|
Size: 6591
Comment:
|
Size: 7894
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 9: | Line 9: |
| Question: Can somebody explain in a comprehensive way what IPRED is as a start of this page? Reinier Bakels made a presentation for SANE. = European Commission exceeds competence with criminal measures on violations of "intellectual property" rights = '''IPRED2: Makes violations of "intellectual property rights", such as patents, a crime. Adolescents that share files on the internet can be treated as organised criminals.''' 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. A Union that lacks legitimacy, writing criminal laws - it is the start of oppression. |
= European Commission exceeds competence with criminal measures on infringements of "intellectual property" rights = |
| Line 20: | Line 12: |
| 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. | The European Commission has proposed [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en a directive to criminalise infringements of "intellectual property rights"] ("IP-rights"), such as patents, copyright and trade marks. The stated aim is to combat "piracy". While massive infringements on for instance copyright are indeed a problem, the directive itself is a bigger problem. Due to very weak definitions, the directive does not only criminalises pirates, but also companies that are not pirates. And even 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 22: | Line 14: |
| 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. | Should severe infringements of "IP-rights" go unpunished? Will Europe become a pirate continent without the directive? No, in all European countries copyright piracy and trade mark counterfeiting are already forbidden. Unlike the directive, these national laws are carefully balanced. Also, companies can go to civil courts to get damages, which is more rewarding than getting infringers in jail. |
| Line 24: | Line 16: |
| 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. | With its weak definitions, the directive distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems. |
| Line 26: | Line 18: |
| Without the competence, subsidiarity and proportionality requirements met, the directive is illegal, has to be rejected. | |
| Line 28: | Line 19: |
| As far as many companies are concerned, patents have to go out - a political reason for rejection. | |
| Line 30: | Line 20: |
| Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? - a political reason for rejection. | Interestingly enough, it is the first time the European Union proposes criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. The first question to be asked is whether we want this. Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? Our answer is no, we believe only countries have enough legitimacy to make criminal laws. |
| Line 32: | Line 22: |
| Do we want our adolescents that share files on the internet to be treated as organised criminals? - yet an other reason for rejection. | Does the Community have the competence to make this directive? The Dutch Parliament [http://www.ipred.org/NlParl060629 unanimously decided the Commission exceeds it competence] with this directive. And Donner, minister of Justice for the Netherlands, was not pleased too. He [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En pointed out] that 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. The Commission does not even try to make that case. |
| Line 34: | Line 24: |
| 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. | |
| Line 36: | Line 25: |
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 - in any parliament. |
|
| Line 39: | Line 30: |
| Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.] | |
| Line 43: | Line 33: |
[http://www.ipred.org/history History] |
The directive is an amended version, [http://www.ipred.org/history see the History] |
| Line 48: | Line 37: |
| Do we want European criminal law? Does the Community have competence? Are the subsidiarity and proportionality tests made? | |
| Line 51: | Line 41: |
| 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. | The directive includes all "IP-rights", "at least" 11. As we saw above, copyright piracy and trade mark counterfeiting are already forbidden in all European countries. And for some other rights, like patents, criminal measures will have an adverse effect on competion and innovation. 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. |
| Line 55: | Line 47: |
| == Elements of a crime == | |
| Line 56: | Line 49: |
== Elements of a crime == |
The directive would make all intentional commercial scale infringments of "intellectual property rights" a criminal offence. But not all intentional commercial violations of these rights are piracy. Trademark and patent infringements are always commercial infringements, but by no means always piracy. |
| Line 61: | Line 54: |
| "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: | "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: |
| Line 63: | Line 56: |
| - 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.) | 1 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.) |
| Line 65: | Line 58: |
| - Commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit | 2 Commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit |
| Line 67: | Line 60: |
| - Potential to cause considerable damage | 3 Potential to cause considerable damage |
| Line 69: | Line 62: |
| - Intent or contingent intent (dolus eventualis)" | 4 Intent or contingent intent (dolus eventualis)" |
| Line 71: | Line 64: |
| 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". | Note these are the minimal elements. It would be better to define them more sharply. 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". |
| Line 75: | Line 69: |
| 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 80: | Line 76: |
| Line 85: | Line 80: |
| Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.] | |
| Line 86: | Line 82: |
| [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements | [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements |
| Line 104: | Line 101: |
| Line 107: | Line 103: |
| Reinier Bakels made a presentation for SANE. You can download it in: | |
| Line 108: | Line 105: |
| * 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 110: | Line 111: |
| ----------------------------------- |
---------- |
| Line 114: | Line 114: |
| ---------------------------------- |
---------- |
| Line 119: | Line 117: |
| ------------------------------- | ---------- |
European Commission exceeds competence with criminal measures on infringements of "intellectual property" rights
The European Commission has proposed [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en a directive to criminalise infringements of "intellectual property rights"] ("IP-rights"), such as patents, copyright and trade marks. The stated aim is to combat "piracy". While massive infringements on for instance copyright are indeed a problem, the directive itself is a bigger problem. Due to very weak definitions, the directive does not only criminalises pirates, but also companies that are not pirates. And even 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.
Should severe infringements of "IP-rights" go unpunished? Will Europe become a pirate continent without the directive? No, in all European countries copyright piracy and trade mark counterfeiting are already forbidden. Unlike the directive, these national laws are carefully balanced. Also, companies can go to civil courts to get damages, which is more rewarding than getting infringers in jail.
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. The first question to be asked is whether we want this. Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? Our answer is no, we believe only countries have enough legitimacy to make criminal laws.
Does the Community have the competence to make this directive? The Dutch Parliament [http://www.ipred.org/NlParl060629 unanimously decided the Commission exceeds it competence] with this directive. And Donner, minister of Justice for the Netherlands, was not pleased too. He [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En pointed out] that 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. The Commission does not even try to make that case.
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 - in any parliament.
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]
Main points
Do we want European criminal law? Does the Community have competence? Are the subsidiarity and proportionality tests made?
Scope
The directive includes all "IP-rights", "at least" 11. As we saw above, copyright piracy and trade mark counterfeiting are already forbidden in all European countries. And for some other rights, like patents, criminal measures will have an adverse effect on competion and innovation.
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
Elements of a crime
The directive would make all intentional commercial scale infringments of "intellectual property rights" a criminal offence. But not all intentional commercial violations of these rights are piracy. Trademark and patent infringements are always commercial infringements, but by no means always piracy.
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:
1 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.)
2 Commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit
3 Potential to cause considerable damage
4 Intent or contingent intent (dolus eventualis)"
Note these are the minimal elements. It would be better to define them more sharply. 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
[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations)
[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]
[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]