I refer to my earlier posting titled "Mr. Florian Müller Nominated as 'European of the Year'". Yesterday, the newspaper European Voice has presented the "EV50 Europeans of the Year" awards in Brussels. Now, Mr. Müller has published a statement from which I quote excerpts as given below:
"[...] I was proclaimed as the winner of the 'EU Campaigner of the Year' category award for my work on the NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign. In that category, I was competing with five other nominees, including U2 frontman Bono and another rock star, Bob Geldof. The rules were such that the overall winner could not simultaneously win the category. Initially, I accepted the category award, not enthusiastically but because I did not want to cause any impression of an emotional overreaction by immediately declining it. I awaited the presentation of the remaining awards. After the overall "European of the Year" award had been given to Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, the organizers wanted to take a picture of all ten winners with their trophies. Before the photograph, I gave the award trophy back to Mr. Dennis Landsbert-Noon, the publisher of the European Voice, and left.
I told Mr. Landsbert-Noon that I had, after serious consideration, 'decided not to accept the award', and that I will issue further statements after obtaining legal advice.
Obviously it was a difficult decision to decline a category award that has been won by famous people, most notably the late Pope John Paul II in the year 2002. I was fully aware of the fact that this action would potentially affect decisions by other award juries in the future as well as my relationship with the organizers and sponsors of the EV50.
My greatest concern was that by declining the EU Campaigner of the Year award, I would disappoint the many who have voted for me and those who have supported our tremendously impactful Internet campaign for votes.
However, it was in my opinion the only appropriate action, and I will soon explain the reasons to do so. In the meantime, please understand that I will not be able to answer further questions on this subject.
I also have an anecdote to tell that many will find amusing. Mr. Michel Rocard, a member of the European Parliament (MEP) and former prime minister of France, received the "MEP of the Year" award for his work on the software patent directive. In his acceptance speech, he mentioned Microsoft's sponsorship of the EV50 awards several times. While Microsoft supported the proposed directive, Mr. Rocard wanted to very clearly exclude software from the scope of patentability. Mr. Rocard had a special message for Microsoft and EU commissioner Charlie McCreevy: "You will discover that we were right."
Mr. Rocard could additionally have mentioned that Burson-Marsteller, a PR and lobbying firm with offices in many cities including Brussels, counts Microsoft (as well as other corporations with a similar position on software patents) among its clients. Burson-Marsteller was involved in the organization of the EV50. [...]"
It seems to be quite an irony that the EV50 award pushing Mr. Rocard and anti-IP positions appears co-sponsored by Microsoft. And, of course, such zig-zag behaviour as exhibited by Mr. Müller surely is not suitable to enhance public esteem of anti-patent campaigners in the general public (perhaps apart from some Internet geeks and nerds scene).
Moreover, at the General Assembly of the FFII e.V. held yesterday in Brussels, Mr. Hartmut Pilch was replaced as President of this organisation by Mr. Pieter Hintjens, CEO of iMatix, after a fierce and controversial debate (see this report on Heise-Ticker [in German only; sorry.]). Maybe that the best days of FFII are already over.
EU-US Declaration on an "Initiative to Enhance Transatlantic Economic Integration and Growth".
The General Secretariat of the EU Council has communicated with Document 14945/05 a statement as follows:
"[...] 7. Intellectual Property Rights
'Growing global piracy and counterfeiting threatens the competitiveness of innovative industries, the livelihoods of creative artists and workers, and the health and safety of consumers in the European Union, the United States and beyond. We are committed to effectively combating piracy and counterfeiting at home and abroad' (Text of Economic Initiative).
1.3.14. 7.1. Fight against Counterfeiting and Piracy
Objectives:
- Promote strong and effective enforcement internally and at our borders; - Strengthen cooperation to reduce global piracy and counterfeiting; - Foster public-private partnerships to protect intellectual property.
Specific Activities:
1. The Commission and the US will aim to exchange information and to seek mutual support on enforcement related initiatives separately undertaken by the two parties in the framework of TRIPs. These initiatives are the Communication to the TRIPs Council about 'IPR Enforcement' made by the EC in June 2005 and an exercise conducted by the US pursuant to Article 63.3 of the TRIPs Agreement, seeking enforcement related information from certain third countries.
2. The Commission and the US to develop information exchange on issues such as the compliance with IP rules of certain third countries applying to join the WTO, on the evolution of bilateral IP negotiations with third parties, on technical assistance initiatives in third countries, on the implementation of public-private partnerships and on the elaboration of best-practices.
3. The Commission and the US to work together on Customs enforcement under the EC-US Customs Co-operation agreement (exchange of operational experience, risk management etc).
4. The Commission and the US to exchange information on domestic enforcement measures, both in relation to promoting and upholding effective laws, regulations and/or procedures and in relation to appropriate digital rights management (DRMs) and technological protection measures (TPMs), whilst also taking due account of public policy interests, such as the promotion of fair competition and consumer rights, with a view to identify best practices.
5. On the promotion of strong and effective enforcement internally and at the borders, the commission highlights the following recent and foreseen developments:
o the commission submitted legislative proposals for enhanced criminal law protection of intellectual property rights on 12 July 2005 (COM(2005)276 final).
o Piracy and counterfeiting are among the issues to be dealt with within the overall context of coming to an EU action plan on public private-partnerships to combat organised crime which is scheduled for adoption in 2006.
6. US support for full EC participation in key IPR enforcement fora such as WIPO and WCO.
Measuring progress:
- Possible mutual support for the respective initiatives. - Number of exchanges (operational information/risk management techniques/officials) and possibly increased customs seizures - Contacts with all relevant stakeholders. - US support for EC’s full membership of key IPR enforcement multilateral fora such as WIPO.
Defining Goals for the 2006 Summit:
- If present experience is judged successful, continuing the exchange of information and cooperation in those particular initiatives which the parties identify as being of mutual interest. - An intensified dialogue needs to be backed up by progress to implement IPR-related WTO rulings. - Endorse and support the implementation of a joint EC-US strategic plan for Customs enforcement activities to be produced under the EC-US Customs Co-operation agreement.
Timelines:
1. By the next TRIPs Council (October 2005) 2. Continued exercise 3. Plan produced early 2006, implementation 2006 and 2007 4. Continued exercise 5&6 2006
1.3.15. 7.2. International Substantive Patent System
Objectives:
- Protecting IPRs to promote innovation, employment and competitiveness. Mitigate costly differences in the ways in which IP is protected on either sides of the Atlantic. Patent protection plays an important role in this context. Main priority will be to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the patent system more generally through progress on substantive patent law harmonization. This will include a general move to 'first to file'.
Specific Activities:
Intensify existing dialogue between COM and US as follows:
1. Bilateral exchange of views on how to best move forward to arrive at an effective and efficient international substantive patent law system; this includes cooperation within WIPO and support of the plurilateral “Alexandria process”. 2. The dialogue should also cover issues of concern to developing countries such as the disclosure of origin of genetic resources. 3. Look for constructive approaches to achieve a global standard 'first to file' system.
Measuring Progress:
1. Number of bilateral meetings (including video conferences) on the above issues. 2. Contacts between officials involved on both sides of the Atlantic. 3. State of play of the discussions in the “Alexandria process” and in the WIPO General Assembly more generally.
Defining Goals for the 2006 Summit:
- Stocktaking on above mentioned activities. - Ministerial support for progress on international substantive patent law harmonisation in WIPO.
Timelines:
1. WIPO general assemblies 2. Alexandria process (during 2006/2007)."
There is also related another Document 14843/05 titled "Joint EU-US Work Programme implementing the 'EU-US Initiative to Enhance Transatlantic Economic Integration and Growth' - State of play of negotiations". I don't exactly know how serious those contacts should be taken at all.
EU Commissioner Mr. Charlie McCreevy on Patent Politics.
Mr. Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, has presented today under the title Stocking on industrial and intellectual property before the European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee a speech from which I have taken the quote below:
"[...] Turning to patents, the situation is, unfortunately, very different. The Community has made only two forays into the field of harmonisation of the substantive rules governing patentability, both in sectors crucial to the competitiveness of European industry. The biotechnology directive adopted in1998, was agreed after long and difficult discussions in Parliament and Council. It is perhaps symptomatic of the complexity of this area of technology and the emotions it arouses that three Member States have still not fully transposed the Directive, five years after the due date.
The debate surrounding the proposal on computer implemented inventions had one incontrovertible benefit: it interested a great many people in IPR and demonstrated that this is not a dry and dull subject for fusty lawyers. But it also showed the degree of misunderstanding which attaches to this area of law.
We need to do better in explaining why patent protection may be needed and the benefits it may have. Of course, we need to take account of the internet-driven debate on the so-called 'economic enclosure' of knowledge. We need to ensure that future debates take place on the basis of empirical data and sound analysis of the possible consequences of changes in the current rules. That is why my services have commissioned a study on the value of patents.
One proposal which clearly meets business demands for reducing the costs of IPR protection and provides legal security is the Community Patent proposal: it is central to achieving the aims of our revised Lisbon Strategy. Nonetheless, 5 years have now passed since the Commission presented its proposals for a Community patent to the Council and the Parliament, and there is still no agreement. The reason for this delay lies in entrenched postures resulting in an unwillingness to put the long term economic interests of all of European industry ahead of short-sighted national concerns. This single, pan-European patent would be an attractive alternative option for users of patent systems in Europe.
There is a danger that the debate on the Community Patent will parallel the play 'Waiting for Godot'. Lots of clever discussion but Compat, like Godot, the main character, never shows up. During my mandate I am willing to make one determined effort to ensure the adoption of the Community Patent. However, I do not want to be in the situation, four years from now, when I am handing this portfolio over to my successor, to be telling him or her that I am still waiting for the Community Patent. We owe it to industry, investors, researchers, to have an effective patent regime in the EU. Unless we can find agreement soon on the Community Patent, this is not going to happen.
I do not see the circumstances arising in the next few months that will create the conditions for the one determined effort I envisage. Accordingly, I would like to use the next three months to launch and engage in a dialogue to determine what might usefully be done to provide Europe with a sound IPR framework. As well as continuing to strive for the Community Patent an issue to be considered is the existing framework of the European Patent Office, especially the litigation arrangements. I would like to hear what stakeholders think of this idea.
I know that some of you have suggested a third way: the harmonisation of national patent rules. Of course, at this stage, all avenues should be explored. But before going up this avenue, we would need to be sure of the added value, so I intend also to seek views on this suggestion.
This should help us form a clear picture on what our next steps should be.[...]"
So, Mr. McCreevy provides us with some deeper insights into his personal political agenda to be followed during the remainder of his own term of office as a Commissioner. Contrary to some rumours there will be no spectacular initiative very soon.
"Accordingly, I would like to use the next three months to launch and engage in a dialogue to determine what might usefully be done to provide Europe with a sound IPR framework", Mr. McCreevy said. Will that merely mean his office again swamped with thousands of redundant e-mails exhibiting more or less again and again the same view, co-ordinated and orchestrated in a highly effective manner by the various anti-patent campaigners' grassroots groups? In view of such general expectations I can only hope that also the stakeholders of the patent system will make up their minds and raise their voices publicly. "Publicly" here in particular means "visible on the Internet", not statements confined to restricted presentations made in private sessions or at the occasion of informal meetings over lunch.
esp@cenet: PDF Patent Documents no Longer Page-by-Page Only.
Just in case someone should have overlooked it so far: The esp@cenet service now provides patent documents in a single .PDF file for free. There is no longer any need for downloading .PDF files page-by-page:
"[...] We are pleased to announce that from 4 November 2005, esp@cenet will feature full document printing and downloading.
One of the major considerations in offering this service was to make sure that it was 'bombproof', ie that demand on the EPO systems would not exceed the capacity to deliver. After all, our users currently download 11 million pages per week, albeit not at one time!
We were concerned that full document downloads and printing might encourage gleeful esp@cenetters to start printing and downloading in earnest, and this might have put an intolerable strain on the system.
We are now satisfied that we have the right technical solution (users must assemble and collate the pages of a document before downloading it), and a screening system to discriminate against automated document retrieval in favour of humans (when requesting a download, users have to type in a graphically displayed keyword in response to a prompt).
These will protect the systems from abuse and overload, and ensure availability for all genuine users. We are grateful to the many volunteer testers who have worked tirelessly over the past few months to help us develop a reliable system. [...]"
So, they are boring us with a captcha-style mechanism in order to prevent robots from downloading patent documents in a bulk mode.
The good news is not only that the clumsy old-fashioned page-by-page download-and-print mode has eventually been rendered redundant but also that there is such a big demand for authentic patent information in the general public. Obviously, wide circles of Internet-savvy people are highly interested in reading patent literature.
"[...] Forbes recently ran an article showing that companies that generate revenue from products protected by copyrights or patents are vital to the U.S. economy. In a report, NBC Universal Chief Executive Bob Wright released the results of the study he commissioned, which shows that digital piracy, if not reined in, could cause the U.S. economy to stall.
The study, conducted by Washington, D.C.-based Economists Incorporated, found that U.S. intellectual property-oriented industries - from software firms to aerospace and pharmaceutical companies - are vital to the U.S. economy for the following five reasons:
They contribute nearly 40% of the growth achieved by all U.S. private industry and nearly 60% of the growth of U.S. exportable products and services.
Ten-year gross domestic product estimates would be about 30% lower than current projections without the contributions of these industries.
These industries are responsible for 20% of the total U.S. private-industry contribution to gross domestic product, and 40% of the contribution of U.S. exportable products to gross domestic product.
These industries are among the nation's highest-paying employers, with 18 million workers earning 40% more than all U.S. workers.
The core copyright industries, such as music and filmed entertainment, in 2003 contributed $33 billion in net export revenue, while the patent-dependent aerospace industry reported another $32 billion in export revenue during the same period.
The report shows that the protection of intellectual property is critical to the economy and that it's not just these companies who are benefiting. [...]"
Trilateral Meeting of Heads of Patent Offices held in Munich.
At their annual trilateral conference, the European Patent Office (EPO), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) have in particular agreed to enhance their co-operation by further streamlining their procedures and common technical tools. The three Offices signed a Memorandum of Understanding which aims at increasing the efficiency of the patenting process and better exploiting the work performed by each office using common technical tools and harmonised procedures. A Press Pelease has been published.
"[...] In view of the strong patent usage by Japanese and US companies in their home markets Alain Pompidou urged long-due reforms in the European patent system: " The adoption of the London Agreement would reduce the translation cost for European patents by 50% for the applicants. This money could be reinvested in the innovation process. With the European Patent Litigation Agreement, the EPLA, we have an attractive solution ready for the litigation problem in Europe. It could be implemented with a Diplomatic Conference to be requested by our member states. Both reforms would remove important hurdles to using the European patent system, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises." [...]"
EU Presidency Proposals for some "Compromise Package".
On November 14, 2005, the Intellectual Property Attaches of the Member States of the EU had a meeting in the venues of the Permanent Representation of United Kingdom in Brussels, They have discussed some unspecific items like
"[...] Examination of Presidency proposals for a compromise package (document to be circulated shortly). [...]"
I have no guess on what the UK Government acting as EU Presidency actually has proposed but I expect interesting developments. Anyway, the subject-matter discussed at the meeting seems to be somewhat sensible as the paper explicitly says: "Attendance is limited to Attaches only."
Perhaps these matters might be related to the deliberations on a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on compulsory licensing of patents relating to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for export to countries with public health problems. Or on the Community Patent? Who knows.
"[...] The US Supreme Court may be about to rewrite some of the fundamental rules of innovation in the US, as it considers a handful of cases that could change the course of intellectual property law and undermine the value of patents owned by domestic and foreign companies.
[...]
The court has three cases before it and a fourth that could arrive soon, which test some of the most fundamental tenets of US patent jurisprudence. Which country's courts should decide patent disputes that cross borders? What can be patented in the first place? How obvious must an invention be to forfeit patent protection? And should challengers in patent infringement suits - even those who are not using the patent to produce anything - be allowed to shut down defendants whose products depend on many patents? [...]"
From the Coalition Agreement of the new Grand Coalition to come into office soon:
"[...] Für deutsche Unternehmen als Anbieter wissensbasierter Produkte stellen Verletzungen des Schutzes geistigen Eigentums eine zunehmende Bedrohung dar. Die Bundesregierung erarbeitet in enger Abstimmung mit der Wirtschaft und mit Partnerländern eine Strategie mit konkreten Massnahmen zur weltweit verbesserten Durchsetzung geistiger Eigentumsrechte. Dem Trend zur Abschottung von Märkten, u. a. auch mit Hilfe des Patentrechts, wollen wir mit internationalen Vereinbarungen begegnen. [...]"
I offer my own translation as follows:
"[...] German enterprises acting as vendors of knowledge-based products are increasingly threatened by the violation of the protection of Intellectual Property. In close co-operation with the industry and with partner countries, German Federal Government develops a strategy comprising particular measures to enhance the enforcement of Intellectual Property on a global scale. By developing international treaties we want to counter-act the trend to seal off markets as it is done in particular with the help of but not limited to patent law. [...]"
In particular with regard to the last sentence I have no clue what that clause is intended to mean.
"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Three of the world's biggest electronics companies -- IBM, Sony and Philips -- have joined forces with the two largest Linux software distributors to create a company for sharing Linux patents, royalty-free.
The Open Invention Network (OIN), as the new firm unveiled on Thursday is known, could mark a breakthrough in resolving how to protect vendors and customers from patent royalty disputes resulting from freely shared Linux code. [...]"
This is surely a far better idea than any attempts to ban patents on computer-implemented inventions as demanded by FFII and others. Such move is, of course, not greeted by the various anti-patent fundamentalists who would prefer imposing restrictions on the patent system.
Proposals for such a move are around since years but it is worth noting that in fact not any grassroots initiative has managed to actually set up such a patent pool for defending FROSS but a conglomerate of Linux-aware companies.
The new IP Company, Open Invention Network (OIN), has a website.
"[...] Europe's top intellectual property (IP) judges have dramatically thrown their weight behind a campaign to create a unified European patent court, Legal Week can reveal, following a top-level meeting of lawyers last month.
The 'judges resolution', which is being backed by the UK's most senior IP judges, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Justice Jacob, is to form the basis of a campaign to lobby European Union (EU) governments on the issue.
The proposed body, the European Patent Court, would function as a unified court of first instance and a single appeal body for all cross-border patent disputes. The proposals are drawn from the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA), a framework originally agreed by lawyers and industry representatives in 1999. [...]"
Also the Financial Time reports on that matter. For details on the European Patent Litigation Agreement see here.
Feel free to contact PA Axel H Horns via e-mail
horns@ipjur.com. BEWARE: DO NOT SEND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNENCRYPTED VIA E-MAIL. USE OF ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. PA AXEL H HORNS IS PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR ENCRYPTED E-MAIL MESSAGES USING PGP OR PGP COMPATIBLE FORMATS. THE PGP PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE. THE GnuPG PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE.
Dipl.-Phys. Axel H Horns is Patentanwalt (German Patent Attorney),
European Patent Attorney as well as European Trade Mark Attorney. In particular, he is Member of:
earlier posting titled "Mr. Florian Müller Nominated as 'European of the Year'". Yesterday, the newspaper 
European Voice has presented the "EV50 Europeans of the Year" awards in Brussels. Now, Mr. Müller has 
