Tuesday, April 09, 2013

India’s Patently Wise Decision

J. Stiglitz, A. Jayadev, here

40 Years of Music Industry Change, In 40 Seconds or Less...

Digitalmusicnews.com, here

Can you find me now? How carriers sell your location and get away with it

Theverge.com, here

Voyage au cœur des smartphones et des applications mobiles avec la CNIL et Inria

Cnil.fr, ici

E-Books to be available in UK libraries under Public Lending Right

Futureofcopyright.com, here

A Developmental Approach to the Patent-Antitrust Interface

T. Cheng, here

My thoughts on Mendeley/Elsevier & why I left to start PeerJ

Enjoythedisruption.com, here.

Abuse Of IP Rights Under China's Antitrust Rules: Recent Cases Have A Potentially Serious Impact

McDermott Will & Emery, here

Netherlands: The Tax Deductibility Of European Fines For Cartel Violations: On Borrowed Time

NautaDutilh, here

Colleen Chien on Patent Assertion Entities

Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog, here.

Microsoft and others file EU antitrust complaint over Android app bundling

TheVerge.com, here.
---------
Two central allegations, it seems:
I
- Android is the dominating mobile operating system (running in 70% of units shipped at the end of 2012)
-  Android phone makers wanting to include "must-have" Google apps such as Maps or YouTube are required "to pre-load an entire suite of Google mobile services and to give them prominent default placement on the phone"
- Other apps and services providers are disadvantaged
- Google’s Android is put in control of consumer data on a majority of smartphones shipped today.

II
- Google distributes Android open source operating system for free, i.e. below cost
- this makes it difficult for other providers of operating systems to recoup investments in competing with Google’s dominant mobile platform.

Fairsearch's 2011 White Paper indirectly provides some additional background information to the allegations, see e.g. p. 35: Google is also attempting to monopolize mobile search and search advertising through the Android operating system...According to some, Google is “not trying to make a profit on Android or [its web-browser] Chrome . . . .In essence [by giving Android away for free], they are not just building a moat; Google is also scorching the earth for 250 miles around the outside of the castle to ensure no one can approach it"(reference omitted).

An overview of the other competition complaints filed by Google's competitors (source: Fairsearcheurope.eu, here):

Read also Groklaw's take on the allegations, here

Monday, April 08, 2013

Content ownership and resale

Toc.oreilly.com, here

Conceptual Study on Innovation, Intellectual Property and the Informal Economy

WIPO Secretariat and J. de Beer, here

Access and the Public Domain (Fordham IP Talk)

R. Picker, Video (Slide Talk), here

One on One: Jason Merkoski and the View of E-Books From the Inside

Bits.blogs.nytimes.com, here

Robots, the DMCA, and Patents: Threats, Strategy, and Caselaw in the Aftermarket

C. Hicks, K. Liu, here

TPM systems to protect video games and illegal “mod chips” to circumvent them – in the light of a referral to the CJEU

M. Ficsor, Paper here, Presentation here

Mobile privacy. A better practice guide for mobile app developers.


Consultation draft, Australian Government, here.

The Single Market for financial services and competition policy

European Competition Forum 2013, Videos here

State of Play: Treaty for the Blind negotiations at the World Intellectual Property Organization

Keionline.org, here

Letting Down Our Guard With Web Privacy

Nytimes.com, here

The IP-Competition Wars: Why is There a Tug of War When We All Share the Same Goal?–An Inventive Competitive Economy

E. Fox, Presentation here

Recent Japanese Cases Regarding Standard Essential Patents and FRAND Licensing Declaration

S. Oda, Presentation here

Legal Assessment of Patent Settlement Agreements Containing “Reverse” Payments

R. Subiotto, Presentation here

The preparation of a WIPO instrument/treaty on exceptions or limitations for the visually impaired in the light of the WIPO-Unesco Model Provisions on the same adoped in the “guided development” period

M. Ficsor, here

The Oracle Speaks (UsedSoft)

P. Charleton, S. Kelly, here

Papers and Presentations from the Fordham IP Conference 2013

List here.

Comments of Google, Blackberry, Earthlink and Red Hat on Patent Assertion Entities

Here

Walking the Data Protection Tightrope: The Google Privacy Policy Investigations

Europeanlawblog.eu, here

Not (Necessarily) Narrower: Rethinking the Relative Scope of Copyright Protection for Designs

S. Burstein, here

L'Union européenne, colonie du monde numérique ?

C. Morin-Desailly, ici

Smokescreen: How Managers Behave When They Have Something to Hide

T. Artiga Gonzalez, M. Schmid, D. Yermack, here.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Microsoft bans used games

News.techeye.net, here

CJEU Referral in Huawei v. ZTE Concerning FRAND

Here (German).
Ehoganlovells.com, here.
See also Fosspatents.com, here and Juve.de, here (German).
-------------
My quick reading of the CJEU referral, based on the translation of the Court's order as kindly made available by Fosspatents.
The questions essentially revolve around the concept of “willing licensee” against which the SEP (standard essential patent) owner has been seeking an injunction. The concept at issue can obviously have even dramatically different shades and meanings. In fact, it can range from a mere “(oral) declaration in broad and general terms indicating the [the potential licensee’s] willingness to enter into negotiations” to “a binding offer to the SEP owner on terms that the SEP owner cannot refuse without treating the infringer unfairly or discriminatorily”, furthermore requiring that “the infringer, in anticipation of the license he is seeking, already complies with his contractual obligations with respect to past acts of infringement.” 

A middle ground could be the requirement that “the infringer has indeed entered into negotiations, such as by, for example, communicating terms and conditions under which he is prepared to conclude a license agreement.”

In the event that “the [infringer's] submission of a binding offer to conclude a license agreement is a requirement” it would then be necessary to clarify whether that offer should “involve specific substantive and/or chronological requirements”, whether it would “have to set forth all of the commercial terms that in accordance with relevant industry practice are usually set forth in such license agreements,” and whether it could “be conditioned upon actual use and/or validity of the SEP-in-suit”. Moreover, “in the event that the infringer's [precontractual] fulfillment of obligations arising from the requested license is a requirement” for the finding of a “willing licensee,” the Court asks whether the infringer could be “required, in particular, to make disclosures relating to past acts of infringement and/or to pay [precontractual] royalties”, and, finally, whether the “obligation to pay [precontractual] royalties” could also “be fulfilled by giving security.”

Text-mining spat heats up

Nature.com, here

Open Letter to Vice-President Almunia from 11 Complainants (Foundem/Google)

Searchneutrality.org, here

US Court decision on electronic press clippings

AP v Meltwater, AP Press Release here

Qualcomm and BlackBerry back Google against Judge Posner and Apple on FRAND patents

Fosspatents.com, here.

Stellungnahme des MPI zum Referentenentwurf für einen „3. Korb“

Hier

Coordinating Extensive Trademark Rights and Competition Policy

K. Li, here

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Parallel Exclusion

S. Hemphill, T. Wu, here.

"In industries marked by rapid technological change, the exclusion of entrants has a far greater impact on the development of the industry. In these industries, exclusion, not price-fixing, is the “supreme evil” that antitrust should address.", p. 1212.

Supreme Court on the "first sale" doctrine and copyrighted works lawfully made abroad

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. 11–697, here.

The questions:
"Putting section numbers to the side, we ask whether
the “first sale” doctrine applies to protect a buyer or other
lawful owner of a copy (of a copyrighted work) lawfully
manufactured abroad. Can that buyer bring that copy
into the United States (and sell it or give it away) without
obtaining permission to do so from the copyright owner?
Can, for example, someone who purchases, say at a used
bookstore, a book printed abroad subsequently resell it
without the copyright owner’s permission?", p. 6.

The answer:
"In our view, the answers to these questions are, yes. We
hold that the “first sale” doctrine applies to copies of a
copyrighted work lawfully made abroad."

Some competition scholar's highlights:

"The “first sale” doctrine is a common-law doctrine with
an impeccable historic pedigree", p. 18.
"American law too has generally thought that com­petition, including freedom to resell, can work to the ad­vantage of the consumer", p. 19.
"the Constitution’s language
nowhere suggests that its limited exclusive right should
include a right to divide markets or a concomitant right
to charge different purchasers different prices for the same
book, say to increase or to maximize gain...(T)o the contrary, Congress enacted a copyright law that
(through the “first sale” doctrine) limits copyright holders’
ability to divide domestic markets. And that limitation is
consistent with antitrust laws that ordinarily forbid mar­ket divisions.", p. 32.



LG suspects Samsung of infringing its eye-tracking patents with the Galaxy S 4

Engadget.com, here

General Court on the "Bananas Cartel"

Case T‑588/08, Dole Food Company, Inc., and Dole Germany OHG, v European Commission, here

Fixing the Worst Law in Technology

T. Wu, here

Book Review: Is Copyright Reform Possible?

P. Samuelson, here

The SHIELD Act: When Bad Economic Studies Make Bad Laws

Truthonthemarket.com, here

Monday, March 18, 2013

The Register’s Call for Updates to U.S. Copyright Law

M. Pallante, here.

Some general points:
- Because the dissemination of content is so
pervasive to life in the 21st century, the law also should be less technical and more helpful to those who need to navigate it.
- central equation for Congress to consider is what does and does not belong under a copyright owner’s control in the digital age
- apply fresh eyes to the next great copyright act to ensure that
the copyright law remains relevant and functional
- keeping the public
interest at the forefront, including how to define the public interest and who may speak for it
- possible and necessary to have a copyright law that combinessafeguards for free
expression, guarantees of due process, mechanisms for access, and respect for intellectual
property
- authors are intertwined with the interests of the public. As the first beneficiaries of the copyright
law, they are not a counterweight to the public interest but instead are at the very center of the
equation

To do list:
- clarifying the scope of exclusive rights revising exceptions and
limitations for libraries and archives, addressing orphan works, accommodating persons who
have print disabilities, providing guidance to educational institutions, exempting incidental
copies in appropriate instances, updating enforcement provisions, providing guidance on
statutory damages, reviewing the efficacy of the DMCA, assisting with small copyright claims,
reforming the music marketplace, updating the framework for cable and satellite transmissions,
encouraging new licensing regimes, and improving the systems of copyright registration and
recordation


"Bold" adjustments to the general framework:
- reverting works to the public
domain after a period of life plus fifty years unless heirs or successors register their interests with  the Copyright Office
- requiring copyright owners to object or “opt
out” in order to prevent certain uses, whether paid or unpaid, by educational institutions or  libraries

Digital Music Consumption on the Internet: Evidence from Clickstream Data

L. Aguiar, B. Martens, here

The Next Great Copyright Act

M. Pallante, here

eBook Use and Acceptance in an Undergraduate Institution


Springer eBooks, here (pdf file).

Can I Get Some Privacy?

Stanford Magazine, here

Adding DRM to the HTML standard

Guardian.co.uk, here

Legal rights in big data: the elephant in the room

Guardian.co.uk, here

The Practical Implications of the FTC’s FRAND Settlements in the Google and Bosch/SPX Matters

B. Rafkin, here

The Right Tool for the Job: Limiting the Use of Section 5 of the FTC Act for Patent HoldUp Cases

W. Carson, here, p. 5 ff.

LA GRATUITE PEUT-ELLE AVOIR DES EFFETS ANTICONCURRENTIELS ? Une perspective d’économie industrielle sur le cas Google (Maps)

E. Malavolti, F. Marty, ici

House Hearing on Abusive Patent Litigation: A Report

Groklaw.net, here

Friday, March 15, 2013

The Library of Congress National Recording Preservation Plan

Here

Huawei wins German 4G (LTE) patent injunction against ZTE's base stations

Fosspatents.com, here

Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term

Techdirt.com, here

Three Reports on Parody

UK IPO, Evaluating the impact of parody on the exploitation of copyright works, here;  The Treatment of Parodies Under Copyright Law in Seven Jurisdictions, here;  Copyright and the Economic Effects of Parody, here.

Private Copying

UK IPO, here

Resolución - Liga Futbol Profesional

CNC, aquì (ficha pdf)

Au nom du droit à l'oubli, quel patrimoine pour l'Europe de demain ?

Association des archivistes français, ici

Open Data : les prix des stations essence restent payants, et chers

Numerama.com, ici

La reforma de la ley de propiedad intelectual enciende al sector

Cultura.elpais.com, aquì.

Vickers: UK banking reform on track but Europe questions remain open

Out-law.com, here

Datenschutz in Europa stärken

Pressemitteilung, Konferenz der Datenschutzbeauftragten des Bundes und der Länder, hier

Thursday, March 14, 2013

The Use and Threat of Injunctions in the Rand Context

J. Ratliff, D. Rubinfeld, here

European Antitrust Control and Standard Setting

M. Mariniello, here

The newsonomics of a news company of the future

Niemanlab.org, here

Guide: Data Culture

Rapporteur: Camille Domange, ici

The Competition Act 2002, ten years later: lessons from the Irish experience of prosecuting cartels as criminal offences

T. Calvani and K. Carl, here

Opinion 02/2013 on apps on smart devices

Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, here

Summary of the E-Books Commission Decision

Case COMP/39.847, here

Product Certification – the next big standard-setting debate?

Kluwercompetitionlawblog.com, here

Avis sur la neutralité du Net

Conseil national du numérique, ici

ITC postpones Samsung-Apple ruling

Fosspatents.com, here

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Professor Petra Moser on the Effects of Copyright Extensions

WIPO, Video here

Telecomunicaciones y competencia: iniciativa histórica

M. Flores Bernés, aquì.

Amazon's play for Web names could test antitrust law

Newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com, here

Vous allez pouvoir revendre vos livres numériques… mais pas librement

Lafeuille.blog.lemonde.fr, ici.

Google Concedes That Drive-by Prying Violated Privacy

Nytimes.com, here

Workshop on Patent Thickets - Report

EPO Advisory Board, here. Recommendations on patent thickets here

Working together to reduce patent litigation

Google Public Policy Blog, here

IPTC study shows some social media networks remove rights information from photos

Media Release, here

Thursday, March 07, 2013

On the proposed internet gTLD of .CLOUD

Cloudindustryforum.org, here

AG Mengozzi on the notion of equitable remuneration

ÏPKat, here

ECJ clarifies scope of communication to the public right

Taylor-wessing.vuturevx.com, here

The EU's Data Protection Reform: Decision-Time is Now

V. Reding, here

Television broadcasters may prohibit the retransmission of their programmes by another company via the internet

Judgment in Case C-607/11, ITV Broadcasting Ltd and Others v TVCatchup Ltd, Press Release here.

EU Copyright Dialogue: The Great Sham(e)

Blogs.computerworlduk.com, here

Letter from participants in response to “Licences for Europe- A Stakeholder Dialogue” text and data mining for scientific research purposes workshop

Libereurope.eu, here

What Constitutes a Diligent Search Under Present and Proposed Orphan Work Regimes?

D. Hansen, G. Hinze, J.Urban, here

Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Japanese court deemed Samsung's delayed disclosure of essential patents abusive conduct

Fosspatents.com, here

Standard Setting Organizations Can Help Solve the Standard Essential Patents Licensing Problem

K.-U. Kühn, F. Scott Morton, & H. Shelanski, here

Rapport sur les moyens de lutte contre le streaming et le téléchargement direct illicites

Hadopi, ici

Stop Being Evil: A Proposal for Unbiased Google Search

J. Hazan, here

LSR: Onlinedienste und Startups reagieren auf “irrsinniges Gesetz”

Netzwertig.com, hier

BITKOM zur EU-Datenschutzreform

Wettbewerb schützt Konsumenten

Nzz.ch, hier

A Glorious Day for a Free Internet in Italy

Peterfleischer.blogspot.com, here

In eigener Sache: Der Heise Zeitschriften Verlag und das Leistungsschutzrecht

Heise.de, hier

Leistungsschutzrecht aus Sicht einer Suchmaschine

Blog.faroo.com, hier

Web Privacy Becomes a Business Imperative

Nytimes.com, here.

Monday, March 04, 2013

The Digital Publishing Revolution Is Over

Scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org, here.

Bausteine für ein modernes und faires Urheberrecht

Die grüne Bundestagsfraktion, hier.

An American Perspective from the Crossroads of Antitrust and Intellectual Property

A. Foer and K. Li, here

Driving innovation: How stronger laws help bring safer chemicals to market

B. Tuncak, here

BIS paper explains upcoming UK copyright reform

The1709blog.blogspot.com, here

Bundestag verabschiedet Leistungsschutzrecht

Urheberrecht.org, hier

A Rational System of Design Patent Remedies

M. Lemley, here

Les données culturelles, absentes de la feuille de route du gouvernement sur l’Open Data

Scinfolex.wordpress.com, here

Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android face several hopeful challengers

The Economist, here

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Consumer opt-outs: a damp squib?

Kluwercompetitionlawblog.com, here

A Dutch Court Hands Down the First Substantive Damages Judgment in the Netherlands for an Infringement of Competition Law

Mwe.com, here

Buying Keyword Ads on People's Names Doesn't Violate Their Publicity Rights--Habush v. Cannon

Blog.ericgoldman.org, here

Statement of the Working Party on current discussions regarding the data protection reform package

Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, here

Penguin Faces June 3 Trial in e-Books Case

Publishersweekly.com, here

Freier Zugang zu öffentlich finanzierten Forschungsergebnissen

Antrag der SPD, Deutscher Bundestag, hier

Plenty of bits in the sea

The Economist, here

Conclusions of the Internet of Things public consultation

Here

How Antitrust Lost Its Goal

B. Orbach, here

Unlocking the Value of Personal Data: From Collection to Usage

Weforum.org, here

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

EuGH: Heftiger Streit um "Recht auf Vergessen" im Internet

Heise.de, hier

Vertical Restraints for On-Line Sales

P. Buccirossi, here (Note submitted to the OECD Competition Committee).

REPORT ON THE OECD/ICN SURVEY ON INTERNATIONAL ENFORCEMENT CO-OPERATION

OECD, here

IFPI Digital Music Report 2013

Here

Motorola/Google Proposed Consent Order

Comment, G. Manne, here

The Price of Reputation: Is the market for protected personal information about to take off?

The Economist, here

Open Data Is Not Just For Governments Anymore

Blogs.forrester.com, here

Saisine d’office pour avis portant sur le secteur de la distribution pharmaceutique

Autorité de la concurrence, Décision n° 13-SOA-01 du 25 février 2013, ici

Copyright Disruption In The Cloud: U.S. Courts Divided Over Rights Required For Streaming Entertainment Content From The Cloud – Could A U.S. Supreme Court Showdown Be Looming?

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, here

Evidence-Based Antitrust Enforcement in the Technology Sector

J. Wright, here

Foursquare checks in to more revenue with credit card specials

Cnet.com, here

Preisparität bei Amazon

Kartellblog.de, hier

Integrate or Separate - Institutional Design for the Enforcement of Competition Law and Consumer Law

K. Cseres, here

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Amazon to open market in second-hand MP3s and e-books

Newscientist.com, here

Ein Referentenentwurf für das Zweitverwertungsrecht

Iuwis.de, hier

Indagine conoscitiva: risarcimento diretto e assetti concorrenziali del settore RC auto


AGCM, IC42, qui.

Thomas Hoeren: Leistungsschutzrecht würde Notifizierungspflicht verletzen

Leistungsschutzrecht.info, hier

Google News: “We made history in a very good way for the citizens of France.”

Kluwercopyrightblog.com, here

EU and US push WIPO negotiations against human rights, for restrictions on exceptions

KEIonline.org, here

Dutch Royal Library obtains license to provide access to cultural heritage

Futureofcopyright.com, here

Google may reach antitrust settlement with E.U. in second half of the year

Washingtonpost.com, here

Amazon Squashing Affiliates Who Promote Free Kindle Books

Goodereader.com, here

Amazon, Big Six publishers face antitrust suit from indie bookstores over ebook DRM

TheVerge.com, here.

Criticizing the FTC’s Proposed Order in the Google Patent Antitrust Case

G. Manne, here

The Case for Online Obscurity

W. Hartzog & Frederic Stutzman, here

White House announces new US open access policy

Blogs.nature.com, here

Internet Competition and E-books: Challenging the Competition Policy Acquis?

S. Vezzoso (this blog's author), Presentation here (ppt file). 

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Europäisches Parlament: Industrie-Ausschuss stimmt gegen Datenschutz

Netzpolitik.org, hier

Twitter releases API for advertisers, enabling integration with cross-platform tools

TheVerge.com, here

Fresh Thinking on Potential Antitrust Responses to Abusive Patent Troll Enforcement Practices

R. Skitol, here

Amazon’s ‘price parity’ clause attracts attention of German antitrust regulator

Gigaom.com, here.  See also the Bundeskartellamt Press Release, here, and the Washington Post's first take, here

AGCM c. Bayer Cropscience

Cons. Stato Sez. VI, Sent., 29-01-2013, n. 548, qui.

The Transcript of Oral Argument in Bowman v. Monsanto: Where's Patent Exhaustion for Self-Replicating Patented Seeds?

Groklaw.net, here

Draft proposals for amending EU competition rules on technology transfer agreements

Public consultation, here

Bruxelles attaque Paris sur les e-books

Lesechos.fr, ici

How Parody Inspires Great Design

Blogs.hbr.org, here

Why it's time to stop using open source licences

G. Moody, here

Google privacy debacle merits fine: case is "test" of draft privacy rules

Reuters.com, here

Bund lässt Software gegen Urheberrechtsverletzungen entwickeln

Heise.de, hier

U.S. justices hostile to farmer's argument against Monsanto

Reuters.com, here

Closed Discussions At WIPO On Treaty For Blind, As New Text Emerges

Ip-watch.org, here

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System

No. 11–1160. Argued November 26, 2012—Decided February 19, 2013, here

WIPO Special Session negotiations on treaty for blind, Feb 18th version of text

KEIonline.org, here

Ebook Best-Seller Prices Plummet to Below $8.00 as Retailers Get Set to Start Discounting Macmillan Titles

Digitalbookworld.com, here

EU Commission decides not to prolong maritime transport antitrust guidelines

Press Release, here

Economics of Vertical Restraints for Multi-Sided Platforms

D. Evans, here

China: first ever national standard on personal data privacy

Mondaq.com, here

As 3-D Printing Become More Accessible, Copyright Questions Arise

Npr.org, here

Como añadir peso a la cadena alimentaria

Fedeablogs.net, aquì

Competition Law and Personal Data : Preliminary Thoughts on a Complex Issue

D. Geradin & M. Kuschewsky, here

Monday, February 18, 2013

Elusive big data: The thing, and not the thing

TheEconomist.com, here

Malleable malls: Shopping centres are proving well-suited to the digital age

TheEconomist.com, here

Intellectual Property: Exclusive Rights for a Purpose – The Case of Technology Protection by Patents and Copyright

H. Ullrich, here

Why the DOJ (Antitrust Division) should intervene in the GSU case

Arielkatz.org, here

European Economic and Social Committee on the Collective Management Draft Directive

Here

Four companies that are changing digital reading in Africa

PaidContent.com, here

Japan Probe Pops Car-Part Keiretsu

WSJ, here

CHART OF THE DAY: How Much Money Amazon Is Making From The Kindle Ecosystem

BusinessInsider.com, here

Règles de confidentialité de Google : vers une action répressive et coordonnée des autorités européennes

CNIL, ici

European Copyright Society on Hyperlinking (Svensson CJEU Reference)

Here (pdf file).

Friday, February 15, 2013

Facebook May Already Be Taking Away Searches From Google

Mashable.com, here

European publishers slam Google copyright deal in France

Managingip.com, here

BnF: sacrifier le domaine public pour numériser les indisponibles

Actualitte.com, ici

Licensing Controversy — Balancing Author Rights with Societal Good

Scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org, here

Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Mike Doyle and Kevin Yoder Introduce Bill Expanding Access to Federally Funded Research

Lofgren.house.gov, here

Critical Cloud Computing

A Critical Information Infrastructure Protection (CIIP) perspective on cloud computing, ENISA, here

Macmillan to Pay $20 Million to Settle State, Class Action Price-Fixing Claims

Publishersweekly.com, here

Attention Rivalry among Online Platforms and Its Implications for Antitrust Analysis

D. Evans, here

Drug development: Teaching old pills new tricks

TheEconomist.com, here

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Read Any Good Web Sites Lately? Book Lovers Talk Online

Nytimes.com, here

Which countries receive the most in royalty and license fees?

World Bank, here.

Pratiques anticoncurrentielles dans le secteur de l'abattage et de la commercialisation du porc charcutier sanctionnées

Autorité de la concurrence, ici

La farmacia en el supermercado

ElPais, aquì

Spanish Tribunal Supremo on "screen scraping"

RYANAIR LIMITED v  ATRAPALO, S.L, here (Spanish).

Dutch government will end protection of non-original works to modernise copyright law

Futureofcopyright.com, here

Oracle vs Google legal war begins a new chapter

Newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com, here

Materials from the GCLC lunch talk on Google

ChillingCompetition.com, here

FRAND, RAND, and SEP: Why These Acronyms Are Important

Techpolicy.com, here

BGH legt EuGH Frage zum technischen Schutz von Schutzmaßnahmen für Videospiele vor

Institut für Urheber- und Medienrecht, hier

Mining the Digital Gold Rush: The Legal (L)ore around France’s Data-Mining Tax

Iposgoode.ca, here

Yelp Defeats Legal Challenge to Its User Review Filter

E. Goldman, here

Monday, February 11, 2013

Responses of Creative Commons to House of Lords comments concerning the CC BY license

Here

U.S. appeals judges quiz lawyers on rules for patenting software

Newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com, here

Access and the Public Domain

R. Picker, here.

Of particular interest to me is how broad access issues are likely to shape the "scale and scope of competition in the provision of the public domain". 

Efectos del carácter restrictivo de la normativa comercial sobre la competitividad de la economía catalana

Autoritat Catalana de la Competència, aquí.

IP, Antitrust and Looking Back on the Last Four Years

R. Hesse, here

EU antitrust control and patent abuses

M. Mariniello, here (Video, 6:58).

Counting couch potatoes

TheEconomist, here

L'Open Data fragilisé par le droit sur les bases de données

Numerama.com, ici

LobbyPlag - Wie Konzerne Gesetze diktieren

Heute.de, hier

Antitrust Litigation: What’s Changed in Twenty-Five Years?

W. Kolasky, here

Innovation Nation at War (Posner and patents)

Nytimes.com, here

Un passo indietro per il software libero

A. Meo, qui

“Students are heavily dependent on studying from photocopies”

Thehindu.com, here

EU Personal Data Protection "Reform Package":Tracking Lobbyists' Influence

Europlag.eu, here. See also the background article to this project here (German).

Friday, February 08, 2013

IFLA Principles for Library eLending

Here

What Software Is Patentable? Federal Court To Consider In CLS Bank Rehearing

TechCrunch.com, here

Macmillan settles with DOJ, and Apple is last man standing in ebook pricing case

PaidContent.org, here.

Interesting to academia and beyond:
"Electronic versions of academic textbooks” are removed from the settlement’s “requirements and prohibitions” because the DOJ antitrust case focused only on trade books.

The Digital Economy

OECD, Competition Committee, DAF/COMP(2012)22, here.

Coup de coeur: the French contribution to the October 2011 hearing, p. 75 ff.

Google, the ACCC and the High Court

Core Economics, here

La BnF accusée de privatiser des oeuvres du domaine public

Lexpress.fr, ici

Charlottesville anti-drone resolution sparks similar action across US

Wired.co.uk, here

Protection of personal data

ECHR, Factsheet, here

Court of Appeal takes a punt on database rights

The1709blog.blogspot.com, here

Monday, February 04, 2013

Efforts to Update and Strengthen Privacy Law in Europe and the United States

Letter from prominent US consumer and civil liberties organizations to US government leaders, here

New Year, New Project: Turning the Focus to Competition Policy for 2013

E. Pérez Motta, here

The Patent Policy Debate in the High Tech World: A Literature Review

K. Gupta, here

Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverlage: Müsste Google wirklich zahlen? – eine kartellrechtliche Analyse

C. Kersting, S. Dworschak, hier

Market Dominance and Quality of Search Results in the Search Engine Market

I. Lianos, E. Motchenkova, here

Irish High Court Order following FitFlop investigation involving allegations of resale price maintenance

Competition Authority Press Release, here

The Nature of Competition in the Digital Age

Techliberation.com, ici

Numérisation à la BnF : comment la France se fait rouler

ActuaLitté.com, ici

Europe Moves Ahead on Privacy

NYTimes.com, here

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Ireland deputy data protection Commissioner to take up Apple job

Irishtimes.com, here.

The Patent-Antitrust Interface: Are There Any No-No’s Today?

Venable.com, here

New Year Will See More Policing of Patent Conduct By US and EU Competition Agencies

Skadden.com, here

Ed O'Bannon vs. the NCAA: The antitrust lawsuit explained

Sbnation.com, here

PRIVATE ACTIONS IN COMPETITION LAW: A consultation on options for reform - government response

UK Government, here

OFT chief calls for more competitive banking sector

Telegraph.co.uk, here

EU Commission sends Statement of Objections to J&J and Novartis on delayed entry of generic pain-killer

Press Release, here.

Recommendations Resulting from the Mediation on Private Copying And Reprography Levies

A. Vitorino, here

What's wrong with data protection?

A Greens/EFA hearing, January 31, 2013, here (archived video available here).
Stallman:  neither using most of the available Internet services, nor possessing a mobile phone...too dangerous, he says. 

Open Access versus Traditional Journal Pricing: Using a Simple “Platform Market” Model to Understand Which Will Win (and Which Should)


M. McCabe, C. Snyder A. Fagin, here.

Digital music rights - Baby got backlash

TheEconomist.com, here

Friday, January 25, 2013

SAS Institute/World Programming: UK Ruling After The Reference

[2013] EWHC 69 (Ch), Justice Arnold, here.
You can read my brief paper here for some background information.

U.S. firms, officials resisting Europe’s push for stronger digital privacy rules

WashingtonPost.com, here.

Cloud computing, cookies y protección de datos

Seminario APEP-Derechotics, Audios aquì

Bundesgerichtshof erkennt Schadensersatz für den Ausfall eines Internetanschlusses

Bundesgerichtshof III ZR 98/12, Pressemitteilung hier.
Aus der Pressemitteilung: 
"...Nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs muss der Ersatz für den Ausfall der Nutzungsmöglichkeit eines Wirtschaftsguts grundsätzlich Fällen vorbehalten bleiben, in denen sich die Funktionsstörung typischerweise als solche auf die materiale Grundlage der Lebenshaltung signifikant auswirkt"...."Demgegenüber hat der Senat dem Kläger dem Grunde nach Schadensersatz für den Fortfall der Möglichkeit zuerkannt, seinen Internetzugang für weitere Zwecke als für den Telefon- und Telefaxverkehr zu nutzen. Die Nutzbarkeit des Internets ist ein Wirtschaftsgut, dessen ständige Verfügbarkeit seit längerer Zeit auch im privaten Bereich für die eigenwirtschaftliche Lebenshaltung typischerweise von zentraler Bedeutung ist. Das Internet stellt weltweit umfassende Informationen in Form von Text-, Bild-, Video- und Audiodateien zur Verfügung. Dabei werden thematisch nahezu alle Bereiche abgedeckt und verschiedenste qualitative Ansprüche befriedigt. So sind etwa Dateien mit leichter Unterhaltung ebenso abrufbar wie Informationen zu Alltagsfragen bis hin zu hochwissenschaftlichen Themen. Dabei ersetzt das Internet wegen der leichten Verfügbarkeit der Informationen immer mehr andere Medien, wie zum Beispiel Lexika, Zeitschriften oder Fernsehen. Darüber hinaus ermöglicht es den weltweiten Austausch zwischen seinen Nutzern, etwa über E-Mails, Foren, Blogs und soziale Netzwerke. Zudem wird es zunehmend zur Anbahnung und zum Abschluss von Verträgen, zur Abwicklung von Rechtsgeschäften und zur Erfüllung öffentlich-rechtlicher Pflichten genutzt. Der überwiegende Teil der Einwohner Deutschlands bedient sich täglich des Internets. Damit hat es sich zu einem die Lebensgestaltung eines Großteils der Bevölkerung entscheidend mitprägenden Medium entwickelt, dessen Ausfall sich signifikant im Alltag bemerkbar macht."
Volltext hier

Antitrust's Democracy Deficit

H. First, S. Weber Waller, here

Fair Use 2.0: The Rebirth of Fair Dealing in Canada

A. Katz, here

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Vie privée : Les entreprises US gagnent en commission "consommateurs" au Parlement européen

Laquadrature.net, ici.
Avis de la Commission Marché intérieur et protection des consommateurs ici.

Georgia State and Fair Use: Copyright on Appeal

K. Crews, here

Google and the FTC: the implications

Econsultancy.com, here

The Sky Is Rising 2 - Regional Study: Germany, France, UK, Italy, Russia, Spain

Techdirt.com, here.

The European Commission vs. Gazprom: An Issue of Fair Competition or a Foreign Policy Quarrel?

N. Sartori, here

Elargissement du domaine de l'exception pédagogique envisagé en France

Actualitte.com, ici

MPI on the Proposal for a Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights

Here

Leistungsschutzrecht – nein danke!

J. Haucap, hier

Albrecht Draft Report on the Right to Data Portability: Blurring the Legal Contours?

A much debated element of the EU Personal Data Protection reform package is the proposal to introduce a right to data portability, as put forth in Article 18 of the draft Regulation.

Art. 8(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that” everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.” Pursuant to Article 12 of the currently applicable Data Protection Directive, individuals already have the right to access their personal data, and in particular to obtain from the data controller communication “in an intelligible form of the data undergoing processing,” but the form of the communication is not specified, and the way in which that right can be exercised varies considerably from country to country within the EU, and access has become particularly challenging especially in connection with the online environment.

Pursuant to the proposed Art.18 of the Regulation, data subjects could, first, obtain a copy of their personal data “processed by electronic means and in a structured and commonly used format.” The copy itself must be “an electronic and structured format which is commonly used and allows for further use by the data subject.” Further, individuals would be granted the explicit right to transfer “personal data and any other information provided by the data subject and retained by an automated processing system” into another automated processing system “where the data subject has provided the personal data and the processing is based on consent or on a contract.” The transfer should be “without hindrance by the controller”, and data should be “in an electronic format which is commonly used.”Article 18(3) gives the Commission the power to specify the electronic format and the "technical standards, modalities and procedures for the transmission of personal data.”

Art. 18 should be read against the background of Article 15 of the draft Regulation, that provides for the “general” right of access for the data subject. Article 15 states that the data subject has the right to obtain from the controller communication of the personal data undergoing processing, but the main difference is that Article 18 specifically deals with the condition for reuse of the data, by the data subject herself and/or by another automated processing system.

As seen above, Art. 18(2) introduces the right to export personal data and other information provided by data subject to another service “without hindrance” by the controller. It is not clear, however, if this would involve an affirmative obligation on the controller to transfer data directly to another service, i.e. to provide for some degree of interoperability between electronic processing systems. The data that the individual has the right to trasfer should be in electronic form. As mentioned before, the Regulation would give the Commission the power to specify the electronic format and the further technical requirements for allowing the transmission of personal data.

The contours of the data portability right as foreseen by Article 18 of the draft Regulation are not totally clear, though, in particular because most of the critical “technicalities” (i.e. electronic format and the technical standards, modalities and procedures for the transmission of personal data) are left to later clarifications by the Commission. In this highly sensitive area, however, negative implications on innovation processes should be carefully avoided by abstaining from imposing microregulation on technological solutions to ensure data portability. Moreover, in the rather remote event that the language of Article 18 remains largely unaffected by the various negotiation phases the reform package is currently going through, the effectiveness of the new right will critically depend on the interpretation of rather vague legal concepts like “without hindrance.”

Even more uncertainty could be the result of the negotiations surrounding the reform package, though. A good example of this is the amendment proposal put forth by the rapporteur for the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (“Albrecht Draft Report"). According to the proposal, Article 18 should be merged with Article 15. The Albrecht draft, however, blurrs the legal contours of the right to export personal data and other information to another service even further, in so far as it foresees that the right should be exercised “where technically feasible and appropriate”. The critical change in the text would appear to be at least partially in line with the amendments suggested by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and already contained in the Draft Opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

Verordnung zur Markttransparenzstelle fertig

Brennstoffspiegel.de, hier

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The EU's Opportunity to Enhance Privacy in a More Competitive Market

Huffingtonpost.com, here

Library services in the digital age

Pew Report, here

All You Need to Know about the EU Privacy Debate

Spiegel.de, here

The 20p e-book is starting to reshape the e-book market

Futurebook.net, here

Google vs. the press: avoiding the lose-lose scenario

F. Filloux, here

3D Digitisation and Intellectual Property Rights

JISCLegal, here

Stellungnahme als Sachverständiger zum Entwurf eines Siebenten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes

T. Stadler, hier

US position paper regarding the proposed EU protection framework.

Made available by EDRI.org, here (pdf file). 

Five Reasons Why U.S. Consumer NGOs Support a Strong EU Privacy Law

Center for Digital Democracy and Consumer Federation of America, here (Word file). 

US Privacy groups lobby EU to crack down on Web companies

Thehill.com, here