|
Size: 2037
Comment:
|
Size: 3332
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| ------ [[http://www.ipred.org/MainPage Introduction]] [[http://www.ipred.org/analysis Analysis]] [[http://www.ipred.org/howto How To]] [[http://www.ipred.org/factsheet Fact sheet]] ------ | ------ [[http://www.ipred.org/MainPage Introduction]] [[http://www.ipred.org/analysis Analysis]] [[http://www.ipred.org/howto How To]] [[http://www.ipred.org/factsheet Fact sheet]] [[http://www.ipred.org/backdoor Backdoor]] ------ |
| Line 3: | Line 3: |
| = Legal means already available = | |
| Line 4: | Line 5: |
| ==== 2005/0127 (COD) ==== | |
| Line 5: | Line 7: |
| = Fact sheet = | ==== 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 7: | Line 9: |
| === 2005/0127 (COD) === | * The legal means to combat piracy and counterfeiting are already available. The proposal is not essential, the Community lacks competence. |
| Line 9: | Line 11: |
| === 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 === | * The directive does not make any distinction between piracy and ambiguous infringements of "intellectual property" rights. Decent people can be treated as organised criminals. For instance, beyond clear case of counterfeiting, trade marks cases are complicated and subtle. Beyond clear cases of piracy and counterfeiting civil sanctions are sufficient. |
| Line 11: | Line 13: |
| * the directive does not make any distinction between piracy and ambiguous infringements of "intellectual property" rights | * Contestable and weak rights gain great threat potential, the desired freedom to act in the market is inhibited. For instance patents are not properly tested. Utility models rights are not examined before they are granted. Unregistered Community Design rights arise automatically. Registered Community Design applications are given essentially no substantive examination. |
| Line 13: | Line 15: |
| * decent people can be treated as organised criminals | * The directive harmonises the enforcement of substantive law that is not harmonised. Harmonisation of just those areas of intellectual property law that have been harmonised, would not help. Notably copyright is still fairly different in the member states, even though the minimum standards have been harmonised by directives. E.g, exclusively in the Netherlands every printed matter is copyright protected regardless of its level of originality (normally an explict requirement in copyright law) ("geschriftenbescherming"). Germany has a large body of copyright contract law, while the Netherlands has nothing in this area. |
| Line 15: | Line 17: |
| * the legal means to combat piracy and counterfeiting are already available | * The directive adopts a general concept of "intellectual property", it breaks the age-old "numerus clausus" (closed system) principle of "intellectual property", and "absolute rights" ("iura in rem") in general: until now, the principle is freedom of information (and imitation) unless there is an explicit statute preventing that. An open-ended concept of "intellectual property" law is a major departure from today's substantive law: it would change the entire system of private law. |
| Line 17: | Line 19: |
| * beyond clear cases of piracy and counterfeiting civil sanctions are sufficient | * Criminal law must be precise and may not contain open concepts, the legality principle ("lex certa" and "lex scripta") is violated. |
| Line 19: | Line 21: |
| * contestable and weak rights gain great threath potential, the desired freedom to act in the market is inhibited | * Criminal law systems differ considerably: e.g. in some member states "legal persons" (companies) can only be imposed a fine, while in others the "factual leaders" can be imprisoned. |
| Line 21: | Line 23: |
| * right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions, this threatens the neutrality of police investigation | * Right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions, this threatens the neutrality of police investigation. |
| Line 23: | Line 25: |
| * criminal investigation authorities should not be able to act on their own initiative without a prior complaint of the rights owner, because licensing arrangements are not published and the rights owner has the fundamental right to dispose of his rights as he desires | * Criminal investigation authorities should not be able to act on their own initiative without a prior complaint of the rights owner, because licensing arrangements are not published and the rights owner has the fundamental right to dispose of his rights as he desires. |
| Line 25: | Line 27: |
| * the directive can be abused | * The directive can be abused. |
| Line 27: | Line 29: |
| * the directive harmonises the enforcement of substantive law that is not harmonised * criminal law must be precise and may not contain open concepts, the legality principle ("lex certa" and "lex scripta") is violated * carefully balanced national procedural law systems are distorted * the directive adopts a general concept of "intellectual property", it breaks the age-old "numerus clausus" (closed system) principle of "intellectual property", and "absolute rights" ("iura in rem") in general: until now, the principle is freedom of information (and imitation) unless there is an explicit statute preventing that * the proposal is not essential, the Community lacks competence |
* Carefully balanced national procedural law systems are distorted. |
http://www.ipred.org/MainPage Introduction http://www.ipred.org/analysis Analysis http://www.ipred.org/howto How To http://www.ipred.org/factsheet Fact sheet http://www.ipred.org/backdoor Backdoor
Legal means already available
2005/0127 (COD)
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
- The legal means to combat piracy and counterfeiting are already available. The proposal is not essential, the Community lacks competence.
- The directive does not make any distinction between piracy and ambiguous infringements of "intellectual property" rights. Decent people can be treated as organised criminals. For instance, beyond clear case of counterfeiting, trade marks cases are complicated and subtle. Beyond clear cases of piracy and counterfeiting civil sanctions are sufficient.
- Contestable and weak rights gain great threat potential, the desired freedom to act in the market is inhibited. For instance patents are not properly tested. Utility models rights are not examined before they are granted. Unregistered Community Design rights arise automatically. Registered Community Design applications are given essentially no substantive examination.
- The directive harmonises the enforcement of substantive law that is not harmonised. Harmonisation of just those areas of intellectual property law that have been harmonised, would not help. Notably copyright is still fairly different in the member states, even though the minimum standards have been harmonised by directives. E.g, exclusively in the Netherlands every printed matter is copyright protected regardless of its level of originality (normally an explict requirement in copyright law) ("geschriftenbescherming"). Germany has a large body of copyright contract law, while the Netherlands has nothing in this area.
- The directive adopts a general concept of "intellectual property", it breaks the age-old "numerus clausus" (closed system) principle of "intellectual property", and "absolute rights" ("iura in rem") in general: until now, the principle is freedom of information (and imitation) unless there is an explicit statute preventing that. An open-ended concept of "intellectual property" law is a major departure from today's substantive law: it would change the entire system of private law.
- Criminal law must be precise and may not contain open concepts, the legality principle ("lex certa" and "lex scripta") is violated.
- Criminal law systems differ considerably: e.g. in some member states "legal persons" (companies) can only be imposed a fine, while in others the "factual leaders" can be imprisoned.
- Right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions, this threatens the neutrality of police investigation.
- Criminal investigation authorities should not be able to act on their own initiative without a prior complaint of the rights owner, because licensing arrangements are not published and the rights owner has the fundamental right to dispose of his rights as he desires.
- The directive can be abused.
- Carefully balanced national procedural law systems are distorted.