Showing posts with label IP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IP. Show all posts

1/30/09

Music News Bulletin - 30/01/09

Worldwide Independent Network (WIN) appoints Chairman and Vice Chairs
"The Board meeting of the international independent music association WIN at Midem this year marked the completion of AlisonWenham’s two-years of inaugural Presidency, which has seen this grouping extend its membership to labels and independent music trade associations in 25 countries across all continents, while providing collective impetus for the formation of Merlin (www.merlinnetwork.org) to work with the independent sector in commercial exploitation of their copyrights.

The WIN Board unanimously requested Wenham to continue to lead the organisation for the next two years. In line with firmer constitutional proposals relating to structure and funding of WIN, which were also agreed, the organisation reserved the Presidency as a titular position for a possible future appointment and Wenham was voted Chairman. The widening business and geographical focus of WIN was recognised with the appointment of four Vice Chairmen: David Vodicka, Chairman of Australian Independent Records (AIR); Mark Chung, Chairman of German independents trade body VUT; Portia Sabin, representing the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM); and Duncan McKie, President and CEO Canadian Independent Record Production Association (CIRPA)." [RecordOfTheDay]

BPI not impressed with IP Minister’s comments
"Needless to say really, record label trade body the BPI wasn't thrilled by those previously reported comments made by the UK's Intellectual Property Minister David Lammy and printed in The Times. As previously reported, Lammy told the paper that he didn't think the government could introduce laws to force ISPs to cut off persistent file sharers - as some have suggested should happen - because such measures would be wrapped up in legal problems.

But perhaps more worryingly for those who advocate new laws to force net firms to take a more proactive role in policing online piracy, he implied he wasn't completely convinced about the need for legislation to combat filesharing, telling the paper: "We can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms. People can rent a room in an hotel and leave with a bar of soap - there's a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television"." [CMUDaily]

WIN reappoint Wenham to top job
"Elsewhere in trade body news, the globally focused body for the indie label sector, the World Independent Network, has confirmed that Alison Wenham, boss of the UK's Association Of Independent Music, will continue to head up the worldwide indie body too. She was re-elected into the top job at a meeting at MIDEM, though her job title will change from President to Chairman because of plans to appoint a titular President to act as a spokesperson for the body." [CMUDaily]

Meeting in the Commons to discuss copyright term
"A meeting organised by the all important Parliamentary Jazz Appreciation Group and recording royalty body PPL next Monday will discuss all things copyright extension. The meeting will take place in the House Of Commons, though will centre more on the progress of legislation at a European level regarding increasing the European recordings copyright term from the current fifty years to something nearer the 95 year term enjoyed by record labels in the US." [CMUDaily]

More from the Tenenbaum Case - The last big P2P lawsuit squabble
"The Recording Industry Association Of America is appealing the judge's ruling regarding the webcasting of that previously reported P2P court case against Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum. As previously reported, the Havard law professor advising Tenenbaum, Charles Nesson, requested that the court case - what could be one of the last RIAA P2P lawsuits against an individual file sharer given the trade body's recent change of strategy - be webcast on the internet, arguing that the case was of great interest to the net community and it should be made public in a way they are comfortable with. Somewhat surprisingly, Judge Nancy Gertner agreed.

The RIAA don't want the case to be webcast to the world, possibly because, while US copyright law is generally on their side when it comes to illegal file sharing, all sorts of tricky and, for the record industry, tedious technicalities can come up when cases go to court. Such technicalities being aired over the web could look bad for the record industry." [CMUDaily]

12/19/08

EU Council Monitor - 19/12/08

Czech ambassador outlines EU presidency priorities
"The Czech Republic’s top official in Brussels says that tackling ‘obstacles’ which ‘prevent Europe from fulfilling its economic potential’ will be one of the priorities of her country’s EU presidency
Speaking in Brussels on Tuesday, Milena Vicenova also hopes that at the end of the six-month presidency “no-one will think that we Czechs are eurosceptic.”

The 52-year-old also pledged to “concentrate all our energy” on resolving the current impasse on the stalled Lisbon treaty. Vicenova, one of the few female ambassadors in Brussels, was outlining her country’s priorities when it takes over the EU presidency from France on 1 January.
“I know quite a few people will be asking whether the Czechs really are eurosceptic,” she said.
“There is no doubt that our presidency comes at no easy time for Europe and the rest of the world. It will be a real challenge.”

She said the presidency will focus on ‘3 E’s’ – the economy, energy and external relations.
On the economic front, she told a packed audience that the French presidency deserved praise for its “prompt, effective and efficient” response to the global financial crisis." [TheParliament]

Conclusion of the Council (11 and 12/12)
The complete conclusions. It includes:
“As regards action by the European Union, the European Council supports in particular: an increase in intervention by the European Investment Bank of EUR 30 billion in 2009/2010, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises” [Europa]

Paris ACTA meetings wrap up; we're safe until March 2009
"Negotiations on the controversial and largely secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) race ever onward, but the process isn't moving quite as fast as proponents had hoped. No deal will now happen before the end of the year, nor before a new US administration takes the reins in late January.

Another round of ACTA negotiations wrapped up yesterday in Paris, this one hosted by the EU and chaired by the French Trade Minister. Most governments involved in the process appear bent on saying almost nothing about it due the "delicate nature" of the negotiating process, but Japan's Foreign Ministry has released the barest of details from this week's meeting (and in English, no less).

The meeting description is bureaucratically bland ("Participants reaffirmed their goal to combat global infringements of IPR, particularly in the context of counterfeiting and piracy, by increasing international cooperation, strengthening the framework of practices that contribute to effective enforcement, and strengthening relevant IPR enforcement measures themselves." Fascinating!), but does note that countries involved shared information on "fighting IPR infringements on the Internet." It remains unclear what may come of such discussions, but it certainly sounds as though ACTA will in fact extend beyond creating a better enforcement mechanism for stopping crates of Simpsons rip-off T-shirts." [ArsTechnica]

12/15/08

EU Public Affairs Monitor - 15/12/08

UK consumers, Big Content battle over three-strikes rules December 01, 2008
"Although France's "graduated response" proceedings have attracted the most attention, the UK is in the midst of a consultation of its own on how to involve both content owners and ISPs in some sort of response to P2P file-sharing. The government is pushing a co-regulatory approach that would task industry groups with hashing out the details of such a plan, while the government would make sure that any agreement is fair, competitive, and preserves privacy. With all the responses now in, the UK music industry is clearly pleased that it won't have to pursue 6.5 million copyright infringers on its own. Digital rights groups are... less excited.

The entire consultation is helmed by BERR, the UK agency that handles Business, Enterprise, & Regulatory Reform, and it stems from the famous (in certain circles, anyway) Gowers Review of intellectual property that we covered extensively back in 2006. That report, which took a top-to-bottom look at UK copyright and IP policy, was stuffed with plenty of consumer-friendly ideas, such as no new copyright term extensions. But it also contained good news for rightsholders, such as a suggestion that the government step in if ISPs and rightsholders couldn't agree on how to handle the issue of P2P file-sharing." [ArsTechnica]

Voluntary campus-wide music licenses could stop the lawsuits December 08, 2008
"It takes a special knee-jerk churliness to jackboot the music industry in the proverbial groin every time it comes up with a new idea. Sure, some of these ideas (Hi, DRM-laden CDs!) make one want to spend an afternoon banging head against desk in existential despair over the low collective intelligence of the people in this world who make decisions. But the industry isn't staffed only with fair-use hating zombies and DRM lovers; the occasional human roams the hallways, sometimes hatching new schemes that aren't wholly stupid, ridiculous, or evil. When that happens, it's worth holding one's rhetorical fire until the idea is fully developed, offering encouragement and constructive criticism.

Of course, Internet groin kicks are easier. And think of the traffic! But they're not always helpful, not when you'd like the industry to get up and walk arm-in-arm into the sunset with users rather than lie in the street and issue subpoenas from the gutter." [ArsTechnica]

Masnick on the Music Tax Dec. 15, 2008
"I’m more sympathetic to EFF-style voluntary collective licensing than Mike Masnick is, but I have to say that the case he makes here is pretty compelling. I think this is really the key point:

What you’re doing is setting up a big, centrally planned and operated bureau of music, that officially determines the business model of the recording industry, figures out who gets paid, collects the money and pays some money out. The same record industry that has fought so hard against any innovation remains in charge and will have tremendous sway in setting the “rules.” The plan leaves no room for creativity. It leaves no room for innovation. It’s basically picking the only business model and encoding it in stone. [TechLiberation]

Taxing music at the ISP level: Good idea or bad? Dec 5th
"Warner Music Group has a proposition for U.S. universities, according to Techdirt: buy a blanket license to music downloads through file-sharing services, or be sued.Techdirt thinks that this is a bad idea, and I disagree. Techdirt's criticisms are clear." [CNet]

Lessig’s call for a “simple blanket license” in Remix 01/12/08
"Lessig Remix coverI’m finishing up Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig’s latest book, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy and wanted to make a brief comment about his call for a “simple blanket license” to solve online music piracy.

Overall, I thought Prof. Lessig made a good case regarding the benefits of “remix culture” and why copyright law should leave breathing room for the various derivative works of amateur creators. On the other hand, Lessig still too often blurs remix culture with “ripoff culture” (i.e., those who aren’t out to create anything new but instead just take something without paying a penny for it).

To solve that latter problem, Lessig again endorses a proposal that William Fisher, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others have made for collective licensing of all online music, but he fails to drill down into the devilish details. He says, for example, that “by authorizing a simple blanket licensing procedure, whereby users could, for a low fee, buy the right to freely file-share” we could “decriminalize file sharing.” " [TechLiberation]

Techdirt's Mike Masnick On Why a Music Tax Is a Mistake December 11, 2008
"Techdirt founder Mike Masnick has followed the twists and turns of the digital music debate for more than a decade, offering some of the most prescient and lucid information and arguments on the topic anywhere. Today he tackles growing calls for a voluntary music-licensing scheme, pushed most recently by Warner Music Group to universities, that would basically allow file sharing by having ISPs impose a surcharge on all users to be paid out to copyright holders. (A version of this has been done before with blank media like tape cassettes in some markets, including Canada, but this would be a massive expansion of the idea.)

Mike's take is not the final word on the matter, but it should be required reading for anyone interested in understanding where music is today and where it is headed. It is reproduced with permission below in its entirety. As he ably argues, the future of music is often confused with the future of the music business — but they are not the same thing at all. In fact, the interests of the music business, defined primarily as the major recording labels, is arguably one of the biggest impediments to moving music itself forward." [Wired]

11/28/08

EU Public Affairs Monitor - 28/11/08

Monopoly of collecting societies' activities: infringement proceedings against the Czech Republic and Hungary
"The European Commission has decided to send reasoned opinions to the Czech Republic and Hungary on the grounds of obstacles to the freedom of establishment and to the freedom to provide services as a result of the monopolies granted to national rights management companies.

Czech and Hungarian laws provide that a single collecting society may be authorised to operate in their respective countries for each type of right and work. This monopoly granted to national companies bans collecting societies set up in other Member States from undertaking any form of activity and denies them the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. The Commission has doubts as to the justification of those national measures in the light of their negative effects on two of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the EC Treaty." [Europa]

The latest information on infringement proceedings concerning all Member States is available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/index_en.htm

EMI Music CEO Applauds Govt Action On ISPs
"EMI Music CEO Elio Leoni-Sceti has spoken of his support for the U.K. government's and others' attempts to get ISPs to tackle illegal file-sharing, while admitting the music industry failed to adapt to changes in consumer behavior. Leoni-Sceti appeared at U.K. media/telecoms regulator Ofcom's Next Generation Net Generation conference in London. Vivendi chief executive Jean-Bernard Levy was also among the business leaders at the conference.

The EMI Music CEO appeared on a panel, "Global Content Economy - Challenges for Business," alongside executives including Telefonica Europe CEO Ronan Dunne, Nikesh Arora, president EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) operations, Google, and Roma Khanna, president, global networks & digital initiatives at NBC Universal. Pledging to transform EMI into a "consumer-focused music company," Leoni-Sceti commented: "The new EMI wants to be the most consumer-led, innovative music company in the world - that means listening to our consumers and putting the consumer experience at the heart of our business strategy."A consultation process was recently concluded by the U.K. government, following this summer's brokering of a Memorandum of Understanding between the music industry and ISPs. Part of the agreement includes a pledge by ISPs to write letters to customers who are involved in illegal peer-to-peer activity." [BillBoard] [CMUDaily]

Artists send video message to PM over copyright term
"More from the campaign to persuade Gordon Brown to increase the recorded music copyright term now - and this time the protests have been presented in video form. As much much previously reported, record labels and recording artists have been lobbying the government regarding extending the recording copyright from 50 to 95 years for ages now; the former because the legendary recordings of the rock n roll era are about to come out of copyright; the latter because there is a whole generation of session musicians who will soon start to lose the royalty payments that stem from recordings they worked on in the sixties, which for some are a bulk of their earnings. " [CMUDaily]

EURO LICENSING: THE HARD ROAD AHEAD
"There is no 'us' and 'them' any longer. With nearly 50% of all music consumed by Europeans classified as international repertoire and the rest considered to be essential local music preserving the cultural identities of each European Union (EU) nation, the troubled state of licensing digital publishing rights is not, as some said a few years back, 'a European problem.' After intervention by the European Commission (EC), the current structures for licensing these rights are seen by some to be as volatile as the financial markets. How everyone responds to the situation will inevitably impact the future of recorded music, music publishing, digital and mobile music services and broadcasting -- and everyone else in the creator-to-consumer chain of distribution. Considering the importance of intellectual property as a significant contributor to worldwide economies, figuring out solutions during this economic crisis, in the midst of the physical-to-digital music transition, becomes even more essential.

Music Confidential reached out to senior executives and lawyers throughout Europe to shed some light, and perhaps a bit of insight, on problems and possible solutions following the EC's mandate to restructure rights and operating procedures among the network of collecting societies. Despite an extraordinary amount of angst and concern among the interested parties, there are opportunities and some optimism to report." [MusicConfidential]

Conference calls on WIPO to Boost Support for Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights
"A conference on the future evolution of collective management of copyright and related rights in Europe has called on WIPO to step up efforts to help stakeholders address the emerging challenges facing collective management. Participants urged WIPO to strengthen the copyright infrastructure so as to support creative industries and promote social, economic and cultural development.

The Conference on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights in Europe, held in Brussels from November 24 to 25, 2008, was organized by WIPO in association with the European Grouping of Societies of Authors and Composers (GESAC) and in cooperation with the Association of European Performers’ Organisations (AEPO-ARTIS), and the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC)." [WIPO]

The European IP market needs a revolution
"The European R&D and patenting world treat intellectual property as a legal right and nothing else. Most companies and investors want that attitude to change. If it does, a number of exciting possibilities can begin to emerge.What Europe needs most is intermediaries from outside the law
A recent EPO survey revealed that 60% of European companies do not care if the inventions and technologies they find and use are patented or not (which surely helps explain the modest levels of patent registrations in many EU countries!). At the same time, however, countless European surveys have revealed that technological innovation is the priority for the EU's institutions, as well as national and regional governments, industrial associations and others; and that European companies are very keen to improve technological innovation (including R&D outsourcing) as key weapon in the global competition race.
These conflicting findings tell us a few key things about the type of IP market Europe should adopt, given that improving its existing one is an official target, as set out by EU leaders in the Lisbon Agreement."

The complete article (and the accompanying charts) in .pdf format is saved on the shared file (in the Monitoring section). A text version can be read on:
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:3BkUjCSMfg8J:www.wipo.int/sme/en/best_practices/pdf/european_ip_market.pdf+WIPO+European+IP+Market+needs+a+revolution&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=be [WIPO]

EU Commission Enterprise and Industry - 28/11/08

DG Entreprise & Industry: The second conference of the Europe INNOVA community focused on the current financial turmoil and how accelerating innovation would help the EU to weather the storm and prosper
"Some 550 delegates from 30 different countries arrived in Lyon for the second conference of the Europe INNOVA community. The three-day gathering proved to be as innovative as its participants, and creatively explored the main issues facing innovation policy and support in the EU. The participants discussed instruments for transforming and translating knowledge into successful business ideas and applications, as well as the most efficient ways of tackling access to finance, intellectual property rights (IPR) and providing support to fast-growing companies and clusters. A number of models and tools developed by Europe INNOVA networks to accelerate the commercialisation of new ideas and in support of innovative companies were also showcased. How innovation can be marshalled to pull Europe out of the emerging economic turmoil was also high on the agenda – and on participants’ minds." [Europa]

DG Entreprise & Industry: Towards the next generation of Europe INNOVA: New call for proposals published
"The call for proposals for the next generation of Europe INNOVA projects was published on 12 November 2008. The call concerns the setting-up of Innovation Platforms for transnational cluster cooperation, knowledge-intensive services, eco-innovation and the promotion of novel tools and service concepts for innovation support.

The calls documents can be downloaded from:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/funding/files/themes_2008/calls_prop.htm, where any updates will also be published. The deadline for submission of proposals is 12 February 2009.

A partner search tool is available on:
http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=434&parentID=0.

In parallel with this call for proposals, a call for proposals under the PRO INNO Europe® Initiative has also been published. An information day is planned for 17 December 2008 in Brussels on the Europe INNOVA (morning session) and PRO INNO Europe® (afternoon session) calls for proposals. Please be aware that you must pre-register for the information day by filling in the registration form available with the call documents. [EuropeInnova]

11/21/08

EU Council Monitor - 21/11/08

Culture Council
"All the conclusions of the Culture Council can be downloaded on the Council website. The most important documents are already saved on available on the shared folder/EU Presidencies/French Presidency" [Consilium]

Christine Albanel a présidé aujourd'hui à Bruxelles Le Conseil des ministres en charge de la Culture et de l'Audiovisuel de l'Union européenne
"Ce Conseil a permis l’adoption par les ministres de plusieurs textes importants négociés par la présidence française lors de ces derniers mois. En premier lieu, les ministres soutiendront et assureront la pérennité et le développement du projet de Bibliothèque numérique européenne. Ce projet, lancé aujourd’hui à la suite du Conseil, en présence du Président de la Commission européenne, José-Manuel Barroso, rend accessible à tous (sur www.europeana.eu) 2 millions de documents, aussi bien livres, qu’archives écrites et audiovisuelles, et collections des musées européens." [Culture]

Clôture de l’année européenne du dialogue interculturel
"The complete speech made by Albanel at the Centre Georges Pompidou last Wednesday" [Culture]

Forum d’Avignon
"The complete opening and closing speeches of Albanel" [Culture]

Europe's cultural history goes digital
"Europeana, a new digital library intended to bring millions of examples of Europe's cultural heritage into homes across the world, went on-line today.
The multimedia library already contains more than two million digitalised books, maps, recordings, photographs and paintings, and the Commission envisages that by 2010 over 10 million works will be on-line." [EuropeanVoice]

EU ministers reject ban on free downloading
"EU culture ministers yesterday (20 November) rejected French proposals to curb online piracy through compulsory measures against free downloading, instead agreeing to promote legal offers of music or films on the Internet.

The EU Culture Council pushed yesterday (20 November) for "a fair balance between the various fundamental rights" while fighting online piracy, first listing "the right to personal data protection," then "the freedom of information" and only lastly "the protection of intellectual property".

The Council conclusions also stressed the importance of "consumers' expectations in terms of access […] and diversity of the content offered online". No mention was made of a gradual response to serial downloaders of illegal cultural material, as foreseen by the French authorities." [Euractiv]

11/18/08

EU Public Affairs Monitor - 18/11/08

Conceptual Art and IP November 18, 2008
"LeWitt's "Distorted Cubes" A piece by Chris Cobb in the new Believer—only the beginning of which is currently available online—describes the author's experience installing works by the American conceptual artist Sol LeWitt at an enormous exhibition at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art. It's interesting reading on its own terms, but I link it here because it's also an interesting case study for folks who enjoy thinking about intellectual property. First, the epigraph from LeWitt that opens the article:

When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art.

For LeWitt, that meant producing almost gnomic descriptions of installation works that would actually be constructed by folks like Chris Cobb. Here's one example:

343. On a black wall, nine geometric figures (including right triangle, cross, X) in squares. The backgrounds are filled in solid white.

Cobb later tells us that "the commercial side of the art world dictates that access to the instructions is limited," and that the works have been "loaned" to the museum, meaning "the owner has given MASS MoCA permission to have them executed for the show." My (layman's) first pass reaction was that this didn't sound like it could possibly be legally enforceable. Even if those two very short descriptive sentences are subject to copyright—whatever that's worth given that they've just been quoted in a widely-read magazine—the relevant statutes seem to rule out any monopoly rights in the abstract instructions they express, given the explicit exclusion from copyright protection of an "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." Any particular output of this "machine for making art" might be a copyrightable image or structure, but intuitively, the prohibition on executing the abstract instructions would have to be enforced by the conventions of the art world rather than the courts." [ArsTechnica]

EU Public Affairs Monitor - 18/11/08

Tennessee anti-P2P law to cost colleges over $13 million November 18, 2008
With the RIAA's long-running legal war against file-sharing not having the desired effects, the music industry has turned its sights on legislation aimed at getting others to do the dirty work of copyright enforcement. Last week, they scored a victory when the state of Tennessee passed a law that would require colleges and universities to work to prevent copyright infringement over campus networks. It's great news for the RIAA, but bad news for Tennessee students and taxpayers who will have to foot the $13 million bill.

SB 3974 was introduced this past February into the state legislature. Championed by the RIAA, who pointed to the University of Tennessee's no. 4 position on the list of top music piracy schools, and the MPAA, which noted the school's no. 19 spot on its infringement list, the law will force both public and private schools in the state to implement policies to prevent and prohibit copyright infringement on campus computers and networks." [ArsTechnica]

Antipiracy group pushes 10 years jail time for UK infringers November 19, 2008
"Those guilty of online copyright infringement deserve criminal sentencings that are just as harsh as those who've been busted for commercial physical piracy, according to a UK-based antipiracy group. The Federation Against Software Theft (FAST) is pushing the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to adopt modifications to current copyright law that would punish online infringers with 10 years of imprisonment, "to bring parity with commercial dealing in pirated works."

The IPO is currently in the process of considering changes to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 based on the independently-conducted Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. The Gowers report, wrapped up in 2007, concluded that, "the intention and impact of physical and online infringement are the same. Crimes committed on the online and physical world should not be subject to different sentences. Increasing the penalties for online infringement will therefore make the law coherent." As a result, Gowers wrote that punishment for online infringers should be increased to 10 years in jail, suggestion that's now known as Recommendation 36." [ArsTechnica]

What’s wrong with ISP Music Licensing Fall 2008
"The decline of revenues in the music industry has led the industry to take a closer look at the responsibilities of Internet service providers “ISPs” and alternative compensation schemes both in the United States and in Europe. Many schemes have been considered to compensate the creative community for these losses, including the ida that ISPs could charge all or some of their users a small fee on a monthly basis that each ISP would pay to the creative community as compensation in return for the user’s ability to trade content files without fear of litigation or prosecution. It is worth noting that with very few exceptions, ISPs themselves are not leading the charge to undertake this burden, and it is only within the very recent past hat ISPs have entered into industry wide agreements to support anti-piracy efforts on their networks. Anti-piracy efforts are a long way from ISP licensing…." [ChristianCastle]

How Canada Fought Bad Copyright Law: Showing Why Copyright Law Matters
"You may recall, just about a year ago, there was suddenly a bunch of news over the possibility of Canada introducing its own version of the US's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). To the surprise of both the entertainment industry (who helped craft the law) and the politicians who were pushing it, the opposition to this law was incredibly successful in getting its message out. Starting with calls on various blogs and Facebook groups, kicked off by law professor Michael Geist, the issue became a big one throughout the media. The politicians who promised the entertainment industry that they would pass this law tried to delay the introduction, assuming that the opposition, while loud, was thin and would fade away. They were wrong. The issue continued to get attention, and when the law was finally introduced, the opposition, across the board, was widespread and strong. It wasn't just a fringe issue among "internet activists." It was something that people from all over the economy saw as a fundamental issue worth fighting for." [TechDirt]

China Says: If You Must Infringe On Copyrights, Use Baidu
"Many people have noted over the years that with all of the effort that China has put into its Great Firewall, the country hasn't done much of anything to crack down on unauthorized file sharing. In fact, at times, it's almost seemed to encourage it. So some people were a bit surprised to find out that China's censors tried blocking traffic to various well known BitTorrent sites, such as Mininova, isoHunt and The Pirate Bay. However, what may be most interesting is that rather than blocking them outright, it appears that the system just redirects all that traffic to popular Chinese search engine Baidu.


This would be the same Baidu that first became really popular when China shifted all Google traffic to its site, and also the site that stayed popular because it made it easy to download unauthorized music. This would be the same Baidu that was also recently exposed to be fairly complicit in the music downloads it offers, potentially hosting the content itself through a revolving series of ever-changing domains. So, this hardly seems like an attempt by the Chinese government to crack down on unauthorized file sharing -- but an attempt to drive it all to a local company. It looks like the redirects only lasted for a few days, and are no longer in place -- but if the past is any indication, those redirects may come back at any time." [TechDirt]

10/24/08

EU Public Affairs Monitor - 24/10/08

IGC Consultations to Continue on Future Work Program
"The Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Mr. Francis Gurry, and the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), Ambassador Rigoberto Gauto Vielman of Paraguay, said they would pursue efforts in the coming weeks to bridge differences among member states on the way to move international negotiations forward. The IGC wrapped up its 13th meeting late in the evening of October 17, 2008 after attempts to hammer out compromise texts on the future work program faltered. Despite intense negotiations, delegations were not able to agree on the working procedures required to deliver the concrete outcomes that many have called for from this Committee. The IGC’s mandate calls upon it to accelerate its work, and expectations remain strong that the Committee should produce a significant outcome by the time it is required to report back to the WIPO General Assembly in September 2009." [WIPO]

EC Legal Affairs Committee set to debate term
"No fireworks are expected, but some industry executives are already blocking out early November in their diaries as the next critical date in the copyright term story. The EC’s Legal Affairs Committee (LAC) meets in Brussels on November 4 to discuss the issue, which has so far been exercising a number of working groups.

According to one insider, the LAC is then likely to draw up a draft report, which will be put before the European Parliament.
“The word from the working groups is that Holland and the UK are currently not supporting copyright term extension. But, if the UK is isolated, it will not insist on being difficult,” he says. Poland was also thought to be against the extension of term, but another source suggests its ministers are sitting on the fence.

Once the European Parliament has looked at the work done by the LAC – and made its own amendments and readings - it will be sent down to the European Council for policy making. But the source is worried that, with the EU presidency due to change next year, the timing is tight if the Parliament goes for a second reading. “I think we are talking about the Parliament working on it in January and February, but March is really the last month that Parliament can vote,” he adds." [MusicWeek]

New Comms Minister plans report on Digital Britain
"Our new Minister For Communications, Technology And Broadcasting, former OfCom chief Stephen Carter, has announced he has commissioned a report on 'Digital Britain' which will inform government on what role it should play in the ongoing development of the digital and communications industries.

The report comes as one key digital media platform - digital audio broadcasting - faces an uncertain future following the decision by Channel 4 to bail out of its ambitious plans to launch a second national DAB network, and past decisions by some of the major radio firms who were instrumental in setting DAB up in the first place to sell off or close down their digital-only stations. The BBC remains committed to DAB, and with internet capacity issues already a concern as more people start to use rich media services like BBC iPlayer, the wider radio sector is probably advised to continue investing in a digital radio system that doesn't rely on the internet for delivery. Though with ad revenues from digital services still somewhat less than the cost of operating them, and with ad budgets set to be even further slashed in the coming year, it's not surprising commercial radio chiefs have lost their enthusiasm for DAB. Carter will also have to consider what to do about internet piracy. Although the ISPs have this year reluctantly agreed to take a more proactive role in helping record companies distribute warnings to those who access illegal sources of music online, if the warnings campaign doesn't prove to be a success and the labels start to push the ISPs towards taking more extreme action against copyright infringers - maybe even the 'three strikes and then you're cut off' proposal being considered in France - then they may need the government to come good on their promises to legislate in this area, and Carter may have to oversee that." [CMUDaily]

French Culture Minister Launches Cultural Independents Conference
"French minister of culture Christine Albanel has launched the "Arenes europeennes de l'independence" (European Arena Of Independence), a two-day conference session gathering European independent companies from the cultural field - mainly music, cinema and literature. The event will take place in Paris on Oct. 23 and 24.

"Creation is largely supported by independent companies," said Albanel, "which are largely impacted by online piracy." Albanel stressed that independent companies release 80% of new music records in France and generate 44% of the recorded market revenue and 67% of the industry jobs.

Albanel named several measures taken by her ministry during the past 18 months to support the recording industry, namely a €12 million ($15.7 million) tax-credit scheme allowing record companies to offset part of their investments on new records and a dedicated advance fund to help record companies borrow money.
"We need to go further," she added, in terms of financing and distribution. Albanel also reminded her audience about the importance of the EU to preserve fair market conditions and to rule on a more consistent VAT scheme for online cultural business."" [Billboard]

10/20/08

Music News Bulletin - 20/10/08

Bertelsmann today launches its new BMG Rights Management business, promising tailor-made services for songwriters and performers who want support in “the creation, marketing and licensing, collection and accounting, as well as advance financing of their music repertoire”
"The new organisation launches with a selection of European music catalogues that the company retained from the former Sony BMG portfolio. These include works from more than 200 artists and the company is planning to expand on this, initially with further European acts.
Bertelsmann says that its “core competency” will be “advising songwriters and performers in building their repertoire, supporting them with marketing and licensing services, and providing transparent coverage of all their rights management needs”. It will also provide financing during the rights-building process." [MusicWeek] [BillBoard]

The Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society (MCPS) has announced new rates and blanket licensing deals for UK independent production companies using library music
"The Independent Production Company (IPC) licence provides access to over 300,000 pieces of music from 150 music libraries covering all genres and styles.
The efficient ‘one-stop-shop’ system means only one application is required for all music use to be covered." [MusicWeek]

Online music piracy fell by 10% in 2008, according to new findings from Entertainment Media Research
"The company’s latest Digital Music Survey attributes the fall to the changing attitudes of internet service providers to piracy –earlier this year ISPs agreed to send letters to customers it suspects are sharing files under pressure from the BPI. he survey, which polls 1,500 UK consumers, also point to the popularity of music videos on YouTube as a further sign for optimism among the music industry." [MusicWeek]

U.K. Government Aims For ‘Digital Britain’
"The U.K. government is to develop a "Digital Britain" action plan in an effort to ensure the U.K. will be at the forefront of innovation and investment in the digital and communications industries. The report will be led by the first minister for communications, technology and broadcasting, Stephen Carter. The government says the sector is worth £52 billion ($89.9 billion) a year to the economy." [BillBoard]

Bush Signs Controversial Anti-Piracy Law
"U.S. President George W. Bush signed into law on Monday a controversial bill that would stiffen penalties for movie and music piracy at the federal level. The law creates an intellectual property czar who will report directly to the president on how to better protect copyrights both domestically and internationally. The Justice Department had argued that the creation of this position would undermine its authority." [BillBoard]

EU Public Affairs Monitor - 20/10/08

WIPO Director General Calls for Concrete Outcomes to Benefit Indigenous and Local Communities
"The Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Mr. Francis Gurry, called upon WIPO’s member states to intensify efforts to develop concrete international outcomes on traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources. This call opened the 13th session of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), WIPO’s principal policy forum working on these issues, on October 13, 2008. Newly appointed IGC Chairman, H.E. Ambassador Rigoberto Gauto Vielman of Paraguay, echoed the Director General’s call for the Committee to accelerate and focus its work with a view to delivering conclusive results. Mr. Gurry stressed the need for progress in the IGC’s work, in light of the high priority given to these issues by many diverse countries and by indigenous and local communities. He called on delegations to “reflect on the progress that we have made and where we are going in this process.” The Director General recalled the IGC’s decision at its last meeting in February 2008 to consider intersessional procedures to help accelerate the IGC’s work and to enable it to submit proposals to the WIPO General Assembly in September 2009 in line with the Committee’s current mandate. Mr. Gurry underlined the importance of maintaining a holistic approach to traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources, in the light of their cultural significance for many indigenous and local communities. But he equally pointed to the need for practical steps that would lead the Committee to areas of common ground on which solid progress could be made." [WIPO]

Ireland to work with EU lawyers on Lisbon opt-outs
"Irish Taoisach Brian Cowen said his government is consulting with EU council legal services on drafting possible "opt-outs" to the Lisbon treaty, speaking after an EU summit in Brussels on Thursday. "We are prepared to go into that process in good faith," he said, the Irish Times reports, with the structure of the European Commission, EU military integration, taxation and civil rights the likely areas of concern.The Irish leader also underlined his personal support for the Lisbon document and used Iceland's financial meltdown to show the benefits of EU and eurozone membership."There is a huge body of opinion - not shared by the Irish people as things stand - that sees the need for stronger institutions, for better decision-making processes, for more effective decision-making to make sure we can deal with challenges that transcend national boundaries," Mr Cowen said." [EUObserver]

Ashton hearing brought forward
"Deal with European Parliament could limit the disruption caused by the handover of the trade portfolio to the UK's new commissioner. The European Parliament has agreed to fast-track its hearing of the UK's new European commissioner, Catherine Ashton, a move prompted by concerns that she might otherwise be obliged to miss a number of important international meetings." [EuropeanVoice]

10/17/08

EU Commission: Internal Market - 17/10/08

Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, “Protecting innovation in Europe”, Conference on Industrial Property Rights in Strasbourg, 16 October 2008
Full speech [Europa]

9/30/08

In the Loop: 30/09/08

Germans gives peeking Google one in the eye: Schleswig-Holstein's answer is NEIN!
30th September 2008
"The town of Molfsee near Kiel in the north-western German state of Schleswig-Holstein doesn't want to be filmed by Google for its Street View program, a service that provides 360-degrees street level images via Google Maps.

The leader of the Christian Democratic Union on the town council told the Lübecker Nachrichten that "we are not going to let this happen". The 5,000 inhabitants find the project "extremely alarming" as criminals can plan break-ins more easily. Germany's Federal Commissioner for Data Protection also has major misgivings about Google's plans, according to Der Spiegel." [TheRegister]

Sky told to hand over footy and film rights: Rivals to get access at fair price
Posted in Government, 30th September 2008
"The UK's media regulator Ofcom has told Sky it should offer to sell rights to football games and Hollywood films to other broadcasters at a fair price.

The investigation into pay TV was begun after complaints were made by BT, Virgin, Setanta and Top Up TV. Ofcom reckons that consumers make their choices of which service to go with based on content not the features of different platforms. Big films and live Premiership games are a big draw for viewers and Sky has "market power" in these areas." [TheRegister]

Tories would decentralise NHS IT: Want patient confidence and reined-in data 30/09/08
"An incoming Conservative government would decentralise health service computing and extend competition between suppliers, according to a plan released at its party conference.

The party's NHS Improvement Plan, released on 29 September 2008 by shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley, says the party will replace "Labour's centrally determined and unresponsive national IT system."" [TheRegister]

Secret Service camera bought on eBay: Nikon camera, good nick, includes secret files 30th September 2008
"Today's government data loss shenanigan is a repeat performance of that old favourite - flogging off old kit containing secret information to a random punter through online tat bazaar eBay.

An unnamed 28-year-old delivery man from Hemel Hempstead bought a Nikon Coolpix camera for £17 on eBay. But when he returned from his holiday and downloaded the contents of the camera he found pictures of rocket launchers, log-in details for the Secret Service's encrypted remote computer network marked Top Secret and a hand-drawn diagram linking different, named al-Qaeda cells including individual names and occupations." [TheRegister]

US Congress rubberstamps IP enforcement bill: DoJ suits out, White House czar in 29/09/08
The US House of Representatives on Sunday passed a bill heavily backed by the recording industry that would create an intellectual property enforcement czar position in the White House as well as significantly increase penalties for IP infringement.

The bill passed unanimously through the Senate on Friday after being stripped of a controversial provision that would allow the US Department of Justice to file civil suits against suspected copyright violators on behalf of copyright holders. [TheRegister]

Click here to read more information on Mr Grimsdale, King Heron and Mobius

8/11/08

EU Public Affairs Monitor - 11/08/08

80% of artists would get <€30/year from copyright extension September 08, 2008
The EU is considering a plan to extend musical copyrights for another 45 years, ostensibly to help out aging performers who are being cut off when the current 50-year terms expire. But those musicians (can someone introduce them to the concept of saving for retirement?) won't see much of the new cash, according to the UK's Open Rights Group. Most performers will make less than €30 a year, even as major labels and big stars take far more.

The Open Rights Group, a UK "grassroots technology advocacy organization," is responding to a request for comments from the UK's Intellectual Property Office. UKIPO wants to know how it should weigh in on the EU-wide proposal, and the Open Rights Group's response is clear: the proposal is a bad idea." [ArsTechnica]

Committee amends, approves "enormous gift" to Big Content September 11, 2008
"The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008, which was blasted by consumer groups and library associations this week as an "enormous gift" to the content industry, won the approval of the Senate Judiciary Committee this afternoon by a 14-4 vote. As first reported by Ars this morning, a series of amendments were added during committee mark-up, providing privacy safeguards for records seized under the law and stripping away several controversial provisions—though not the hotly contested section empowering the Justice Department to litigate civil infringement suits on behalf of IP owners.

Related Stories
One significant change to the proposed legislation addressed, at least in some small measure, a concern broached by Public Knowledge and other consumer groups in a letter to the Judiciary Committee yesterday. Though the amended bill still creates expanded provisions for civil forfeiture of property implicated in an IP infringement case—potentially including servers or storage devices containing the personal data of large numbers of innocent persons—lawmakers altered the bill's language to affirmatively require a court to issue a protective order "with respect to discovery and use of any records or information that has been impounded," establishing "procedures to ensure that confidential, private, proprietary, or privileged information contained in such records is not improperly disclosed or used." They did not, however, go so far as to immunize the data of "virtual bystanders" from seizure, as the letter had requested." [ArsTechnica]

Copyright bill blasted as "enormous gift" to Big Content September 11, 2008
"The United States Congress returned to work this week, and senators appear to have copyright on the brain: A broad intellectual property enforcement bill introduced in July is slated for markup by the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, and another aimed at cracking down on piracy overseas was introduced Wednesday.

As Ars reported in July, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), enacts a potpourri of measures long sought by content industries. Most significant of these is a provision allowing for the Department of Justice to bring civil suits against IP infringers, with any damages won to be turned over to content owners. It would also expand civil forfeiture powers in IP cases, create a federal copyright czar to "harmonize" IP enforcement between state and federal agencies, and establish liaisons to foreign IP "hot spots" where piracy is rampant." [ArsTechnica]

7/25/08

EU Public Affairs Monitor - 25/07/08

Senator fuses controversial IP bills into big, bad package July 25, 2008
"Intellectual property legislation introduced in the Senate on Thursday would combine elements of two controversial IP enforcement bills: The PRO-IP Act, which passed the House by a wide margin in May, and the PIRATE Act, which has won Senate approval several times since its first introduction in 2004. The law would increase penalties for counterfeiting, empower federal prosecutors to bring civil suits against copyright infringers, create a federal copyright czar to coordinate IP enforcement, and provide for the seizure of property used to violate copyrights and trademarks.

Related Stories
Like PRO-IP, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 would double statutory damages for counterfeiting, with damages as high as $2 million for "willful" trademark violations. It also empowers the president to appoint an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (or "copyright czar"), who would develop a "joint strategic plan" meant to harmonize the IP enforcement efforts of diverse federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, Patent Office, State Department, and Department of Homeland Security. The Attorney General is directed to deploy five further IPECs as liaisons to foreign countries where piracy is rampant, and to establish a dedicated IP task force within the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The law also appropriates $25 million annually for grants to state and local government agencies working to crack down on IP violations." [ArsTechnica]

4/28/07

Are Intellectual Property Rules the “New Protectionism” or are they the Necessary Policies to Promote Innovation in the Knowledge Based Economy?

Protectionism, the fostering or developing domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition through duties or quotas imposed on importations has existed in many different forms, ranging from mercantilist practices in the sixteenth century to dirigiste and isolationist economics of the twentieth century. Today the level of protectionism has declined as a result of organisations such at the WTO and the EU fostering common approaches to trade and policy developments. However, despite this countries will still attempt to use new and existing levers of influence to strengthen their international positions and their domestic companies. One emerging form of modern protectionism is the strengthening of intellectual property, the ownership of ideas and control over the tangible or virtual representation of those ideas. Encouraged by developed economies such as the United States and the EU, intellectual property rules benefit their policies, as the new rules extend the length of exclusivity that companies or individuals have over new ideas. Despite claims that the structure encourages new research and innovation the rules favour larger companies and liberal economies compared to smaller companies and less developed economies.

In many developed countries following the Second World War the overriding principle was to have an industrial policy, usually heavily reliant on the public sector in order to encourage the development of ‘national champions’, companies with enough expertise and scale to be able to compete well on the international markets. These values had been reflected in the protectionist measures which some countries had employed, such as France giving generous loans and subsidies to key industries. However, the growing web of trade agreements, such as the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which put restrictions on subsidies left France “saddled with huge coal, steel, shipbuilding and automobile companies that were absorbing public funds but which had substantial overcapacity and could not produce as cheaply overseas.”[1] This resulted in France increasing its pressure on its European neighbours in the 1990s to increase its level of standards in many areas in order to reduce their competitive advantage as a result of lower producing standards and a firmer policy on agricultural imports to the EU to protect its agricultural base.


The WTO’s Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), a binding international agreement that sets new universal standards on how countries grant and protect intellectual property (IP) helped to change the global climate of patents and the right to access information.

The Previous System

Prior to the strengthening of the patent system, “society looked to high technology for a model of how to innovate, not the only or necessarily the best model of how to innovate, not the only or necessarily the best model, but a model that certainly worked. The model was based firmly on the notion that innovation was dependent on the free flow of information.”[2]



This was part of the belief that information should be disseminated as much as possible, as even though the free rider takes the benefit of information without having to pay for it society gains, as the producer of information does not lose the information. This emphasis places the innovator above the inventor, as the benefit to society of a new breakthrough being used widely is greater from society’s point of view than if an inventor solely made use of it. For example, Drahos, and Mayne considered that the more producers who know how to produce a therapeutic drug the better, as the producers would have to compete on price in order to sell it. [3]


There have been varying uses of free riding throughout economic history, with countries ranging from
Switzerland and the United States not having patent law until the 19th century to some countries which still maintain some degrees of free riding. [4] This is because free riding enables countries to ‘imitate’ in order to catch-up with other countries economically. For Trebilcock and Howse there is “nothing suspect or unreasonable with the preference of many developing countries for a relatively lax system of intellectual property rights.” [5] One example of the was Japan, which practised an imitation policy highly successfully after the Second World War.


As matters of intellectual property originally tended to relate only to domestic innovations the institutions tended to reflect national preferences. For example,
Canada was able to develop a highly successful generic drugs industry in order to guarantee value for money healthcare for its citizens as a result of promoting competition in the pharmaceutical industry.


Also, as R&D often was publicly funded it permitted for greater cooperation between countries on major scientific projects, as the benefits of findings were likely to benefit all.


Calls for Greater IP Protection

Since the 1980s traditional industrial policy, whereby governments subsidized various industrial sectors to promote national economic development, had been severely criticized. Its practice became “increasingly less viable both for reasons of budgetary restraints and for fear of trade counterveil measures by other countries.” [6] This combined with the growing popularity of libertarianism and the belief in the free market over public investment created louder concerns for reform of intellectual property rules, particularly from the business community. However, Doern feels that the decline of traditional industrial policy and the emergence of trade related policies are traceable with hindsight but they do not yield a simple casual path for intellectual property for IP institutions.[7]

This relationship between society and businesses has altered since the 1980s, with the intellectual property balance being tilted in favour of businesses in order to allow growth. A major argument from the business community was that there was a new need to protect inventors. It is argued that today’s inventors are different from yesterdays, as the time and cost necessary to make new discoveries was greater than in the past and that, consequentially they required a greater return to justify and further encourage research. As a consequence patents, a form of subsidy to inventors from society in exchange for new knowledge was extended.

Supporters of this felt that the monopoly of longer patents is less of a problem than it would have been in the past because “as alternative strategies proliferate, there are fewer and fewer products with inelastic demand curve that allow companies to raise their prices arbitrarily to earn monopoly returns.” [8] Thus, as there is increased choice there is less opportunity for patent holders to abuse their position. However, this pure version of perfect competition fails to stand up to the light in many situations. As a result, the US Government has cut its support for research and development. What used to be a fifty - fifty split in investment has now become one third - two thirds split in research expenditures. [9]


Increasing Intellectual Property Internationally

America and later Europe have been the major standard bearers in extending IP and creating global standards globally. This was a response to create a framework to encourage international trade, through creating a stable framework for trade in goods, services and knowledge for companies. However, the framework’s unitary style and free-market language create significant disadvantages for the developing worlds and their businesses.


Until the 1980s America was content to share its innovation with the world, partly to counteract the threat of the Soviet Union but also because “Americans believed that the rest of the world would not be able to catch up with American ingenuity,” as while foreigners were copying the last generation of technology Americans would be inventing the next. [10] However, the economic growth of East Asian companies and their increasing abilities to compete both in terms of manufacturing and research has put pressure on American competitiveness.


Following bilateral agreements with
Hungary, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan the US Government learned that “while exhortation alone was ineffective, linking trade and intellectual property protection could get desired results.” [11] As a country with a $12,455,825 million GDP[12] the United States has been able to exert its influence on others using its market size to get concessions for protecting its IP. This has been used to cement its strength as the largest pharmaceutical manufacturer and computer software manufacturer in the world.


During the Uruguay Round the United States pushed for increased levels of IP, with a flat twenty year time period for all patents. This agreement occured without any African country present at the earlier rounds of negotiation, despite the importance of such a decision. It resulted in the linkage between trade and IP being tightened through amending the Trade and Tariff Act in 184 and 1988. As a result,
America “is able to retaliate swiftly with trade sanctions in the event that targeted countries fail to adequately protect its intellectual property.” [13]


Effects on Businesses

The economic consequences affect all types of businesses, as agreements such as TRIPS raise the barriers to entry for all companies, making it difficult for new or smaller companies to establish themselves. However, this is especially the case for developing countries, as they tend to have less powerful businesses, especially in high knowledge industries.


In the past, companies were willing to share their technology because it did not seem to be the source of their success and could not be sold for much anyway. [14] However, as a result of lengthening the time period of IP to twenty years there is a considerable benefit to enforcing and claiming rights of patents. For example, Texas Instruments, once liberal in its cross-licensing arrangements with competitors, has become particularly litigious. Its most profitable product line is now patent royalties. For example, the company’s licence income from $30 million in 1990 to nearly $1 billion in 2000 (Rivette and Kline, 2000). [15]


Previously, businesses who developed a product would first attempt to move quickly in producing it in order to get the ‘first mover advantage’ and gain economies of scale so significant that other companies would be put off entering the market. However, as a result of the new system large companies are becoming less willing to share their inventions with others, as they have such a large period of monopoly they have a greater incentive to use their internal resources. As a result there is less dissemination of knowledge, as there is no incentive for companies because they can sit on the patent. Today, 73% of private patents were still based on knowledge generated by public sources such as universities and non-profit or government laboratories. Thurlow felt that this was enough to suggest that secretly held knowledge does not generate the next generation of technology. [16]


The flat twenty year intellectual property time period was introduced by negotiators as an expedient, as the time it would take to introduce separate industry agreements would be time consuming and perhaps preferential to certain industries. However, as a result the flat time period it has greatly distorted many markets. Simple economic logic suggests that these periods of protection “ought to vary greatly by field or sector, depending on varying cost structures, investments, and payback periods.” [17]


As a result, some industries have a greater incentive to produce patents, as the benefit of a patent exceeds the length of the monopoly period given. The table below highlights the fact that even though many patents are being issued it does not mean that the technology being developed would not have come about if the IP protection period was shorter.

Inventions that would not have been developed in the absence of patent protection (%)[18]

Pharmaceuticals 60

Chemicals 38

Petroleum 25

Machinery 17

Fabricated Metal Products 12

Electrical Equipment 11

Primary Metals 1

Office Equipment 0

Motor Vehicles 0

Rubber 0

Textiles 0


The lack of mini-patents, which would provide shorter, less expensive and less rigorous forms of protection has disadvantaged smaller companies. This results in smaller and medium sized companies being unable to compete on a level footing with larger companies.


Small companies are in a lose-lose situation in regards to IP as even if they have a patent it may not guarantee them any security. In situations where rival companies start using a technology or process smaller companies may be unable to afford or have the human resources to mount a legal challenge against the offending company.


Patents do not confer any wealth. The amount spent on securing and enforcing patents does not add any value to an idea. With cases lasting four years or more, costs can go from between $2 million and $10 million per case, resulting in companies spending as much time in the courts as they are in the laboratories. [19]


Jorde and Teece argue that ‘legal scholarship and judicial action (in the
US) have been slow to recognise the primary importance of innovation to the competitive process. [20] For example, corporate patent attorneys have started scrutinizing their companies’ patent portfolios and have become more reluctant to give R&D managers the go-ahead on a new idea or business for fear of duplicating a patented product. [21]


The law community suggests that anti-trust cases will help clarify any misunderstandings through test cases. However, any judges decision will merely reflect previous judgements and will be unable to take account of any economic or political realities of agreements regarding IP.


Effects on Developing Countries

As a result of longer periods of agreements and tougher enforcement of IP protection there has been an increase of foreign technology transfer as a consequence of companies being less concerned about their technology being copied. However, it is difficult to envisage whether this would have happened regardless. The main concern is that the developing world has had a system imposed on it that forces it to pay the developed world for technology that it morally should be discounting the effects of patents.

As mentioned previously, most countries have gone through stages at which they ‘free ride’, borrowing technology from abroad and using it to develop the economic infrastructure until there is domestic pressure to protect domestic innovators. Agreements such as TRIPS have removed this path which had previously allowed countries such as Japan and America to become prosperous, widening the gap for many countries to economically reform.

For example, the United States has 3676 scientists and engineers in R&D per million compared to Rwanda’s 35 scientists and engineers in R&D per million. [22] It is unlikely that a company would seriously consider relocating to Rwanda just because it was offering a fifty year period of IP protection. Consequentially, it seems unfair to burden a country with regulations and demands that it will struggle to comply with and affect it greatly.

This is especially so given the fact that the patent infrastructure is based more on the developed worlds needs for consumerism, with emphasis on cheap entertainment goods rather than poorer countries needs to cheap medicine for malaria.

No case is this more apparent than the pharmaceutical industry which has now become purely business orientated and seemingly unable to make moral or investment decisions. Take for example the pharmaceutical industries shock at South Africa’s attempts to introduce cheap drugs to deal with the AIDS crisis merely because it would be seen as the thin edge of a wedge of reduced prices or generic goods for other countries.

The pharmaceutical industry has every right to attempt to be profitable. However, the infrastructure put in place appears to knowingly put in place a system whereby the industry maximises its costly investment in developing and testing drugs on both the developed and developing countries of the world. In the case of poor countries inability to develop new drugs for themselves or generic drugs legally this would be a case of abuse of control and overly protectionist policies of developed nations.


Similarly, its market decision making results in greater resources being devoted to solving the crisis of hair loss over the crisis of HIV because developed countries will provide a more profitable marketplace.


Conclusion

The benefits of agreements such as TRIPS seem to be highly one way, reinforcing the dominant position of countries such as the United States and economies such at the EU. Measures to encourage research are helping to create a situation where inventors are given too great a control over the innovation process. This seems to benefit predominantly Western and East Asian companies without offering poorer companies the benefits beyond the chance of increased foreign investment if they toe the line. The lack of power is highlighted by industries such as pharmaceuticals being able to set the level of investment and price on goods without any form of accountability. However, intellectual property is not the ‘new protectionism’, as new battle lines such as over how we reduce the growth of carbon emissions are creating more current forms of government competition. Despite this, the new rules are a major disadvantage that works against the least well off in the developing world.

By Jonathan McHugh

First written in May 2007

[1] Peter Hall, Jack Hayward and Howard Machin Developments in French Politics (The Machmillan Press Ltd) 1994. p175

[2] S. MacDonald Exploring the hidden costs of patents p.26

[3] P Drahos and R. Mayne Global Intellectual Property Rights: Knowledge, Access and Development (London: Palgrave, 2002) p4

[4] P Drahos and R. Mayne Global Intellectual Property Rights: Knowledge, Access and Development (London: Palgrave, 2002) p4

[5] B. Doern Global Change and Intellectual Property Agencies (Pinter) 1999 p. 7

[6] The Canadian Intellectual Property Office p61

[7] B. Doern Global Change and Intellectual Property Agencies (Pinter) 1999 p. 35

[9] L. Thurow Needed A New System of Intellectual Property Rights Harvard Business Review

[10] L. Thurow Needed A New System of Intellectual Property Rights Harvard Business Review

[11] S. Sell Power and Ideas North South Politics of International Property and Antitrust (State University of New York Press) 1998 p. 183

[12] International Monetary Fund, (World Economic Outlook Database) September 2006;

[13] S. Sell Power and Ideas North South Politics of International Property and Antitrust (State University of New York Press) 1998 p. 183

[14] L. Thurow Needed A New System of Intellectual Property Rights Harvard Business Review

[15] S. MacDonald Exploring the hidden costs of patents p.29

[16] L. Thurow Needed A New System of Intellectual Property Rights Harvard Business Review

[17] The Canadian Intellectual Property Office p. 121

[18] The Canadian Intellectual Property Office p62

[19] S. MacDonald Exploring the hidden costs of patents p.29

[20] Cited from The Canadian Intellectual Property Office p. 63

[21] S. MacDonald Exploring the hidden costs of patents p.32

[22] P Drahos and R. Mayne Global Intellectual Property Rights: Knowledge, Access and Development (London: Palgrave, 2002) p2