Archive for June 2009

EPO publishes guide to software patents

Wednesday June 10th 2009, by Piers Strickland

As reported by the IPKat blog, the EPO has published a useful guide setting out its approach to software patents.

The introduction states that:

“The European Patent Office (EPO) does not grant patents for computer programs (“software patents”) or computer-
implemented business methods that make no such technical contribution. In this respect the granting practice of the EPO
differs significantly from that of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The EPO is bound by European patent law as laid down in the European Patent Convention (EPC), which has been adopted by the 35 member states of the European Patent Organisation, and as interpreted by the independent EPO boards of appeal, the judiciary of the Organisation.“

A full copy of the EPO report can be found here.

Can you defend the US authors’ copyright settlement with Google Books?

Wednesday June 10th 2009, by Piers Strickland

The Register reports the contents of a speech made by Richard Sarnoff, the individual who apparently signed off the settlement agreement between Google Books (Google, Inc.) and the US Authors Guild and others.

The settlement has been subject to significant controversy, with commentators suspicious of Google’s respect of copyright laws given their treatment of copyright works on platforms such as YouTube.

Speaking at the World Copyright Summit, Mr Sarnoff was reported as making a couple of specific justifications for the copyright deal with Google:

Books that are out of print are a “no-opoly”. The deal with Google will create a market for these titles for the first time. The Register quite rightly makes the point that competition will only really happen if the deal with Google is not exclusive and other players can get into the market. (See below for my comments on this point.)
The rights owners need to engage and regularise this new market before it goes the way of file sharing in the music industry. In Sarnoff’s mind, making an early deal is the best way to make sure a new market develops in the proper way.

However, the terms of the settlement agreement with Google Inc, which is freely available on Google’s website (link), indicate (from a quick skim) that the settlement agreement is non-exclusive, so there does not appear to be anything preventing competing parties to Google Books from coming in and striking similar copyright settlements with these same claimants. Indeed, Google may possibly be performing a public service by paving the way in this respect.

Commercial settlements of copyright disputes are generally to be welcomed. They are often much preferable to clients, compared to the alternative, which is often very long and expensive copyright litigation proceedings with sometimes uncertain results. Alternative dispute resolution enables parties to agree much more commercially acceptable agreements than a Court has the power to give.

Copyright and privacy laws targeted by newly elected Swedish MEPs

Tuesday June 9th 2009, by Piers Strickland

An article from the Guardian (link) reports that the “Pirate Party” has won 2 seats in the Swedish European Parliamentary elections with a whopping 7.1%. This seems quite a large number of votes for a single issue party.

While this Pirate Party is not the same organisation as that behind the torrent site, the Pirate Bay, whose founders have recently been found guilty by a Swedish Court and face imprisonment, the Pirate Party’s manifesto aims are aligned with their fellow pirate conspirators.

According to the Guardian, the Pirate Party’s platform is to:

“increase people’s privacy on the web, and to protect freedom of speech…to reform the copyright laws and patent system.”

Of course, part of the reason why such parties wish to ensure that privacy on the Internet is enhanced is to make it harder for rights holders to monitor who is engaging in unauthorised and infringing P2P file sharing.

The Pirate Party’s success might well be a direct protest from certain sections of the Swedish public following the treatment of the Pirate Bay’s founders. However, the poll results do point to the fact that governments and the rights holding industries, in Sweden and beyond, have a struggle on their hands to win the hearts and minds of consumers against such a political movements.

High Court refuses to rule patent revocation action is an abuse of process and also refuses to grant a stay pending opposition proceedings in the EPO

Friday June 5th 2009, by Piers Strickland

In the case of Tns Group Holdings Limited V Nielsen Media Research, Inc, the High Court of England and Wales held that, pursuant to the words “any person” in s.72(1) of the Patents Act 1977, the intention of the applicant in a revocation action was irrelevant. Therefore, it was not an abuse of process to bring the revocation action even if there had been no sufficient commercial reason to do so. This makes sense given that, as a matter of public policy, patent monopolies should be vulnerable to wide scale challenge.

The Claimant admitted intention was to use a finding of invalidty from an English Court in other European jurisdictions. The Honourable Mr Justice Arnold, of the High Court, held that such a motive was legitimate, as consistency of decisions was desirable. The Judge also refused to stay the action pending opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office (“EPO”), following the principles laid down in Glaxo v Genentech, because the EPO proceedings would take at least two years longer than a final decision in the UK courts.

UCL study highlights digital divide in consumer perceptions

Friday June 5th 2009, by Piers Strickland

University College London has released an interesting study (link) about the position of consumers in the digital age.

Young people, in particular, claim that they do not feel guilty about their unauthorised file sharing and do not feel that they should have to pay for music – in the 15-19 age group, 69% felt this way.

The UCL study highlights interesting human emotional reactions which are used to justify this infringing behaviour, such as:

denial of responsibility – e.g. factors beyond user’s control into play: “I urgently need this for my homework…”
denial of injury to victim – e.g. the large record companies wont be hurt by this
condemning the condemners – e.g. the record companies deserve what they get for their inflated prices
appeal to higher loyalties – e.g. my brother really needs this content

Other key interesting issues were analysed:

there are different perceptions when dealing with the physical and digital worlds and that each is evolving in its own distinctive fashion. The regulators need to realise this and not try and impose an analogue straight-jacket for a digital market.
it has never been easier to break the law and you don’t even need to leave your house to do so.
education not working as yet – strong empirical evidence
no “victim” and no “crime” – strong empirical evidence
should ISP and consumer electronic industries be more responsible for the fact that they offer the tools to copy so prodigiously?

Recent posts

Subscribe

Categories

Archive