DOCSLIB.ORG

Digital Opportunity: a Review of Intellectual Property and Growth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Digital Opportunity: a Review of Intellectual Property and Growth PHOTO REDACTED DUE TO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS OR OTHER LEGAL ISSUES PHOTO REDACTED DUE TO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS OR OTHER LEGAL ISSUES Digital PHOTO REDACTED DUE TO THIRD PARTY Opportunity RIGHTS OR OTHER LEGAL ISSUES A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth PHOTO REDACTED DUE TO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS OR OTHER LEGAL ISSUES An Independent Report by Professor Ian Hargreaves May 2011 Contents Page Foreword by Ian Hargreaves 01 Executive Summary 03 Chapter 1 Intellectual Property and Growth 10 Chapter 2 The Evidence Base 16 Chapter 3 The International Context 21 Chapter 4 Copyright Licensing: a Moment of Opportunity 26 Chapter 5 Copyright: Exceptions for the Digital Age 41 Chapter 6 Patents 53 Chapter 7 Designs 64 Chapter 8 Enforcement and Disputes 67 Chapter 9 SMEs and the IP Framework 86 Chapter 10 An Adaptive IP Framework 91 Chapter 11 Impact 97 Annex A Terms of Reference 101 Annex B Stakeholders Met during Review of IP and Growth 102 Annex C Call for Evidence Submissions 105 Annex D List of Supporting Documents 109 Foreword When the Prime Minister commissioned this review in November 2010, he did so in terms which some considered provocative. The Review was needed, the PM said, because of the risk that the current intellectual property framework might not be sufficiently well designed to promote innovation and growth in the UK economy. In the five months we have had to compile the Review, we have sought never to lose sight of David Cameron’s “exam question”. Could it be true that laws designed more than three centuries ago with the express purpose of creating economic incentives for innovation by protecting creators’ rights are today obstructing innovation and economic growth? The short answer is: yes. We have found that the UK’s intellectual property framework, especially with regard to copyright, is falling behind what is needed. Copyright, once the exclusive concern of authors and their publishers, is today preventing medical researchers studying data and text in pursuit of new treatments. Copying has become basic to numerous industrial processes, as well as to a burgeoning service economy based upon the internet. The UK cannot afford to let a legal framework designed around artists impede vigorous participation in these emerging business sectors. This does not mean, however, that we must put our hugely important creative industries at risk. Indeed, these businesses too need change, in the form of more open, contestable and effective global markets in digital content and a setting in which enforcement of copyright becomes effective once more. The Review sets out how this can be achieved. We have focused upon the main issues, at the risk of ignoring important points of detail, and have tried to set out a clear, strategic argument, supported with just ten recommendations. We are also making available online a number of documents which explore the available evidence and submissions made to the Review. If the Review’s recommendations are followed, the result will be more innovation and more economic growth. Our intellectual property framework will face further significant pressure to adapt in the coming years, as we make our way into the third decade of the commercial internet. We urge Government to ensure that in future, policy on Intellectual Property issues is constructed on the basis of evidence, rather than weight of lobbying, and to ensure that the institutions upon which we depend to deliver intellectual property policy have clear mandates and adaptive capability. Without that, the pile of IP reviews on the Government’s doorstep – four in the last six years – will continue to accumulate. 1 Review of Intellectual Property and Growth I would like to conclude by thanking the team, based in the Intellectual Property Office, which has worked with me to deliver this independent review. Because it is independent, I bear responsibility for its content, but I have relied very heavily upon the expertise and unstinting hard work of the IPO team. I also owe a debt to the group of five experts who agreed to serve as the Review’s advisory panel: Roger Burt, James Boyle, Mark Schankerman, David Gann and Tom Loosemore. As individuals with strong views and great expertise, they did so on the basis that they would not necessarily be bound by the Review’s conclusions. Their advice has been generous and of the highest quality. I also thank the almost 300 individuals and organisations who gave written evidence to the Review. It was from these submissions that I learned the most. Ian Hargreaves, May, 2011. 2 Review of Intellectual Property and Growth Executive Summary Intellectual Property is important to growth... In advanced economies like the UK’s, innovation is crucial to competitive edge. That makes Intellectual Property (IP) policy an increasingly important tool for stimulating economic growth. Every year in the last decade, investment by UK business in intangible assets has outstripped investment in tangible assets: by £137 billion to £104 billion in 2008. Global trade in IP licences alone is worth more than £600 billion a year: five per cent of world trade and rising. Small and young innovative firms are of crucial importance in terms of growth and jobs but proliferating use of IP rights can push up IP transaction costs and block these new players from entering markets. The IP framework is falling behind and must adapt... IP law must adapt to change. Digital communications technology involves routine copying of text, images and data, meaning that copyright law has started to act as a regulatory barrier to the creation of certain kinds of new, internet based businesses. With two thirds of the world’s population yet to achieve direct connection to the internet, this digital revolution has by no means run its course (Chapter 1). The Prime Minister asked the Review to consider whether our IP framework needs to adapt in the interests of encouraging innovation and growth. The Review’s conclusion is that such adaptation is required. The UK’s current IP system is falling behind what is needed, especially in the area of copyright. Evidence should drive policy... Throughout the Review, we have sought to base our judgments on economic evidence and we advise Government to frame its policy decisions on that basis (Chapter 2). This is especially important at the international level, where large interests collide, making progress towards international agreement on IP issues frustratingly slow. The UK has a great deal to gain from such agreements, which will support a further strong growth in the global trade in intangibles. The Review supports a number of international initiatives and identifies the achievement of a unified EU patent court and EU patent system as the top priority (Chapter 3). A digital copyright exchange will facilitate copyright licensing and realise the growth potential of creative industries... In copyright, the interests of the UK’s creative industries are of great national importance. Digital creative industries exports rank third, behind only advanced engineering and financial and professional services. In order to grow these creative businesses further globally, they need efficient, open and effective digital markets at home, where rights can be speedily licensed and effectively protected. 3 Review of Intellectual Property and Growth Numerous responses to the Review’s Call for Evidence drew attention to defects in licensing procedures, among them those of the CBI, News Corporation, Pearson, Reed Elsevier, an alliance of UK photographers and the European Publishers Council. Having studied these and several other proposals, including the Google Books Agreement recently struck down by the courts in the United States, the Review proposes that Government brings together rights holders and other business interests to create in the UK the world’s first Digital Copyright Exchange. This will make it easier for rights owners, small and large, to sell licences in their work and for others to buy them. It will make market transactions faster, more automated and cheaper. The result will be a UK market in digital copyright which is better informed and more readily capable of resolving disputes without costly litigation. The prize is to build on the UK’s current competitive advantage in creative content to become a leader in providing the services global players use to license their content for world content markets. Further steps to modernise copyright licensing... Supported by other moves to achieve easier cross border licensing in the EU, bulk licensing of large digital collections and a common code of practice for copyright collecting societies, the UK can aspire to be the leading service support centre for IP matters in the European time zone. At the same time, Government should take long overdue action to update copyright law in ways designed to increase consumer confidence in the way the law works. It should begin by legislating to release for use the vast treasure trove of copyright works which are effectively unavailable – “orphan works” – to which access is in practice barred because the copyright holder cannot be traced. This is a move with no economic downside (Chapter 4). Copying should be lawful where it is for private purposes, or does not damage the underlying aims of copyright... The UK has chosen not to exercise all of its rights under EU law to permit individuals to shift the format of a piece of music or video for personal use and to make use of copyright material in parody. Nor does the UK allow its great libraries to archive all digital copyright material, with the result that much of it is rotting away. Taking advantage of these EU sanctioned exceptions will bring important cultural as well as economic benefits to the UK. Together, they will help to make copyright law better understood and more acceptable to the public.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Digital Opportunity: a Review of Intellectual Property and Growth
    Digital Opportunity A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth An Independent Report by Professor Ian Hargreaves May 2011 Contents Page Foreword by Ian Hargreaves 01 Executive Summary 03 Chapter 1 Intellectual Property and Growth 10 Chapter 2 The Evidence Base 16 Chapter 3 The International Context 21 Chapter 4 Copyright Licensing: a Moment of Opportunity 26 Chapter 5 Copyright: Exceptions for the Digital Age 41 Chapter 6 Patents 53 Chapter 7 Designs 64 Chapter 8 Enforcement and Disputes 67 Chapter 9 SMEs and the IP Framework 86 Chapter 10 An Adaptive IP Framework 91 Chapter 11 Impact 97 Annex A Terms of Reference 101 Annex B Stakeholders Met during Review of IP and Growth 102 Annex C Call for Evidence Submissions 105 Annex D List of Supporting Documents 109 Foreword When the Prime Minister commissioned this review in November 2010, he did so in terms which some considered provocative. The Review was needed, the PM said, because of the risk that the current intellectual property framework might not be sufficiently well designed to promote innovation and growth in the UK economy. In the five months we have had to compile the Review, we have sought never to lose sight of David Cameron’s “exam question”. Could it be true that laws designed more than three centuries ago with the express purpose of creating economic incentives for innovation by protecting creators’ rights are today obstructing innovation and economic growth? The short answer is: yes. We have found that the UK’s intellectual property framework, especially with regard to copyright, is falling behind what is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • IP Federation Review 2020 REVIEW Formerly Trends and Events, ISSN 2046-3049
    IP Federation 1 | IP Federation Review 2020 REVIEW Formerly Trends and Events, ISSN 2046-3049 www.ipfederation.com DECEMBER | 2020 Improving the intellectual property framework to meet the needs of innovative industry for a century Rising to the challenge… IP Federation members have stepped up to the plate to share their most valuable IP to help combat COVID-19 | P10 100 Artificial Intelligence and years Intellectual Property Fourth industrial revolution technology and its interplay with IP Federation’s centenary year | P14 the IP system | P40 2 | IP Federation Review 2020 Advancing industry’s view on intellectual property since 1920 The IP Federation was founded in 1920 as the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation (TMPDF) in order to coordinate the views of industry and commerce in the United Kingdom, and to make representations to the appropriate authorities on policy and practice in intellectual property (IP) matters. AIMS ACTIVITIES The IP Federation’s aim is to bring about The IP Federation initiates proposals and improvements in the protection afforded by follows developments at national, European intellectual property rights throughout the world, and international levels across all fields of to the advantage of inventors, manufacturers and intellectual property. It has a close relationship consumers alike. Today the Federation has over with the Confederation of British Industry 40 IP-intensive member companies operating (CBI) and provides professional input on in a wide range of sectors and product groups, intellectual property matters to the CBI, as among which are many of the largest companies well as representing it in certain meetings in the UK, as well as smaller companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Print Journalism: a Critical Introduction
    Print Journalism A critical introduction Print Journalism: A critical introduction provides a unique and thorough insight into the skills required to work within the newspaper, magazine and online journalism industries. Among the many highlighted are: sourcing the news interviewing sub-editing feature writing and editing reviewing designing pages pitching features In addition, separate chapters focus on ethics, reporting courts, covering politics and copyright whilst others look at the history of newspapers and magazines, the structure of the UK print industry (including its financial organisation) and the development of journalism education in the UK, helping to place the coverage of skills within a broader, critical context. All contributors are experienced practising journalists as well as journalism educators from a broad range of UK universities. Contributors: Rod Allen, Peter Cole, Martin Conboy, Chris Frost, Tony Harcup, Tim Holmes, Susan Jones, Richard Keeble, Sarah Niblock, Richard Orange, Iain Stevenson, Neil Thurman, Jane Taylor and Sharon Wheeler. Richard Keeble is Professor of Journalism at Lincoln University and former director of undergraduate studies in the Journalism Department at City University, London. He is the author of Ethics for Journalists (2001) and The Newspapers Handbook, now in its fourth edition (2005). Print Journalism A critical introduction Edited by Richard Keeble First published 2005 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX9 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Selection and editorial matter © 2005 Richard Keeble; individual chapters © 2005 the contributors All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats Law Commission Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats Law Com No 346
    Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats Law Commission Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Patents, Trade Law Com No 346 Law Com No 346 39750 Cm 8851 Cover.indd 1 04/04/2014 17:25 The Law Commission (LAW COM No 346) PATENTS, TRADE MARKS AND DESIGN RIGHTS: GROUNDLESS THREATS Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty April 2014 Cm 8851 © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.2. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ or email [email protected] Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Print ISBN 9781474101974 Web ISBN 9781474101981 Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 04041402 39750 04/14 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum ii THE LAW COMMISSION The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman Professor Elizabeth Cooke David Hertzell Professor David Ormerod QC Nicholas Paines QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Elaine Lorimer. The Law Commission is located at 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG.
    [Show full text]
  • Demos Demos Has Received Invaluable Support from a Wide Range of Organisations Including: Northern Foods, Cable & Wireless P
    Demos Demos has received invaluable support from a wide range of organisations including: Northern Foods, Cable & Wireless plc, Pearson, Scottish and Newcastle, National Westminster Bank plc, British Gas, Shell International, Story Hayward, the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Rowntree Reform Trust, the Inland Revenue Staff Federation, Etam, Heidrick and Struggles, the Charities Aid Foundation, the Corporation of London, and the Economic and Social Research Council. Demos’ Advisory Council includes: John Ashworth, Director of the London School of Economics Clive Brooke, General Secretary, Inland Revenue Staff Federation Janet Cohen, Director, Charterhouse Bank Jack Dromey, National Officer TGWU Sir Douglas Hague, Templeton College Jan Hall, European Chief Executive, Gold Greenlees Trottl Stuart Hall, Professor of Sociology, Open University Chris Ham, Professor of Health Policy, Birmingham University Charles Handy, author and broadcaster Ian Hargreaves, Editor, The Independent Christopher Haskins, Chairman of Northern Foods PLC Martin Jacques, Journalist Richard Layard, Professor of Economics, LSE David Marquand, Professor of Politics, Sheffield University Sheila McKechnie, Managing Director, The Consumer Association Julia Middleton, Director, Common Purpose Yve Newbold, Company Secretary. Hanson plc, Director, British Telecom Sue Richards, Director, The Office of Public Management Anita Roddick, Group Managing Director, Body Shop PLC Dennis Stevenson, Chairman, SRU and the Tate Gallery Martin Taylor, Chief Executive, Barclays Bank plc Bob Tyrrell, Managing Director, The Henley Centre. Open access. Some rights reserved. As the publisher of this work, Demos has an open access policy which enables anyone to access our content electronically without charge. We want to encourage the circulation of our work as widely as possible without affecting the ownership of the copyright, which remains with the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Review on Industrial Design Protection in Europe
    Legal review on industrial design protection in Europe Under the contract with the Directorate General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (MARKT2014/083/D) Legal review on industrial design protection in Europe Final Report - 15 April 2016 EN This study was carried out for the European Commission by For further information on this report, please contact: Mr. Jos Dumortier time.lex - information & technology law 35 rue du Congrès B-1000 Brussels - Belgium M: +32 477 33 82 96 [email protected] www.timelex.eu Core Team: Prof Jos Dumortier time.lex Davide Parrilli time.lex Prof Uma Suthersanen Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, Queen Mary, London Honorary Prof David Musker Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, Queen Mary, London; Consultant, Jenkins Patricia Ypma Spark Legal Network Peter McNally Spark Legal Network Jasmine Simpson Spark Legal Network Dr Lena Boucon Spark Legal Network Jo Steyaert Indiville Wouter Samyn Indiville Country Experts: Prof Clemens Appl Austria Vienna University of Economics and Business Susie P. Arnesen Denmark Løje, Arnesen & Meedom Prof Mario Franzosi Italy Avvocati Associati Franzosi Dal Negro Setti Prof Ignacio Garrote Spain Autonomous University of Madrid Prof Christophe Geiger, France CEIPI, University of Strasbourg Natalia Kapyrina Prof Pavel Koukal Czech Republic Masaryk University Dr Ewa Laskowska Poland Jagiellonian University Prof Marianne Levin Sweden Stockholm University Dr Vytautas Mizaras Lithuania Valiunas Ellex Mark Pohar Slovenia - Dr Ana Ramalho Portugal Maastricht University Allard Ringnalda Netherlands Klos cs Dr Dharamveer Singh Chauhan Luxembourg VP Fund Solutions (Luxembourg) SA Prof Guido Westkamp, Germany Queen Mary Intellectual Property Dr Marc Mimler Research Institute, Queen Mary, London DISCLAIMER The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Journalism Studies the Key Concepts
    Digital Journalism Studies The Key Concepts FRANKLIN, Bob and CANTER, Lily <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5708-2420> Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/26994/ This document is the author deposited version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. Published version FRANKLIN, Bob and CANTER, Lily (2019). Digital Journalism Studies The Key Concepts. Routledge key guides . Routledge. Copyright and re-use policy See http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive http://shura.shu.ac.uk <BOOK-PART><BOOK-PART-META><TITLE>The key concepts</TITLE></BOOK- PART-META></BOOK-PART> <BOOK-PART><BOOK-PART-META><TITLE>Actants</TITLE></BOOK-PART- META> <BODY>In a special issue of the journal Digital Journalism, focused on reconceptualizsing key theoretical changes reflecting the development of Digital Journalism Studies, Seth Lewis and Oscar Westlund seek to clarify the role of what they term the “four A’s” – namely the human actors, non-human technological actants, audiences and the involvement of all three groups in the activities of news production (Lewis and Westlund, 2014). Like Primo and Zago, Lewis and Westlund argue that innovations in computational software require scholars of digital journalism to interrogate not simply who but what is involved in news production and to establish how non-human actants are disrupting established journalism practices (Primo and Zago, 2015: 38). The examples of technological actants
    [Show full text]
  • Restructuring Intellectual Property Jurisdictions Post-Brexit: Strategic Considerations for the EU and Britain Alexandra George
    Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 43 | Issue 1 Article 27 12-12-2017 Restructuring Intellectual Property Jurisdictions Post-Brexit: Strategic Considerations for the EU and Britain Alexandra George Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil Part of the European Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Alexandra George, Restructuring Intellectual Property Jurisdictions Post-Brexit: Strategic Considerations for the EU and Britain, 43 Brook. J. Int'l L. 131 (2017). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol43/iss1/27 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. RESTRUCTURING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JURISDICTION POST- BREXIT: STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION AND BRITAIN Alexandra George* INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 132 I. TERMINOLOGY AND ASSESSING OUTCOMES: A HARD OR SOFT BREXIT?................................................................................... 138 II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW-MAKING IN EUROPE....................................... 140 ". TBF 6J.+F .D ‘I/&F>>FJ&%_> 8(.+F(&Z’ ................................ 141 B. Territorial Rights
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking News
    BREAKING NEWS First published in Great Britain in 2018 by Canongate Books Ltd, 14 High Street, Edinburgh EH1 1TE canongate.co.uk This digital edition first published in 2018 by Canongate Books Copyright © Alan Rusbridger, 2018 The moral right of the author has been asserted British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available on request from the British Library ISBN 978 1 78689 093 1 Export ISBN 978 1 78689 094 8 eISBN 978 1 78689 095 5 To Lindsay and Georgina who, between them, shared most of this journey Contents Introduction 1. Not Bowling Alone 2. More Than a Business 3. The New World 4. Editor 5. Shedding Power 6. Guardian . Unlimited 7. The Conversation 8. Global 9. Format Wars 10. Dog, Meet Dog 11. The Future Is Mutual 12. The Money Question 13. Bee Information 14. Creaking at the Seams 15. Crash 16. Phone Hacking 17. Let Us Pay? 18. Open and Shut 19. The Gatekeepers 20. Members? 21. The Trophy Newspaper 22. Do You Love Your Country? 23. Whirlwinds of Change Epilogue Timeline Bibliography Acknowledgements Also by Alan Rusbridger Notes Index Introduction By early 2017 the world had woken up to a problem that, with a mixture of impotence, incomprehension and dread, journalists had seen coming for some time. News – the thing that helped people understand their world; that oiled the wheels of society; that pollinated communities; that kept the powerful honest – news was broken. The problem had many different names and diagnoses. Some thought we were drowning in too much news; others feared we were in danger of becoming newsless.
    [Show full text]
  • Dumbing Down Is Good for You Mick Temple Journalism and Politics, Staffordshire University
    British Politics, 2006, 1, (257–273) r 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 1746-918x/06 $30.00 www.palgrave-journals.com/bp Dumbing Down is Good for You Mick Temple Journalism and Politics, Staffordshire University. E-mail: m.temple@staffs.ac.uk There has been considerable academic debate about the ‘dumbing down’ of the media, most of it characterizing the process as having a negative impact upon democratic political discourse. This paper argues that the so-called dumbing down of political coverage is an essential part of engaging people on political issues and that popular television such as chat and reality shows capture and engage audiences unresponsive to more conventional coverage of social issues. A public sphere focussed on the rational and ‘high-minded’ coverage of politics is an in- adequate representation of how most people receive political knowledge and make judgements about important issues. In addition, therefore, concerns about the dumbing down of ‘serious’ political outputs are misplaced. A less elite-driven news agenda — one that recognizes the importance of the emotional and the apparently trivial — offers wider opportunities for political engagement to all sections of society. Finally, the paper calls for more academic involvement in the task of providing entertaining yet authoritative introductions to political issues. British Politics (2006) 1, 257–273. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200018 Keywords: dumbing down; public sphere; democracy Introduction This paper argues that the so called ‘dumbing down’ of political coverage, referring largely to the simplification and sensationalism of ‘serious’ news by journalists, is an essential part of the process of engaging people in debates about the distribution of resources in modern democratic societies.
    [Show full text]
  • IP Federation Submissions on Draft UPC Legislation
    Policy Paper PP09/14 IP Federation submissions on draft UPC legislation Introduction The IP Federation represents IP intensive companies in the United Kingdom – a list of members is attached. Our member companies are extensively in- volved with IP in Europe and internationally. Not only do our companies own considerable numbers of IP rights, both in Europe and elsewhere, but they are affected by the activities and IP rights of competitors. They may be either claimants or defendants in IP related court actions, here and elsewhere. The consultation On 10 June 2014, the IPO launched a consultation comprising a Technical Review and Call for Evidence on Secondary legislation implementing the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC) and EU Regulations establishing the Unitary Patent. Responses and questions about policy issues raised in the document have been requested by the IPO’s UPC Taskforce by 2 September 2014. IP Federation response Before addressing the 20 individual questions in the consultation document, the IP Federation would like to make some generalised remarks on the following topics. 1. JURISDICTION a. Bringing national law into line with the UPC b. Transitional provisions – interpretation of Article 83 UPCA (see Annex) c. Jurisdiction of UK IPO d. Technical drafting issues 2. UNITARY PATENT a. Threats provisions b. Double patenting 3. INFRINGEMENT a. Software interoperability – Article 27(k) UPCA 1. JURISDICTION 1a. National law harmonisation with UPC law The IP Federation realises there is a logic in bringing UK infringement law into line with UPC infringement law, so that the UK Courts are applying the same infringement provisions as the UPC and no advantage could be sought Registered Office 5th floor, 63-66 Hatton Garden, London EC1N 8LE Email: [email protected] | Tel: 020 72423923 | Fax: 020 72423924 | Web: www.ipfederation.com Limited by guarantee Registered company no: 166772 Page 2 of 18 by litigants choosing one forum or another where options may exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Studying Data and Text in Pursuit of New Treatments
    Intellectual property and innovation Edited by Ian Hargreaves and Paul Hofheinz Ian Hargreaves Foreword: the European dimension Jeff Lynn Copyright for growth Paul Klimpel Preserving Europe’s cultural heritage Nico Perez New creative- and content-delivery services Till Kreutzer A new model for tomorrow’s challenges Cédric Manara The French exception Lilian Edwards Next steps in the UK Michel Vivant The way forward for France and the world Reto Hilty Licensing for competition, innovation and creation Bernt Hugenholtz The Dutch case for flexibility Intellectual property and innovation: A framework for 21st century growth and jobs Ten leading European thinkers look at the challenge of managing intellectual property in the 21st century – and the steps we should take today. Edited by Ian Hargreaves and Paul Hofheinz Foreword by Ian Hargreaves By Lilian Edwards, Reto Hilty, Bernt Hugenholtz, Paul Klimpel, Till Kreutzer, Jeff Lynn, Cédric Manara, Nico Perez and Michel Vivant The Lisbon Council would like to thank Google, the Internet services company, and the European Commission’s Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency for co-financing which made much of this research possible. With the support of the European Union: Support for organisations that are active at the European level in the field of active European citizenship. The ideas expressed in these essays are those of the individual authors alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Lisbon Council or any of its associates. Intellectual property and innovation: A framework for 21st century growth and jobs Table of 4 11 contents Foreword: the European Copyright for growth dimension Jeff Lynn Ian Hargreaves Jeff Lynn is co-founder and CEO of Seedrs, an online Ian Hargreaves is professor crowdfunding platform for of digital economy at Cardiff investing in start-ups, and University and author of chairman of Coadec, the Digital Opportunity: A Review Coalition for a Digital Economy, of Intellectual Property and a UK-based advocacy group.
    [Show full text]