09.17.11

Cablegate: In 2010, Patent Harmonisation “Not Welcomed by Developing Countries”

Posted in Africa, America, Asia, Cablegate, Law, Patents at 4:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: How US diplomats view negotiations whose goal is to legitimise monopolies in countries that have no interest in these

According to the following year-old cable, specifically in ¶5, “Member States negotiated informally a compromise work program that ensured balanced and focused work for the SCP [Standing Committee on the Law of Patents]. The proposed work program included: 1. further study on technology transfer concerning the relationship of patent technology transfer and innovation; 2. work on limitations and exceptions that included the external expert study and Brazil’s work program proposal; 3. patent administration issues that included work on patent quality management and further work on dissemination of patent information that looked at digitization issues and access to complete patent information; 4. further work on client-attorney privilege to solicit Member State input on national experiences; 5. future conference on public health and food security issues; and 6. reaffirming that the non-exhaustive list of issues for possible discussion by the SCP remain open for further elaboration at the next meeting, but agreeing that Member States would refrain from adding on to the list at this session, so as to ensure that work on the existing studies could be more focused. These items were truly a compromise text, particularly for Group B, as our primary objective to discuss patent harmonization issues was not part of this list and many of the items had more of a developing country interest/slant. On day one of our conversation concerning future work, we reached agreement among Group B countries, GRULAC, Eastern European countries, Singapore, Korea, the regional coordinator of Africa, Angola.”

They are trying to convince developing countries to give up and accept a system which harms them greatly. With our emphasis on the relevant parts, ¶7 carries on by noting that “While Group B and the U.S. were disappointed that the agreement reached the day before did not satisfy all of the Africa Group and the Asia Group, we were willing to negotiate further from our compromise text. However, it became clear that the Africa Group and some Asian Group countries were not willing to move from their position. Group B in particular was willing to add on to the non exhaustive list with the inclusion of “work sharing” and the “strategic use of IP in business” as proposed by the Group of Eastern European Countries. Despite developing countries’ insistence that the non exhaustive list remain open, Indonesia and India opposed the Group B suggestion of “work sharing”, arguing that it was duplicative of work at the PCT working group and that it was patent harmonization-related and therefore not welcomed by developing countries. Further, even though Group B reminded these countries that their proposed suggestions on the list were duplicative of work occurring in the Committee on Development and IP (CDIP), Egypt’s response was that development agenda work in CDIP was a cross-cutting issue throughout the Organization, and therefore duplication was needed.”

Here is the cable in full:

VZCZCXYZ0005
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0136/01 0491710
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 181701Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0238
INFO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEHGV/USMISSION USTR GENEVA

UNCLAS GENEVA 000136 

SIPDIS
STATE FOR EEB/IPC, IO/HS, OES
COMMERCE FOR USPTO 

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON [Economic Conditions],
KIPR [Intellectual Property Rights],
WIPO [World Intellectual Property Organization]
SUBJECT: Fourteenth Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law
of Patents 

¶1. The World Intellectual Property Organization's Standing
Committee on the Law of Patents (WIPO SCP) continued to discuss
preliminary studies requested by the SCP in June 2008 and March
2009, and commenced a discussion on Brazil's proposal concerning
exceptions and limitations to patent rights.  However, an impasse
resulted at the SCP on the future work of the committee.  As a
result, the agenda from this session will be used for the next
meeting in October 2010.  During two days worth of negotiations on
the future work topic, it became clear that Member States fail to
see eye to eye on the international patent system itself, as some
view the system to be a threat to development and oppose any global
efforts - whether normative or cooperative technical assistance
work -- in improving the patent system.  END SUMMARY. 

¶2. The WIPO SCP met from January 25-29, 2010.  Delegations from 103
countries, 10 international organizations and 28 non-governmental
organizations participated in the Committee which was chaired by
Mr. Maximiliano Santa Cruz from Chile.  The United States
delegation was represented by USPTO External Affairs Administrator
Arti Rai, Charles Eloshway of USPTO, Janet Speck, Deputy Director,
State Department and Deborah Lashley-Johnson, IP Attach???? at the
U.S. Mission to the UN. 

¶3. Discussions were based on preliminary studies written by the
International Bureau at WIPO concerning the relationship of
standards and patents, client-attorney privilege, dissemination of
patent information, transfer of technology, and opposition systems.
Many delegations stated that these documents constituted a good
basis for discussions, and requested further clarifications on
various issues contained in the documents.  However, certain
statements made by developing countries and NGO were worrisome,
such as: equating work on the client-attorney disclosure problem to
patent law harmonization work; viewing the topic of dissemination
of patent information to include the disclosure of proprietary
information and trade secrets; and stating that a study should
include how the patent system hinders technology transfer. 

¶4. The topic of limitations and exceptions was also discussed,
although the external experts' study was not available for this
meeting.  A proposal in respect of exceptions and limitations to
patent rights was submitted by the Delegation of Brazil, which
received support by many developing countries.  The proposal has
three phases:  discussion on national experiences on patent right
exceptions and limitations; focus work on exceptions and
limitations that help to address developmental concerns; and the
development of an exceptions and limitations manual.  Other
delegations, such as the U.S., Switzerland and other industrialized
countries expressed concern that they had not received the document
in advance of the meeting, and therefore had insufficient time to
consider the proposal, and expressed a wish to consider the
proposal at the following session in October 2010 when the external
expert study would also be presented.  Nonetheless, the U.S. noted
that it was interested in studying the issue more and saw strong
intellectual property rights and enforcement to be consistent with
proper, basic limitations and exceptions. 

¶5.  Gridlock, however, occurred once the committee moved onto the
topic of future work.  Several regional coordinators and interested
Member States negotiated informally a compromise work program that
ensured balanced and focused work for the SCP.  The proposed work
program included:  1. further study on technology transfer
concerning the relationship of patent technology transfer and
innovation; 2. work on limitations and exceptions that included the
external expert study and Brazil's work program proposal; 3. patent
administration issues that included work on patent quality
management and further work on dissemination of patent information
that looked at digitization issues and access to complete patent
information; 4. further work on client-attorney privilege to
solicit Member State input on national experiences; 5. future
conference on public health and food security issues; and 6.
reaffirming that the non-exhaustive list of issues for possible
discussion by the SCP remain open for further elaboration at the
next meeting, but agreeing that Member States would refrain from
adding on to the list at this session, so as to ensure that work on
the existing studies could be more focused.  These items were truly
a compromise text, particularly for Group B, as our primary
objective to discuss patent harmonization issues was not part of
this list and many of the items had more of a developing country
interest/slant.  On day one of our conversation concerning future
work, we reached agreement among Group B countries, GRULAC, Eastern
European countries, Singapore, Korea, the regional coordinator of
Africa, Angola. 

¶6.  However, on day two, Angola, members of the Africa Group, such
as Egypt and South Africa, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, 

Yemen, Iran and Indonesia, opposed the compromise text.  Their
amendments suggested future studies on the negative impacts patents
have on technology transfer and standards, and a new study on
patents and public health.  There was also a proposal on the
establishment of a technology transfer commission to focus on the
problems of technology transfer.  Their proposal further lacked
balance in their deletion of the only two issues offered by Group B
in the initial compromise proposal concerning patent quality
management and further work on client-attorney privilege.  The
counter-proposal also included another large conference on patents
and public policy issues as a follow up to the one held in July
2009.  Lastly, they pushed to expand the non-exhaustive list to
include topics such as the impact of the patent system on
developing countries and LDCs, and the relationship of patents and
food security. 

¶7. While Group B and the U.S. were disappointed that the agreement
reached the day before did not satisfy all of the Africa Group and
the Asia Group, we were willing to negotiate further from our
compromise text.  However, it became clear that the Africa Group
and some Asian Group countries were not willing to move from their
position.  Group B in particular was willing to add on to the non
exhaustive list with the inclusion of "work sharing" and the
"strategic use of IP in business" as proposed by the Group of
Eastern European Countries.  Despite developing countries'
insistence that the non exhaustive list remain open, Indonesia and
India opposed the Group B suggestion of "work sharing", arguing
that it was duplicative of work at the PCT working group and that
it was patent harmonization-related and therefore not welcomed by
developing countries.  Further, even though Group B reminded these
countries that their proposed suggestions on the list were
duplicative of work occurring in the Committee on Development and
IP (CDIP), Egypt's response was that development agenda work in
CDIP was a cross-cutting issue throughout the Organization, and
therefore duplication was needed. 

¶8. COMMENT: Group B member states expressed deep concern about the
events that transpired at this meeting.  Several countries refused
to negotiate from their maximalist positions, which has been a
concern in other committees at WIPO.  The inflexibility of
developing country positions will make reaching a compromise on any
SCP work program impossible, particularly when this committee has
had a history of disbanding for three years due to similar
political impasses.  Further, it is clear that the development
agenda is the only work these delegations are interested in at the
expense of issues related to patent law that are important to Group
B and their constituents.   Targeted demarches to the few countries
that are blocking progress and preventing the SCP to function are
being considered.  In addition, Group B will increase its
coordination to advance its agenda on the various issues before the
SCP, such as in the areas of technology transfer, limitation and
exceptions, client-attorney privilege, opposition systems, and
dissemination of patent information. END COMMENT.
GRIFFITHS

Next, we are going to look at some EU positions on the subject. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Cablegate: USPTO, JPO, and EPO Prepare a Global Patent System

Posted in America, Asia, Europe, Patents at 4:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Letters from Japan herald an era of patent colonialism, or at least this ambition

SEVERAL days ago we wrote about the Trilateral Patent Offices in relation to the Global Patent System (set up by authorities of only the richest 10% of the world’s population). That would be the sort of system which mostly inherits its principles from the world’s elite, putting in jeopardy all those without a monopoly.

According to the following cable that we found, “At the annual Trilateral Meeting of the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and European Patent Office (EPO) in Tokyo on November 16, the three agencies announced several small but significant initiatives that will save time and money for patent applicants, including agreeing to standardize the format for patent applications among all three offices starting in 2007 and electronic exchange of some of the documents needed to file in a second or third patent office.”

They are preparing to have a global system. Right now they just try to centralise everything in Europe and recently the USPTO started sharing information with the EPO. The EPO’s Web site bragged about it only days ago. To quote further from this cable: “The three Patent offices agreed to conduct a comparative study on examination practices, an important step towards the goal of harmonization of patent examinations.

“They recognized the strategic importance of access to Chinese patent documentation and the three agencies agreed to urgently consider how make this access efficient and easy.

“The USPTO and JPO are able to move more quickly than the EPO can, and the two offices are actively working towards the mechanisms that will permit mutual recognition of patent examinations.

“USPTO experts, however, said privately that the Japanese press has consistently misrepresented the U.S. position by wrongly reporting that the USPTO has already agreed to shift from a first to invent to first to file system.

Put that together with the recent ‘reform’ and imagine their vision of imposing patent regime on everyone everywhere.

The cable comes from Japan, which is trying to tame China with patents to assure artificial scarcity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Cablegate: Italy’s Decade of Antagonising Patent Colonialism

Posted in Cablegate, Europe, Patents at 3:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A 2002 cable shows resistance (even back then) to the idea of ‘globalising’ monopolies on ideas

According to the following Cablegate cable from almost a decade ago, the government of Italy “DOES NOT/NOT SUPPORT THE CREATION OF A SEPARATE GROUP TO PURSUE PATENT HARMONIZATION DISCUSSIONS.” (see ¶3)

As we explained here before, Italy is one of the reasons — the other being Spain — that the EU Patent is not being implemented to allow import of US patent monopolies, in due course (including, potentially, software patents).

Keep strong, Italy.

UNCLAS ROME 004495 

SIPDIS 

SENSITIVE 

STATE FOR EUR/SE AND EB/IPC
STATE PASS USTR FOR BURCKY
STATE PASS USPTO FOR HUTHER, PAUGH, SANTAMAURO, BOLAND 

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KIPR [Intellectual Property Rights], ECON [Economic Conditions], ETRD [Foreign Trade], EUN [European Union]
SUBJECT: ITALIAN RESPONSE TO DEMARCHE ON SUBSTANTIVE PATENT
LAW TREATY 

REF: A. ROME 3961 

     B. STATE 149859 

THIS MESSAGE IS SENSITIVE.  NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION. 

¶1. (U) ECONOFF MET ON 12 SEPTEMBER WITH COUNSELOR GIULIO
PRIGIONI, THE NEWLY-APPOINTED ITALIAN REPRESENTATIVE TO WIPO
(REF.A) TO DISCUSS REF POINTS (REF. B). 

¶2. (SBU) THE GOI AGREES WITH THE USG POSITION THAT THE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF PATENTS SHOULD REMAIN
FOCUSED AND PRODUCTIVE, PRIGIONI ASSURED.  HOWEVER, THE GOI
IS NOT YET PREPARED TO GO PUBLIC THIS VIEW SINCE DISCUSSIONS
ARE STILL IN THEIR EARLY PHASE AND A JURIDICAL BASIS FOR AN
AGREEMENT HAS YET TO BE IDENTIFIED. 

¶3. (U) THE GOI, MOREOVER, DOES NOT/NOT SUPPORT THE CREATION
OF A SEPARATE GROUP TO PURSUE PATENT HARMONIZATION
DISCUSSIONS. PRIGIONI NOTED THAT, IN THE GOI VIEW, THE
CREATION OF A SEPARATE GROUP WOULD CREATE THE IMPRESSION OF A
DEAL BEING STRUCK BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, POTENTIALLY
UNDERMINING THE LEGITIMACY OF AN AGREEMENT.  HE PROPOSED
INSTEAD THAT BILATERAL EXCHANGES BE USED TO SUPPLEMENT
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS.
SEMBLER 

                       UNCLASSIFIED 

2002ROME04495 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

We are going to cover some more cables on this important subject of legislative relevance (keeping software patents out of Europe). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Cablegate: CERGE-EI “American-style” Education With UNIX Labs

Posted in Cablegate, Europe, UNIX at 3:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: UNIX in the Czech Republic amid Westernisation

According to the following Cablegate cable, “The CERGE-EI library [...] has been a depository library of the World Bank. Computer facilities include a UNIX lab with high-capacity works stations and several PC labs. The ratio of computers to students is among the highest in Europe.”

It is all in ¶10 of the following cable.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PRAGUE 001415 

SIPDIS 

USAID FOR GEORGE LIKE, DCHA/PVC-ASHA 

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON [Economic Conditions], EZ [Czech Republic]
SUBJECT: CZECH REPUBLIC:  STRONG SUPPORT FOR (CERGE-EI)
CENTER FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND GRADUATE EDUCATION --
ECONOMIC INSTITUTE 

REF: STATE 159943 

¶1.  SUMMARY:  Post strongly supports ASHA financial
assistance for CERGE-EI, the leading economics doctoral
program in the region, fully-accredited in both the Czech
Republic and the United States.  CERGE-EI has the best
economics library in the country, containing a wealth of
American texts and journals that teach and promote
market-based economics.  END SUMMARY. 

--------------------------------------------- -----------
Demonstration Center for American Ideas and Practices in
Education
--------------------------------------------- -----------
¶2.  CERGE-EI was founded in 1991 "to meet the post-communist
countries' critical need for economists, to educate a new
economic leadership for the region in the region."  CERGE-EI
provides an "american-style" education and is accredited by
the New York State Board of Regents.  Its four-year doctoral
program consists of two-years of course work followed by
two-years of supervised dissertation research.  The working
language of the institution is English, and CERGE-EI
encourages its students to conduct part of their dissertation
research at partner institutions in Western Europe and North
America. 

¶3.  CERGE-EI's English Department is unique among major
doctoral programs in economics, and provides students with
the skills necessary to successfully participate in economic
research and publication at the highest levels.  As
increasing percentage of students in doctoral programs in the
U.S. come from non-English speaking backgrounds, visitors to
CERGE-EI frequently observe that the innovative program at
CERGE-EI and the integral role English instruction plays in
its doctoral program provide a model that should be adopted
at their own institutions. 

¶4. The Executive and Supervisory Committee of CERGE-EI draw
distinguished economists from top U.S. universities:  Joseph
Stiglitz from Columbia University; Philippe Aghio of Harvard
University; Orley Ashenfelter, Richard Quandt and Henry
Farber of Princeton University; Jan Svenar and Jan Kemtna of
the University of Michigan;  Gerard Roland, Michelle White
and Roger Gordon from the University of California system. 

--------------------------------------------- -----
Importance and Quality of CERGE-EI in the Field of Education
--------------------------------------------- -----
¶5.  One of CERGE-EI's primary goals is to educate future
economic leaders of countries in transition throughout the
world.  The student profile is as follows:  60 percent men;
40 percent women; 25 percent from Russia, Ukraine and
Belarus; 24 percent from the Czech Republic, 20 percent from
the Balkans; 18 percent from Poland, Hungary and Slovakia; 11
percent other former Soviet states; 2 percent from the rest
of the world.  80 percent of CERGE-EI graduates are employed
in the region.  The average grade point average of entering
students is above 3.6 (out of 4.0). 

¶6.  A glance at CERGE-EI alumni profile speaks to the
importance and quality of its program; 38 percent of CERGE-EI
graduates find employment in the public sector (ministries,
central banks and international organizations), 25 percent in
university teaching, and 37 percent in the private sector.
Graduates include economists at International Financial
Institutions (IFIs) such as the International Monetary Fund,
the World Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.  Czech National Bank Governor Zdenek Tuma is a
former CERGE-EI faculty member.  Graduates in the private
sector are employed by private banks Citibank Komercni Banka)
and consulting firms (e.g. McKinsey & Company, the Boston
Consulting Group).  Graduates teach in Universities in the
region, in Western Europe and in the U.S. (e.g., Tilburg
University in the Netherlands, University of Iowa).  When the
World Bank commissioned a major study calling form reform of
Czech capital markets, CERGE-EI professors joined the study
team to provide local expertise and CERGE-EI students were
employed to conduct data analysis. 

¶7.  Recognizing the critical impact of economic training on
the success of reform, CERGE-EI offered to provide doctoral
study in Prague for two Iraqi students.  As such, CERGE-EI
has been at the crux of transition countries' struggle to
from a totalitarian, centrally-planned economies to market
democracies.  In the words of CERGE-EI, "experience in the
post-communist world has demonstrated that early intervention
to establish an effective higher education system is a
critical component of supporting the enormous political and
social changes necessary to build democracy and prosperity." 

--------------------------------------------- ----------
Competence in Professional Skills, Sound Management and
Financial Practices
--------------------------------------------- ----------
¶8.  CERGE-EI is a tax exempt (IRS 501C3 status) institution
subject to U.S. audits.  Its 2003 budget was USD 3.0 million,
excluding grant-finance expenditures on research and other
programmatic activities.  2003 income sources break down as
follows: 

26.7 percent Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic;
22.1 percent affiliate Charles University;
13.5 percent Corporate Donations;
14.4 percent International Organizations;
8 percent Earned Income including Grant Overheads;
7.7 percent Individual Donations;
6.7 percent Interest & Endowment Income;
0.9 percent Foundation & Government grants. 

2003 expenses breakdown as follows:
26.4 percent Permanent Faculty;
18.4 percent Student Stipends & Mobility;
12.7 percent Physical plant & Building renovation.
10 percent library;
8.6 percent support staff
7.1 percent materials & supplies;
6.4 percent Development & Public Relations;
4.4 percent Senior Part-time faculty;
4.3 percent Computer Department;
1.7 percent seminar & research support 

-----------
The Library
-----------
¶9.  Established in 1992, it is simply the best economics
library in the Czech Republic, and one of the best in Central
and Eastern Europe.  Econoffs toured the library and were
impressed by the number of recognizable U.S. economic texts
(used for introductory and intermediate micro- and
macro-economic courses) and U.S. economic journals.  The
estimated number of registered users of the library is
currently about 2000.  The library contains 25,000 books and
270 periodicals, including journals published by:  American
Economic Association, American Statistical Association,
Brookings Institutions, University of Chicago Press,
University of Wisconsin Press, MIT Press, Cornell University.
Over 600 full-text on-line journals are available in the
electronic library.. 

¶10.  The CERGE-EI library contains THE most extensive and
up-to-date economics collection in Central and Eastern
Europe, with over 80,000 printed items and subscribe to over
250 periodicals and electronic databases.  One of the first
open-stack facilities in the region, the CERGE-EI library is
widely used by the general public as well as by students from
other institutions.  Since December 1994, it has been a
depository library of the World Bank.  Computer facilities
include a UNIX lab with high-capacity works stations and
several PC labs.  The ratio of computers to students is among
the highest in Europe. 

------------------------
Local & Embassy Comments
------------------------
¶11. Econoffs conducted interviews with four local contacts
from government and business sectors, as well as with
locally-hired staff at the Embassy who interact with
CERGE-EI.  CERGE-EI is a highly regarded institution,
particularly known for its independent, intellectual and
theoretical academic content, and with the best library in
the country.   Any criticism of CERGE-EI tends to be its
"over" emphasis on theory versus applied economics.  In June
2005, the Ambassador commended CERGE-EI for its continued
leadership in higher education and success in building
partnerships with American and other international university
and training programs.  In the Embassy's efforts to support
Czech-American cultural and educational exchanges, we are
continuing our partnership with CERGE-EI through the
Embassy's Office of Public Affairs.CABANISS

UNIX in general is hardly mentioned in Cablegate (only 3 occurrences in a quarter of a million cables). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

09.16.11

Why Public and Private Records Keeping Systems Should Use Free Software.

Posted in Action, America, Antitrust, Database, Finance, Free/Libre Software, Identity Management, Law at 10:10 pm by Guest Editorial Team

Institutions which value their customer’s privacy should only use free software for their day to day business and record keeping. The rapacious behavior of banks, insurance companies and marketing firms has received a great deal of attention, and sane countries are making data privacy laws but the issue of non free software is seldom raised. Medical records are a particularly sensitive area where morals and ethics should trump profit. Ethical medical practitioners know that the records they create belong to the patient and that those records must be guarded and only surrendered to the patient or other health care professionals serving the patient. Bankers, insurance companies and other companies should be forced by law to abide by similar rules but no one can actually comply if they use propitiatory software which hides operations from users.

The US is in the midst of an insurance industry push towards electronic medical records. Tax breaks and other incentives have been offered to doctors who make the move to electronic records keeping. This will be good if adequate protections are in place.

The privacy of electronic records is supposed to be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, but there are obvious and gaping problems. Frequently raised concerns include nosy clerks especially at satellite institutions like pharmacies, unauthorized remote intrusion, court orders and a lack of action by regulators who take complaints. Mostly overlooked is the fact that software owners like Microsoft will have unfettered access to any medical record that any Windows system has access to. Google recently proved that Microsoft was spying on ordinary users, so the threat is no longer a theoretical matter of the company exercising the broad rights to snoop they gave themselves in their EULAs a decade ago [2] with or without your permission.

Every business and government office that uses non free software should realize this threat and end it by migrating to free software. Moving to free software won’t protect institutions from malicious clerks and other commonly mentioned problems but it is the only solution to unauthorized access to records by software owners. That access and power is at the heart of the bad deal propitiatory software has always offered but is exposed in an ugly way when all of our records are electronic and computers must be on a network to be considered useful.

Businesses that do not move out of customer and self interest should be forced by law. Customers and citizens concerned about their privacy should be protected. Because no such privacy can be guaranteed by propitiatory software, no propitiatory software should be allowed to operate on customer business records. Only software with the four software freedoms should be allowed.

Permalink 10 Comments      Send this to a friend

Cablegate: Lord Mandelson Meets the Qaddafi Family and Dates the Copyright Lobby

Posted in Cablegate, Europe at 6:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Business secretary Peter Mandelson is slimed by an environmental protestor outside the Royal Society on Carlton House Terrace, Pall Mall after allegations of ‘favours for friends’ over the Heathrow third runway decision” [Courtesy of "Plane Stupid", via Wikimedia]

Summary: Diplomatic cables mention the acts of Lord Mandelson; we look at those of greater relevance to Techrights

According to the following Cablegate cables, “a recent meeting between Business Secretary Lord Mandelson and Qaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam” took place just 2 years ago (first cable below, dated 24 Aug 2009). For those who lack some context, Peter Mandelson tends to meet Hollywood billionaires and then pass unwanted laws that make those billionaires richer and everyone else furious, especially but not exclusively in the UK. Our technology rights have been eroded almost single-handedly by this man, who summoned harmful digital/technical policies in the UK during his reign. These policies are exceptionally hard to retract now, so we are stuck with an atrocious legacy of Internet spying and potentially disconnection.

We at Techrights decided to see what happens behind the scenes. We tried to find cables on it. Almost 200 Cablegate cables mention “Mandelson” and several are about the policies above. There is one cable about copyright and “IPR”. In relation to China and WTO rules, ¶7 in the second cable below says: “Tanaka explained that METI sees some progress in its dealings with the Chinese government. In recent talks with Chinese Supreme People’s Court and the Procuratorate, the GOJ raised the issue of thresholds and the Chinese acknowledged that the issue is a problem of IPR enforcement. However, the Chinese officials claimed that the issue is not just a matter of law, but more a social problem which needed to be dealt with through public education. Harsh laws would not work, they said, citing a story about the failure of an ancient Chinese emperor which was repeated by other Chinese officials, also. Tanaka pointed out that now the National People’s Congress also wants to insert itself into the discussion and has declared that the Chinese government must consult it when determining the interpretation of its laws.”

“Tanaka asked about the EU’s position on the case and McCoy replied that the EU is studying the issue, and that the final decision will probably be a political decision taken by EU Trade chief Peter Mandelson.”

There is something else which is interesting here.because once again we see Japanese officials pressuring China to change its laws. There are other cables that show this

Another cable (third one below) states in its first paragraph:.”Embassy delivered reftel talking points to Knut Bruenjes, Deputy Director General for Trade Policy, at the Ministry of Economics and Technology, August 11, 2006. Bruenjes said German officials are aware of the seriousness of the IPR violations involving trademarks and copyrights occurring in China, but would prefer to pursue a dialogue with China before seeking consultations at the WTO. He said Germany supported EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson’s timeline for dialogue with China on IPR issues until roughly the end of 2006. He said Germany would urge the Commission to prepare for the likelihood it would have to seek recourse in the WTO after Mandelson’s timeline expires. Bruenjes agreed to put this issue on the EU’s 133 Trade Committee’s agenda in the next few weeks.”

When it comes to Mandelson’s Digital Economy Bill and encounter with Geffen, we were empty-handed (maybe the cables do not go back far enough in time, “Digital Economy Bill” yields zero results/matches), but below are some of the more prominent 14 cables that mention Lord Mandelson. Some of these are interesting reading material in general.

Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Links 16/9/2011: Boeing Goes With Android, Oracle Splits MySQL

Posted in News Roundup at 4:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Patent Systems: So Inherently Corrupt That They Must be Kept Secret From the Public

Posted in America, Google, IBM, Patents at 12:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: How the secrecy everything is shrouded in when it comes to patents helps show that something is not just amiss, it is borderline illegal

OIN members IBM and Google were recently seen making a transaction whose details we do not know. Only the patents whose assignment got changed are a known matter. This was never announced by the companies, so it’s safe to assume that secrecy is part of the strategy. According to one columnist, this whole thing is yet more evidence of the patent system failing. Wasn’t the patent system originally all about disclosure? As in transparency? All we see coming from patents are a pile of NDAs and invisible taxation of everything everyone buys. Here is one remark of interest:

The new acquisition is while good news for Android players, it’s bad news for those who are concerned about the situation. The US patent system is flawed and is discouraging innovation and encouraging bullies to threaten smaller or newer competitors.

Another good news for Android players is that long-time Microsoft partner Intel has put its trust in Android and will be working closely with Google, which means yet another heavyweight to defend Android as and when needed.

It remains unclear how Android can defend itself from patents which the Microsoft cartel passes around to patent trolls like MOSAID, which may in turn be feeding patent trolls around itself. Based on this new report, another secret sale of patents has just taken place. All we know is the cost and the involvement of a patent troll:

Mosaid Technologies Inc. has sold off a handful of non-strategic patents to an undisclosed buyer for $11 million.

The Ottawa patent and licensing company said the sale, which the buyer will pay for over an undisclosed time frame, is part of Mosaid’s plan to focus further on areas of future growth. The five patent families involved were not being licensed by Mosaid and, as a result, were not bringing in any new revenues.

Well, why the secrecy? This usually indicates bad faith. The patent system has become an industry of collusion, retaliation, extortion, and back room deals. But copyrights are not enough according to patenting maximalists, so we must live with this burden apparently. Think of all the “jobs” that would be “destroyed” had patent lawyers not had anything to sue over.

The Harvard Business Review, which is known for its leaning towards big businesses and the mainstream line, has just published a criticism of that latest patent 'reform'. To quote the opening parts:

On Friday, President Obama will sign the America Invents Act, resulting in the largest overhaul of the U.S. patent system in over half a century. The primary result of the legislation will be to transition America from a “first-to-invent” to a “first-to-file” country. Supporters of the new measure argue that it will streamline the patent application process and harmonize America’s system with the rest of the world, and it will allow for more rapid approval and increased certainty in the validity of patents. But this misses the point entirely: the fundamental problem with current patent law has nothing to do with the process for obtaining a patent. The biggest problem is that nobody can tell what a patent covers until they’ve spent months or years working it out, often in the courts.

Some of the most rigorous research on U.S. patents has been conducted by Boston University’s James Bessen and Michael Meurer. They have gone beyond the anecdotes that so often characterize discussions of patent reform and have studied in detail just how patents function, what incentives they create, and how the system could function better. What they found is that America’s patent system only provides positive incentives for innovation in two industries: pharmaceuticals and chemicals. The value that a patent confers on its owner is outweighed by the cost of obtaining, asserting, and defending that patent for almost all American companies. Anyone innovating outside of those two industries would be better off if there were no patent system at all.

Indeed. And for our coverage of the Bessen study, see this post.

It is becoming abundantly clear that if the public understood how the patent system works, there would be an outrage, to use words similar to those of Bill Gates (when his convicted monopolist was s lot smaller). The secrecy is another symptom of a serious problem and it leads to a lot of congresspeople misunderstanding this whole subject. █

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend