Differences between revisions 96 and 106 (spanning 10 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 96 as of 2006-06-30 13:40:53 →
Size: 7132
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
← Revision 106 as of 2006-07-08 14:24:22 → ⇥
Size: 4833
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 9: Line 9:
= European Commission exceeds competence with criminal measures on infringements of "intellectual property" rights = = European Commission criminalises the industry =
Line 12: Line 12:
The European Commission has proposed 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 14: Line 13:
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. And companies can go to civil courts to get damages, which is more rewarding than getting infringers in jail. 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. 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:
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. 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:
Does the Community have the competence to make this directive? The Dutch Parliament 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. 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:
The directive includes all "IP-rights". 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 have an adverse effect on competion and innovation. 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:
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 decided the [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredNlParl060629En Commission exceeds it competence] with this directive.
Line 24: Line 23:
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.
--------------------------------------------------

== 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].




-------------------------------------------------------
Line 28: Line 41:
Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.]
Line 32: Line 44:
[http://www.ipred.org/history History] The directive is an amended version, [http://www.ipred.org/history see the History]
Line 34: Line 46:
== 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.
Line 38: Line 47:
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 ==
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".

== == ==
Line 53: Line 51:
[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations)
Line 60: Line 57:

Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.]

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. 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 decided 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:

[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]

MainPage (last edited 2009-05-30 23:30:39 by localhost)