|
Size: 6332
Comment: removing useless links
|
Size: 5507
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 9: | Line 9: |
| = European Commission criminalises the industry = | |
| Line 10: | Line 11: |
| = European Commission exceeds competence with criminal measures on violations of "intellectual property" rights = | |
| Line 12: | Line 12: |
| '''IPRED2: Makes violations of "intellectual property rights", such as patents, a crime. Makes adolescents that share files organised criminals.''' | |
| Line 14: | Line 13: |
| It is the first time Brussels interferes with criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? Ipred.org says no. | The European Commission has proposed a directive to [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en criminalise all intentional commercial scale infringements] of "intellectual property rights" ("IP-rights"), such as patents, copyright and trade marks. Copyright "piracy" and trade mark counterfeiting are already crimes throughout the EU, the TRIPS-treaty sees to that. The Commission goes much further, disregarding the fact that beyond copyright "piracy" and trade mark counterfeiting, infringements of "IP-rights" are very complicated. Such infringements often occur during normal business conduct. The European Commission criminalises the industry. |
| Line 16: | Line 15: |
| And the answer is certainly no, if the Commission exceeds its competence. As minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En pointed out], harmonisation of penalties should only be done if there is a real EU interest. The [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty only legal ground] for a directive like this, a harmonisation of criminal measures, is a distortion of trade, i.e, if the non-harmonised state leads to a competitive advantage of member states having lower penalties. | Even companies which merely use properly licensed software are criminalised, since such use is intentional, commercial scale and can infringe on software patents. And people who share files on the internet, on a not-for-profit basis, can be treated as organised criminals. You better watch what your kids our doing with your computer. |
| Line 18: | Line 17: |
| In 10 of the EU's 25 countries patent infringement is a crime. Does the fact that it is not a crime in all 25 countries lead to distortion in trade, does it give the countries in which it is not a crime a competitive advantage? Nobody has ever claimed such a thing. There is no legal ground for including patent infringement in this directive. There are 10 more IP rights for which this question has to be answered. | Criminal courts are not the right place for complicated infringements. Civil procedures are the right choice for them, and more rewarding for the right holders since they can ask for damages. |
| Line 20: | Line 19: |
| If the competence issue is solved for some of the IP rights, then the 4 requirements of a crime (see below) have to be met in order to meet the subsidiarity and proportionality requirements. The Commission proposal does not meet them. | In all European countries copyright piracy and trade mark counterfeiting are already forbidden. Unlike the directive, these national laws are carefully balanced. With its weak definitions, the directive distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems. |
| Line 22: | Line 21: |
| Without the competence, subsidiarity and proportionality requirements met, the directive is illegal, has to be rejected. | Interestingly enough, it is the first time the European Union proposes criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. In our opinion, only countries have enough legitimacy to make criminal laws. The Dutch Parliament unanimously concluded the [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredNlParl060629En Commission exceeds it competence] with this directive. |
| Line 24: | Line 23: |
| As far as many companies are concerned, patents have to go out - a political reason for rejection. | |
| Line 26: | Line 24: |
| Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? - a political reason for rejection. | -------------------------------------------------- |
| Line 28: | Line 26: |
| Do we want our adolescents that share files on the internet to be treated as organised criminals? - yet an other reason for rejection. | == Conclusion and analysis == |
| Line 30: | Line 28: |
| The Commission made a severe faute passe in a sensitive field. The proposal should meet a flat rejection in first reading in the European Parliament. | For reasons of legitimacy and competence, the directive has to be rejected. If not rejected, scope and definitions have to be narrowed severely. For conclusion and analysis see our [http:analysis analysis page]. ------------------------------------------------------- |
| Line 35: | Line 41: |
| Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.] | |
| Line 39: | Line 44: |
[http://www.ipred.org/history History] == Main points == == Scope == Patents have to be taken out. [http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII:] "It is in practice impossible to write and sell software products without certainty that your product does not violate one of the 65,000 software or business method patents granted by the European Patent Office." [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En Others] protested criminalisation of patent infringement too. No criminalising of inciting and abetting beyond general rules that exist in some countries making it a crime to incite to a crime |
The directive is an amended version, [http://www.ipred.org/history see the History] |
| Line 53: | Line 48: |
| == Elements of a crime == Reto M. Hilty, Managing Director, Max Planck Institute for IP, Professor of Law [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty said:] "As a matter of fact, a harmonisation of IP criminal statutes can be justified from the point of view of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality only in connection with actions by which the following elements of a crime are fulfilled cumulatively: - Identity of the exploited object of protection (the good takes on characteristic elements of a protected product or label in a targeted and unmodified fashion – construction, assembly, etc.) - Commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit - Potential to cause considerable damage - Intent or contingent intent (dolus eventualis)" Note these are the minimal elements. They are better defined more sharp to prevent accidents. The Commission proposal does not even meet the minimal elements. Since the stated aim of the directive is to combat "piracy", the fourth requirement should be "criminal intention", not "Intent or contingent intent". == == == |
Full name: Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights |
| Line 72: | Line 52: |
| [http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations) |
|
| Line 75: | Line 53: |
| Line 81: | Line 58: |
| Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.] | |
| Line 82: | Line 60: |
| [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements | [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements |
| Line 100: | Line 79: |
| Line 103: | Line 81: |
| Reinier Bakels made a presentation for SANE. You can download it in: | |
| Line 104: | Line 83: |
| * ISO Open Document Format attachment:RBB060517.odp * PDF attachment:RBB060517.pdf * PowerPoint (please [http://www.openoffice.org download OpenOffice] and use ISO Open Document Format) attachment:RBB060517.ppt * OpenOffice.org 1 attachment:RBB060517.sxi |
|
| Line 106: | Line 89: |
| ----------------------------------- | |
| Line 108: | Line 90: |
| ------------------- == IPRED.ORG == In 2004 the Council and European Parliament adopted an Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). To make fast adoption possible (before 10 new members joined the EU), criminal penalties were taken out. The criminal measures are back in the Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights (DCMEIPR ?). This new directive is often called IPRED 2. ipred.org is set up by [http:www.vrijschrift.org Vrijschrift.org] ---------- |
|
| Line 110: | Line 107: |
| ---------------------------------- |
---------- |
| Line 115: | Line 110: |
| ------------------------------- | ---------- |
European Commission criminalises the industry
The European Commission has proposed a directive to [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en criminalise all intentional commercial scale infringements] of "intellectual property rights" ("IP-rights"), such as patents, copyright and trade marks. Copyright "piracy" and trade mark counterfeiting are already crimes throughout the EU, the TRIPS-treaty sees to that. The Commission goes much further, disregarding the fact that beyond copyright "piracy" and trade mark counterfeiting, infringements of "IP-rights" are very complicated. Such infringements often occur during normal business conduct. The European Commission criminalises the industry.
Even companies which merely use properly licensed software are criminalised, since such use is intentional, commercial scale and can infringe on software patents. And people who share files on the internet, on a not-for-profit basis, can be treated as organised criminals. You better watch what your kids our doing with your computer.
Criminal courts are not the right place for complicated infringements. Civil procedures are the right choice for them, and more rewarding for the right holders since they can ask for damages.
In all European countries copyright piracy and trade mark counterfeiting are already forbidden. Unlike the directive, these national laws are carefully balanced. With its weak definitions, the directive distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems.
Interestingly enough, it is the first time the European Union proposes criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. In our opinion, only countries have enough legitimacy to make criminal laws. The Dutch Parliament unanimously concluded the [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredNlParl060629En Commission exceeds it competence] with this directive.
Conclusion and analysis
For reasons of legitimacy and competence, the directive has to be rejected. If not rejected, scope and definitions have to be narrowed severely.
For conclusion and analysis see our [http:analysis analysis page].
In April 2006 the European Commission [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en announced the directive.]
[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations)
The directive is an amended version, [http://www.ipred.org/history see the History]
Full name: Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights
[http://tinyurl.com/9djqm EU docs]
[http://www.ipred.org/2005 the 2005 proposals]
2005 : COM(2005)276 final / 2005/0127(COD) / 2005/0128(CNS)
Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.]
[http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements
[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII: Call on the 25 Governments to remove criminal sanctions in case of patent infringement]
[http://wiki.ffii.org/JuriHearing060131En Hearing 31st Jan. 2006]
[http://www.ffii.org/~ante/FFII-ipred051127.pdf FFII letter Nov 27th]
[http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En European Parliament hearing 22 November 2005]
[http://www.ipred.org/nl NL: Gevangenisstraf voor octrooiinbreuk]
[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2En FFII]
[http://plone.ffii.org/Members/coordinator/FFII%20UK%20IPRED2%20consultation.pdf/download FFIII-UK]
[http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ipred2.en.html FSFE]
[http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0276en01.pdf 2005 Commission proposal]
Reinier Bakels made a presentation for SANE. You can download it in:
- ISO Open Document Format attachment:RBB060517.odp
- PDF attachment:RBB060517.pdf
PowerPoint (please [http://www.openoffice.org download OpenOffice] and use ISO Open Document Format) attachment:RBB060517.ppt
OpenOffice.org 1 attachment:RBB060517.sxi
[http://www.aippi.org/reports/resolutions/Q169_E.pdf AIPPI paper]
IPRED.ORG
In 2004 the Council and European Parliament adopted an Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). To make fast adoption possible (before 10 new members joined the EU), criminal penalties were taken out.
The criminal measures are back in the Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights (DCMEIPR ?). This new directive is often called IPRED 2.
ipred.org is set up by [http:www.vrijschrift.org Vrijschrift.org]
[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004)
[http://europa.eu.int/servlet/portail/RenderServlet?search=DocNumber&lg=en&nb_docs=25&domain=Legislation&coll=&in_force=NO&an_doc=2003&nu_doc=1383&type_doc=Regulation Customs regulation]