|
Size: 2160
Comment:
|
Size: 2182
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 5: | Line 5: |
| The aim of IPRED 2 is to stop piracy. But not all commercial violations of intellectual property" rights are piracy. If we want to stop piracy, the thing to do is to stop counterfeiting. Beyond counterfeiting, things are unclear and | The aim of IPRED 2 is to stop piracy. But not all commercial violations of "intellectual property" rights are piracy. If we want to stop piracy, the thing to do is to stop counterfeiting. Beyond counterfeiting, things are unclear and very complicated. |
| Line 7: | Line 7: |
| Take copyright. The question whether something is an independent recreation" or a violation of copyright" is a though question. Questions like these should be handled in civil courts, not in criminal courts. For reasons of human rights, criminal laws require precise definitions. And criminal law should be the ultimum remedium. | Take copyright. The question whether something is an "independent recreation" or a "violation of copyright" is a though question. Questions like these should be handled in civil courts, not in criminal courts. For reasons of human rights, criminal laws require precise definitions. And criminal law should be the ultimum remedium. |
| Line 9: | Line 9: |
| IPRED 2 covers 11 intellectual property" rights. Trade marked and copyrighted works may be counterfeited. The other 9 intellectual property" rights shouldn't be in IPRED 2. | IPRED 2 covers 11 "intellectual property" rights. Trade marked and copyrighted works may be counterfeited. The other 9 "intellectual property" rights shouldn't be in IPRED 2. |
IPRED 2:
Do we really want to see Bill Gates behind bars?
The aim of IPRED 2 is to stop piracy. But not all commercial violations of "intellectual property" rights are piracy. If we want to stop piracy, the thing to do is to stop counterfeiting. Beyond counterfeiting, things are unclear and very complicated.
Take copyright. The question whether something is an "independent recreation" or a "violation of copyright" is a though question. Questions like these should be handled in civil courts, not in criminal courts. For reasons of human rights, criminal laws require precise definitions. And criminal law should be the ultimum remedium.
IPRED 2 covers 11 "intellectual property" rights. Trade marked and copyrighted works may be counterfeited. The other 9 "intellectual property" rights shouldn't be in IPRED 2.
The aim of IPRED 2 is to stop piracy. But piracy is already forbidden in European countries. On a world-wide scale, the TRIPS treaty sees to that. The Commission made no assessment of the current situation. Are there any real problems today due to unintended legal limitations? How would the directive work out in various criminal law systems?
Prison sentences go up more than a 100 times in some cases. IPRED 2 is excessive and distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems.
Patent law definitions are unclear and drifting. In some sectors, like the software industry, it is impossible not to violate patents. Microsoft has been violating many patents, and had to pay huge damages. But do we really want to see Bill Gates in prison?
Big companies want to lock in customers, lock out competitors, acquire as many rights as possible and make these rights as strong as possible. The lawmaker has to strike a fair balance. IPRED 2 is not balanced.
For the sake of protection of carefully balanced national procedural law systems, subsidiarity and legal security, we ask you to say No to these superfluous and detrimental proposals.
The European Parliament rejected the software patents directive. We heartily thank you for that. The IPRED 2 directive and framework should go the same way.
Thank you.