The day after the ‘net neutrality vote’

by | Apr 7, 2014 | News from around the Web

From Regulation Watch – Feed of all News articles: The day after the ‘net neutrality vote’ “ On Thursday April 3, the European Parliament voted in favour of a legislative package to protect network neutrality and abolish mobile roaming fees within the European Union. 534 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted for the so called Connected Continent telecommunications measures proposed by the European Commission with several amendments. The measures would put a lid on so-called managed services by forcing internet service providers to refrain from blocking and/or slowing down internet services provided by their competitors. Also, roaming charges applied to mobile phone users when outside their country of residence would be foiled effective December 15, 2015. Only 25 MEPs opposed the measures, 58 abstained. The ‘continent is not connected yet’, though, as the measures will translate into law only once they have been approved by the European Council, a powerful body representing EU member states. A decision by the Council is expected in October 2014. “The Council can change the text if it likes. If it does so, the Parliament will have several more goes at it. Everything depends on the lobbying power of the telecom groups in the Council,” says Andrej Savin, Law Professor at the Copenhagen Business School. “I personally think it unlikely that this will pass the Council without some struggle.” Different stakeholders have left no doubt that they will engage in a fierce battle. Industry divided, consumers united The industry group European Telecommunications Network Operators (ETNO) criticised the outcome of the vote, arguing that there is a risk of derailing from the original objectives, “namely...

Missed Opportunities for Alice, Software at the Supreme Court

by | Apr 1, 2014 | News from around the Web

From IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law: Missed Opportunities for Alice, Software at the Supreme Court “It seems undeniable that Alice missed many opportunities to score easy points. Indirect arguments were made by Alice that didn’t seem very persuasive. Indeed, if one is to predict the outcome of the case based on oral arguments alone it did not go well for Alice today. Only three things give Alice supporters hope after this oral argument as far as I can tell. First, the government seems to be asking the Supreme Court to overrule precedent in Bilski that is not even four years old, which simply isn’t going to happen. Second, the egregious overreach and outright misleading nature of the CLS Bank argument should raise a legitimate question or two in the mind of the Justices. Third, the reality simply is that at least the systems claims recite numerous specific, tangible elements such that it should be impossible to in any intellectually honest way find those claims to cover an abstract...

Justices Skeptical of Software Patent

by | Apr 1, 2014 | News from around the Web

From Law Blog: Justices Skeptical of Software Patent “ REUTERS Supreme Court justices sought to find the line distinguishing abstract ideas available to all from patentable software inventions during an hour of argument that touched on innovations from the ancient abacus to the shopping platform of...

Will copyrights become the next software patents?

by | Mar 31, 2014 | News from around the Web

From Regulation Watch – Feed of all News articles: Will copyrights become the next software patents? “ This winter the European Commission asked ‘stakeholders’ for their input on a long list of questions about the future of copyrights in Europe. Between December 5, 2013 and March 5, 20141 everybody – from government to business association, NGO and individual citizen – was able to submit her or his answers or comments to 80 questions about various aspects of copyrights in the digital era. In terms of participation, the consultation was a huge success: The Commission received 11,117 contributions, a record number that no other EC consultation has reached so far. Online consultations are a tool for the Commission to gather expertise from interested parties in an early stage of the legislative process. They usually follow the publication of a green book, in which the Commission lays down its general perception of problems and possible solutions in a specific policy field, and they precede the drafting of the legal text of a directive. Because all stakeholder submissions are subsequently published on the Commission website, online consultations provide a unique tool of administrative transparency – even though the consultations are only one channel among many which interest groups and lobbyists can use when trying to influence the outcome of the legislative process in Europe. For the Commission online consultations also provide information about possible substantive conflict lines and about the level of contention a planned legislation may face. The first time a consultation about issues of intellectual property rights in the knowledge economy received similarly high numbers of contributions was when the...

Can contracts derogate from obligations set at the EU level? A new CJEU reference

by | Mar 26, 2014 | News from around the Web

From The IPKat: Can contracts derogate from obligations set at the EU level? A new CJEU reference “ A work of art or just the cutestcat ever? Gigi portrayed whilesurely contemplating Christie’s,auctions and the CJEU This Kat has just learned of a new reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which only at first sight seems concerned with a niche area of the law, this being the artist’s resale right and Directive 2001/84/EC (the Resale Right Directive).  Case C-41/14 Christie’s France is an important case, whose implications will go far beyond the sole area of payment of the resale right royalty on the artist’s resale right.  What the French Court of Cassation is in fact asking is whether contracts can derogate from obligations set at the level of EU directives. Article 1 of the Resale Right Directive sets in fact an obligation for Member States to provide for the benefit of the author of an original work of art an inalienable, unwaivable resale right. This consists of the right to receive a royalty based on the sale price obtained for any resale of the work, subsequent to the first transfer of the work by the author.  Article 1(4) further states that: "The royalty shall be payable by the seller. Member States may provide that one of the natural or legal persons referred to in paragraph 2 [sellers, buyers or intermediaries art market professionals, such as salesrooms, art galleries and, in general, any dealers in works of art] other than [that’s the important bit] the seller shall alone be liable or shall share liability with the seller for payment of the royalty." Cat and Christie reference As explained by EU Law Radar, Christie’s...

Collective Rights Management Directive published in the OJ (at last)

by | Mar 26, 2014 | News from around the Web

From The IPKat: Collective Rights Management Directive published in the OJ (at last) “ Choose Bruce to manage your rights instead of that old collecting society of yours As IPKat readers will remember, at the end of February last the Council formally adopted a new EU directive "on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market" [on which see here and here]. While Merpel spent the past few weeks swearing that she would never waste precious time trying to learn the full and mouthful title of this directive by heart, this Kat kept wondering about its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Why? Not only because the OJ is one of her favourite magazines, but also because on the 20th day following this event this new piece of EU legislation will enter into force.Via Katfriend and collective rights management enthusiast [is it an oxymoron, wonders Merpel] Sebastian Felix Schwemer (University of Copenhagen) comes the news that the Directive was published today in the OJ, thus acquiring the even longer official title of Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market.The full text can be accessed here.Now it is up to Member States to transpose the Directive into their national laws. The deadline? 10 April 2016....