i.p. news sur IP>SHARING

Jailbreaking the iPhone: Not a Federal Offense

Tim COHAN — 2010-07-27

One hotly debated provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent technical measures that were designed to protect copyrighted works in the digital era. The legislators were probably thinking of digital copy controls for music files or DVDs, but some creative companies saw in the provision a potential tool for market control. For example, a company that made garage-door openers, unhappy with competitors marketing "universal remotes," hauled the latter into court for having "circumvented" the codes that made the garage doors work only with the manufacturer's approved remote. Similarly, a printer maker tried to bring this portion of the Copyright Act down to bludgeon makers of unauthorized ink-cartidge refills that bypassed the bits of code in the printer that recognized or refused to recognize the refill. Nice try, both courts said, and threw the cases out.

So it's not too surprising that the copyright office has decided to head Apple off at the pass with what might be viewed as a similar attempt to use the DMCA anti-circumvention provision to threaten or chill purveyors of unauthorized iPhone applications. The ruling has been portrayed as a victory for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (the "EFF"), which proposed the exemption to the copyright office.

It's interesting to note the shifting alliances in the digital copyright policy world: the EFF and Apple (through its lobbying arm, the Digital Media Association) were on the same side in 2008, lobbying the copyright office to go easy on digital music distributors when setting minimum rates for content owners. This doesn't mean that either side is inconsistent: in both cases the EFF adopts a position resisting any control of online content, and in both cases Apple adopts a position in favor of Apple's control of online content.

Indian Patent-Grant Process Revisited.

Vedaa MIRAZKAR — 2010-07-26

Lex Orbis recently reported about the findings of the Delhi High Court in its order dated 15th July in the case, Snehalatha v. UOI and Others, providing clarity on the ambiguity existing on the issue of date of grant of patent. Two main issues were raised in this case. Firstly, what is the actual date for grant of patent and Secondly, is it the date when the patent certificate is granted. To clarify the doubt on the date of grant of patent, the Delhi High Court in this case held that a patent comes into force on the day in which the Controller decides to grant a patent. The Court further clarified that the issuance of a certificate at a future date is just a formality and nothing more. This decision has ensured efficiency in the whole process of patent grant in India.

The ruling of the Delhi High Court in this case has brought more transparency to the patent grant process and do away with filing of serial pre-grant oppositions through aliases. The Court ordered the office of the Controller of Patents to disclose award of patents on a regular basis, at the same time circulate hearing dates for patents a day before through electronic means.

In the existing process on grant of patent, there is a time gap between the date of grant of patent and the date on which the certificate is issued. Such gap is susceptible of being exploited by parties by challenging it even after the patent is granted. The Court now declares such practice as illegal and followed by a penalty.

The Court further held that once the Controller or the Assistant Controller signs the final order granting the patent, such order must be placed on the website instantly on the same day in order to do away with the time gap between the signing and publishing of the order. As a result, it would mean that the patent would come into effect on the day the order has been signed, and not the day the order is published nor the day the patent certificate is issued.

In order to bring in more transparency in the manner in which the department is functioning, the Court has asked the Controller to publish a “cause list” of the pending patent matters. In an effort to avoid reopening of order granting final patents, the office of the Controller has been directed to issue directions to all its officers and put it up on its website.

This ruling of the Delhi High Court will solve the problems of those who have been suffering due to an inefficient system where issue of patent certificates are delayed, and sometimes taking years even after the patent office has granted the patent.

To curb the no’s of serial oppositions the court has imposed Rs. 20,000 as fine on each opposers, the Court has made it clear that filing of serial oppositions by parties is not maintainable in law and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Such an order of penalty upon opposers would reduce the number of serial pre-grant oppositions in patent cases, and which has now become a common practice.

SAS loses Copyright Case in London High Court right?

S颡stien ODDOS — 2010-07-23

Large corporation SAS was suing smaller UK Worldwide Programming Ltd. for alleged copyright infringement in the High Court. SAS alleged that WPL had breached its license relating to SAS Learning Edition in order to test and create its own derivative software. SAS was seeking amages and an injunction.

The High Court did not find for SAS, holding that WPL was free to copy the functions of a piece of software, as long as it does not copy the source code. This is in clear line with past software copyright cases and shows the limited and narrow protection offered to software products by copyright.

Infringement of copyright was however found on the manuals which WPL has to withdraw.

The case will now be referred to the ECJ to ensure that British judge's decision is in line with the Software Directive.

Surprisingly both parties claim victory in this case...!

Source: the Register

Toward an Agreement on Traditional Knowledge Culture and Genetic Resources?

S颡stien ODDOS — 2010-07-23

Experts from WIPO member states worked hard this week in order to get closer to an agreement on an international legal instrument (or instruments) to ensure the effective protection of traditional knowledge (TK), traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) and genetic resources (GRs).

Their work focused on what is considered to be the most mature of the three subjects - TCEs - covered by the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC).

See source HERE

Alexandra ZWANG — 2010-07-21

Selon les termes de l’article 122-10 du CPI, « la publication d’une œuvre emporte cession du droit de reproduction par reprographie » au CFC *Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie, société de perception et de répartition en matière de droit de reprographie. Par ce texte, le législateur a entendu répondre au phénomène du « photocopillage » en encadrant cette pratique et en permettant la perception de recettes auprès des centres de reprographie notamment.

Cependant, la « cession légale » instituée par l’article précité ne vaut que pour les reproductions à titre gracieux et non en vue d’une exploitation commerciale.

Ainsi, par un jugement du tribunal de grande instance de Paris du 9 juillet 2010, le CFC et la société INIST ont été condamnés in solidum pour avoir conclu une convention cédant à l’INIST les droits de reproduction que le CFC acquiert.

Cette convention avait en effet permis à l’INIST de conclure un partenariat de diffusion et de distribution d’articles sur internet, avec la société Chapitre.com. Or, ces conventions étaient destinées à la mise en vente (en ligne) lesdites œuvres « cédées ».

C’est ainsi que Monsieur David F., avocat, a découvert, « de façon fortuite », certains des articles dont il est l’auteur en vente sur ledit site.

Les articles en question avaient préalablement été publiés, à titre le plus souvent gracieux, auprès de Celog et de la Revue scientifique Nathan, sans qu’une cession de droits n’ait été effectuée au profit de ces éditeurs.
Cependant, la seule publication desdits articles suffisait à faire bénéficier le CFC d’une « cession légale » en vertu des dispositions de l’article 122-10 du CPI précité.

Pour autant, cette « cession légale » ne permettait pas au CFC de céder de nouveau les droits desdits articles aux fins d’une exploitation commerciale. En conséquence, la cession de ces droits ainsi que leur exploitation commerciale nécessitait de recueillir de manière expresse l’accord de leur auteur.

C’est ce que confirme le TGI en écartant l’article 122-10 CPI pour ce motif. Le juge retient donc le grief de contrefaçon à l’encontre du CFC et de l’INIST en application de l’article L. 122-4 CPI :

« Toute représentation ou reproduction intégrale ou partielle faite sans le consentement de l’auteur ou de ses ayants droit ou ayants cause est illicite ».

Ces derniers sont condamnés in solidum à 5000 euros de dommages et intérêts en faveur de l’auteur.

Même si l’on se nomme CFC, il n’est donc pas bon de « photocopiller » numériquement des œuvres en vue de leur exploitation commerciale…

Brazilian PTO's new electronic system

Karina HAIDAR MULLER — 2010-07-20

The Brazilian PTO has just released a new electronic system that enables users to receive e-mails with the developments of their trademarks, patents, industrial designs. This is another measure adopted by the PTO to enhance its services to its users. The same system with similar features is already used by some Brazilian Courts, and has represented in benefits for the users (attorneys, in this case).
There have been a lot of complains about this system by a group of agents/attorneys that represent clients, claiming that such system will eliminate or reduce their follow-up work. Our impression is that such system has no such purpose, and may actually also support agents/attorneys in handling their cases.

US Judge slashes Jury Award in File-Sharing Case

S颡stien ODDOS — 2010-07-18

A few months ago, a jury found college student Joel Tenenbaum liable for willful copyright infringement for sharing 30 songs, and later awarded to right holders $675,000 in damages. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner dramatically reduced the award to $67,500. This decision follows another US case last year where defendant Jammie Thomas-Rasset, accused in a file-sharing dispute, saw federal District Judge Michael Davis slash the damages awarded by the jury from $1.9 million to only $54,000.

While Judge Gertner reduced the large damage award on the grounds that it would have been unconstitutional, many question the authority of judges to interfere with Congress (fixing the amount of statutory damages in copyright infringement cases) and juries.

In the US, statutory damages are a dollar range determined by Congress that sets limits on what juries can award for copyright infringement. If the infringement is considered willful, the jury can award damages as high as $150,000 per incident.

While right holders dislike the signal sent by these decisions and challenge the judge's authority to reduce the amount of damages awarded, they have the merit to raise legitimate concerns about (what we think are) disproportionate sanctions imposed on private individuals. There is an issue of fairness that needs to be addressed...but by whom? As usual there is also a never ending democratic questioning about who makes law in the US.

Source: HERE

NTP ou le retour des patent trolls.

Bertrand SAUTIER — 2010-07-16

La société américaine NTP, domiciliée aux Etats-Unis s'était rendue célèbre en 2006 lorsqu'elle avait conclu un accord avec l'entreprise RIM, fabricant le téléphone portable "Blackberry". Cet accord faisait suite à un contentieux entamé par NTP auprès de la cour fédérale de l'Etat de Virginie.

Le litige qui opposait à l'époque ces deux sociétés portait sur des brevets américains détenu par NTP revendiquant un système d'échanges d'e-mail sans fil. Bien que très controversés, ces brevets représentaient une potentielle interdiction d'utiliser la technologie revendiquée (permanent injunction) suffisante pour que RIM accepte de contracter une licence non exclusive pour la modique somme de 612,5 Millions de dollars. Peu après, NTP avait réussi à contracter une autre licence auprès de la société Nokia, portant sur la même technologie.

Cette affaire a permis de faire connaitre le phénomène encore nouveau des patent trolls, et d'ouvrir un peu plus le débat sur la brevetabilité des logiciels et des business methods aux US.

Bien que la plupart des brevets de cette société aient été annulés, certaines revendications ont été maintenues par l'office américain des brevets. Ce sont ces revendications qui permettent à la société NTP d'être encore dangereuse aujourd'hui.

En effet, ce patent troll semblent s'être réveillé brusquement, et deux semaines après que la décision Bilski ait été rendue, NTP a engagé plusieurs actions devant la même cour fédérale de Virginie, toujours pour contrefaçon des mêmes brevets, cette fois contre les autres sociétés produisants des "smart phones", à savoir Apple, Google, Microsoft, HTC, LG et Motorola.

Le montant des dommages réclamés n'a pas été révélé, mais de l'avis de Ron Epstein, employé de NTP chargé de négocier les accords pré-contentieux, le but est de concéder des licences ayant des montant de 5,7% de royalties sur la vente du produit fini!

Même s'il n'y a pas de rapport direct entre l'affaire Bilski et ce brusque réveille, il n'a sans doute pas échappé à NTP que la cour suprême avait refusé de trancher les limites de la brevetabilité sur le territoire américain.

Cependant, les nouveaux contentieux engagés risquent d'être plus difficiles à mener qu'en 2006. En effet, plusieurs décisions ont limité la possibilité pour les NPE de développer leurs actions, notamment en limitant à la fois les interdictions permanentes (affaire ebay vs Mercexchange) et la possibilité de tripler le montant des dommages accordés en cas de contrefaçon totale du brevet (willful infringement, affaire In re Seagate).

Ces contentieux pourraient durer plusieurs années, les entreprises fabricantes ayants les ressources nécessaire pour faire durer la procédure. Il est cependant probable que vu la situation, un grand nombre de ces litiges se résolvent par le biais d'accords pré-contentieux. En effet, comme en 2006, la possibilité de se voir interdire l'utilisation d'une telle technologie représente un risque trop grand pour les fabricants, face à la loterie que constituent les procès en contrefaçon de brevets aux Etats-Unis.

Les patent trolls représentent donc un business modèle toujours viable aux Etats-Unis.

Brazilian PTO recognized geographical indications for wine and coffee

Karina HAIDAR MULLER — 2010-07-15

The Brazilian PTO has just (last July 13) recognized the protection of two geographical indications: NORTE PIONEIRO DO PARANÁ for coffee (for the region of the State of Paraná), and also INDICAÇÃO DE PROCEDÊNCIA PB for wine (for the region of Bento Gonçalves and Farroupilha).
The PTO has become more active in respect to geographical indications within the past years, and has been recognizing regularly such protection in our country, which is set forth at the Brazilian IP Law of 1996.

India gets tougher against Imports...But what about Exports?

Vedaa MIRAZKAR — 2010-07-15

The Economic Times reported on 12th July 2010 that India has tightened its import norms to ensure fake product that violates design patents do not enter India even for self use, as the country looks to contribute its bit to check global piracy.

The Central Board of Excise and Customs, the apex indirect taxes body, has amended a three-year old notification to tighten the norms for import of products that have intellectual property rights protection.

It is understood that the new notification closes a loophole: the unintended anomaly of prohibiting import of infringing goods meant for trading only. Now even infringing goods imported for use or consumption in India will come under the prohibition. Picking up a medicine not meant for sale in India for self use would also trigger the prohibition.

A penalty of up to five times the value of the goods imported can be levied on an importer under some circumstances and prosecution can also be launched under the Customs Act.

Indian laws prohibited import of goods that infringed trademarks and designs only. In May 2007, the CBEC made changes to extend the protection to other intellectual property rights such as patents and copyrights. These measures went beyond the WTO requirements imposed under TRIPS and brought Indian laws on par with that of the European Union.

The rules prohibited import of goods that infringed copyright, trademarks, patents, designs, and geographical indications. However, there was a lacuna in the law that it applied only to goods imported for sale in India and not the ones brought in for personal use.

The Indian industry, however, stresses that imports of counterfeits is not the big issue. For them the domestic trade in fakes poses a bigger threat to the organised local players.

A report by the World Customs Organisation (WCO) lists India as the second biggest offender in terms of departure countries by seizure numbers. In 2009, the WCO report say, 949 shipments that departed from India were seized, but way behind China that had consignments confiscated in various countries. Most of these goods were headed to the European countries and Japan. According to estimates by the WCO and the OECD, approximately 7-10% of global trade is derived from counterfeit products.

The WCO Customs and IPR Report 2009 said there were 13,280 reported cases involving the seizure of more than 291 million counterfeit or pirated articles. A rise in counterfeit products can especially be observed in the pharmaceuticals sector, and in transport spare parts and high-technology products sector.