format copies to other contracting parties. As seen above, the Marrakesh-specific three-step test is likely to apply on acts of distribution and making available without distinction as to the destination of the copies in accessible formats.
(To be continued)
Indian government refutes Novartis' allegations of 'discriminatory' patent practices
Economictimes.indiatimes.com, here.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
My Take on the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty/11
(Available episodes so far here).
The 1996 WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and the Beijing Audiovisual Performances Treaty, concluded in 2012, also include instrument-specific three-step tests. As to the more recent Treaty, Article 13(2) states that contracting parties, in providing in their national legislations limitations or exceptions with regard to the protection of performers, “shall confine” them “to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the performance and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the performer.” An agreed statement concerning Article 13 of the Beijing Treaty adds that the WCT agreed statement concerning Art.10, considered at length above, “is applicable mutatis mutandis also to Article 13.”
Having regard to its importance and its historically laden complexity, it comes as little surprise that the three-step test soon became one of the most debated issues in the course of the years-long negotiations that led to the successful adoption of the Marrakesh Treaty. In particular, there were concerns and suspicions from the opposite ends of the negotiating tables that the treaty for print disabled persons could be used either to expand or to reduce the reach of the test, with ripple effects propagating throughout the IP system. Briefly put, on the one hand discussions revolved around the three-step test’s appropriate stance; on the other hand, the domestic and the cross-border contours of the mandatory exemption for the benefit of the print disabled were negotiated against the background of the application of the test.
With regard to the first issue, much debated was especially whether the three-step test should have been inserted into the Treaty as a stand-alone provision. In this respect, the proposed broad Marrakesh three-step test, supported in particular by industry stakeholders and delegates from developed countries, would have resembled Art.5(5) of the InfoSoc Directive. Similarly to what happened in connection with the implementation of the EU Directive into a number of the member States’ legal systems, some contracting parties to the Marrakesh Treaty might have then decided to implement the obligations under the international instrument in question not only by enacting self-contained limitations and exceptions for the benefit of the print-disabled, but also by replicating, in their domestic legislation, the extensive language of the three-step test, thus infusing more complexity and uncertainty into the system. Nevertheless, one of the most influential arguments supporting the inclusion of a stand-alone three-step test, especially towards the end of the negotiations, was made in relation to an issue that came to be dubbed the “Berne Gap.” A number of countries which might have been signatories to the treaty for the print disabled, were not Berne, WCT or TRIPS parties, and therefore not bound by the therein envisioned three-step test(s), giving rise to particular concerns in connection with the cross-border exchange of accessible format copies.
In the early stages of the negotiations, Art.2(2) of the EU Draft Joint Recommendation contained the proposal for a stand-alone test. Two years later, Article Ebis of the November 23, 2012 draft text put forth a pair of basic alternative formulations (plus some variations) of the three-step test, whose most stringent incarnation would have subjected national exceptions and limitations already consistent with the Treaty to a full-blown, additional review shaped in the language of Article 13 of TRIPS (“interest of the right holder”). On this specific issue, the last draft text of the treaty adopted before Marrakesh still indicated the necessity of thorough discussions to be carried forward at the diplomatic conference.
(To be continued).
The 1996 WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and the Beijing Audiovisual Performances Treaty, concluded in 2012, also include instrument-specific three-step tests. As to the more recent Treaty, Article 13(2) states that contracting parties, in providing in their national legislations limitations or exceptions with regard to the protection of performers, “shall confine” them “to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the performance and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the performer.” An agreed statement concerning Article 13 of the Beijing Treaty adds that the WCT agreed statement concerning Art.10, considered at length above, “is applicable mutatis mutandis also to Article 13.”
Having regard to its importance and its historically laden complexity, it comes as little surprise that the three-step test soon became one of the most debated issues in the course of the years-long negotiations that led to the successful adoption of the Marrakesh Treaty. In particular, there were concerns and suspicions from the opposite ends of the negotiating tables that the treaty for print disabled persons could be used either to expand or to reduce the reach of the test, with ripple effects propagating throughout the IP system. Briefly put, on the one hand discussions revolved around the three-step test’s appropriate stance; on the other hand, the domestic and the cross-border contours of the mandatory exemption for the benefit of the print disabled were negotiated against the background of the application of the test.
With regard to the first issue, much debated was especially whether the three-step test should have been inserted into the Treaty as a stand-alone provision. In this respect, the proposed broad Marrakesh three-step test, supported in particular by industry stakeholders and delegates from developed countries, would have resembled Art.5(5) of the InfoSoc Directive. Similarly to what happened in connection with the implementation of the EU Directive into a number of the member States’ legal systems, some contracting parties to the Marrakesh Treaty might have then decided to implement the obligations under the international instrument in question not only by enacting self-contained limitations and exceptions for the benefit of the print-disabled, but also by replicating, in their domestic legislation, the extensive language of the three-step test, thus infusing more complexity and uncertainty into the system. Nevertheless, one of the most influential arguments supporting the inclusion of a stand-alone three-step test, especially towards the end of the negotiations, was made in relation to an issue that came to be dubbed the “Berne Gap.” A number of countries which might have been signatories to the treaty for the print disabled, were not Berne, WCT or TRIPS parties, and therefore not bound by the therein envisioned three-step test(s), giving rise to particular concerns in connection with the cross-border exchange of accessible format copies.
In the early stages of the negotiations, Art.2(2) of the EU Draft Joint Recommendation contained the proposal for a stand-alone test. Two years later, Article Ebis of the November 23, 2012 draft text put forth a pair of basic alternative formulations (plus some variations) of the three-step test, whose most stringent incarnation would have subjected national exceptions and limitations already consistent with the Treaty to a full-blown, additional review shaped in the language of Article 13 of TRIPS (“interest of the right holder”). On this specific issue, the last draft text of the treaty adopted before Marrakesh still indicated the necessity of thorough discussions to be carried forward at the diplomatic conference.
(To be continued).
Monday, August 26, 2013
Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials
E. Budish, B. Roin, H. Williams, here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Centre for a Digital Society , Video here . These are my very rough talking points on pay or okay in full length (more than I actually had...
-
Arstechnica.co.uk, here .
-
LG Frankfurt am Main, 2-06 O 172/09 (verkündet am 13.05.2009). Lesenswertes aus der Begründung (meine Hervorhebungen): "Vorstellbare ...
-
TechCrunch, here .
-
Here .
-
Next Inpact, ici ..
-
TechCrunch, here .
-
FAZ, hier .
