|
Size: 6338
Comment:
|
Size: 2894
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| = IPRED 2 = | = IPRED 2: = == Do we really want to see Bill Gates behind bars? == |
| Line 3: | Line 4: |
| Proposal for a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights |
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 6: |
| Proposal for a COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION to strengthen the criminal law framework to combat intellectual property offences |
In copyright, parodies, independent recreations and citations are free. 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 criminal courts. For reasons of human rights, criminal laws require more precise definitions. And criminal law should be the ultimum remedium. |
| Line 11: | Line 8: |
| == IPRED 2 == | IPRED 2 covers 11 "intellectual property" rights. We see counterfeiting with copyright and trade marks. What are the other 9 "intellectual property" rights doing in IPRED 2? |
| Line 13: | Line 10: |
| Violates the legitimacy principle. Violates the subsidiarity principle. IPRED 2 is excessive. | 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 problem has already been solved. IPRED 2 goes further than solving the problem, and becomes a problem itself. |
| Line 15: | Line 12: |
| == Legitimacy == | 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? |
| Line 17: | Line 14: |
| We can say: "Fact X is a crime". This rule has to be written down in a law in advance. Before the act. Criminal laws are strict. They have to be, it is a protection against arbitrary power. People are entitled to know what is a crime in advance. | In a case like trade names, prison sentences go up more than a 100 times. IPRED 2 is excessive and distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems. |
| Line 19: | Line 16: |
| Civil law is less strict. In a copyright case a Dutch court decided a smell can be “a work” in the sense of the copyright law. The scope of the copyright law became broader. In criminal law this would be a violation of the legitimacy principle. People could not know it is a crime to violate a smell. | In trade marks, currently typically only counterfeiting is a crime. Trademark infringement in general is very complicated and subtle. Not suited for criminal sanctions. |
| Line 21: | Line 18: |
| We have a complication. If you add or increase sanctions to a law that is enforced in a civil way, definitions have to be interpreted in a more strict way. The scope of the law will become more narrow. In copyright law there are issues with the definitions of “work”, “independent” recreation, “parody”. | Patent law has many issues. Definitions are unclear and drifting. There is a major quality problem. 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? Do we really want to see our neighbor, that hardworking owner of a Small or Medium Sized Enterprise put away for 4 years? IPRED 2 sets the framework. It is the lowest form of lawmaking. |
| Line 23: | Line 20: |
| Trade marks. Trade marks have to be defended rigorously, otherwise they are lost. Trade Marks are unstable. Fact X can turn out not to be a crime! We will have a crazy situation at hand. Fact X can turn out to be a crime, or fact X can turn out not to be a crime! And you will find out in court. This should never be allowed! We are not living in the dark middle ages, this is the 21st century. People are entitled to know what is a crime in advance. Otherwise legitimacy is lost, there is no protection against arbitrary power. | 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. |
| Line 25: | Line 22: |
| Patents cause lots of problems already. The “As such” exclusions are unclear and drifting. We have a major quality problem at hand. It is impossible to know all patents. | For the sake of responsible lawmaking, protection of carefully balanced national procedural law systems, subsidiarity and legal security, we ask you to say No to these superfluous and detrimental proposals. |
| Line 27: | Line 24: |
| Especially in the software field, problems are huge. There are countless software developers around the world, who often keep their source code secret. There is no proir art database, it is not known what has already been done. It is not known what is new, and if you do not know what is new, it is impossible to know what is inventive. More than 30.000 software patents have been granted, it is impossible to know them all. It is impossible to write software without violating patents. “Independent (re)discovery” occurs daily. A whole industry is criminalized. With IPRED 2, just doing your job may get you 4 years in prison. | On July 6th the European Parliament rejected the software patents directive. We heartily thank you for that. The IPRED 2 directive is even more absurd. It should be rejected in first reading. We wish the Parliament the wisdom it had on July 6th 2005. |
| Line 29: | Line 26: |
| Patents can be invalidated in court. In civil court cases, there is almost always a counterclaim for invalidity. It may take weeks to establish whether the patent should have been granted or not. Counterclaims are often granted. This happens often. Patents are fundamentally unstable. Again fact X can be a crime or not a crime. There is no legitimacy at all. No protection against arbitrary power. | Thank you. |
| Line 31: | Line 28: |
| Patents are totally unfit for criminal sanctions. | |
| Line 33: | Line 29: |
| == Excessive == Let´s take al look at trade names. In the Netherlands, on first offence the Civil servant can propose measures to take to stop the offence. Then there will be no punishment. Violating a trade name is a minor offence in the Netherlands, the fine is 2250 euro. On second offence the fine is the same or two weeks of prison. With IPRED 2 violating trade names is a criminal offence, the sanctions for a first offence are 100.000 or 300.000 euro, depending on the circumstances, or 4 years of prison. The prison sentence is more than 100 times as severe for a first offense as it is now in the Netherlands for a second offence. In the Netherlands, there have not been cases for the last 50 years. Clearly, there is a total lack of necessity. And the sanctions are disproportionate to the offense, which is a violation of article 49(3) Charter of Fundamental Rights. == IP-rights == We took a look at 4 "intellectual property" rights. There are many and they are very different from each other: copyright, rights related to copyright, sui generis right of a database maker, rights of the creator of the topographies of a semiconductor product, trademark rights, design rights patent rights, including rights derived from supplementary protection certificates, geographical indications, utility model rights, plant variety rights, trade names, in so far as these are protected as exclusive property rights in the national law concerned. The four we looked at, have many issues, how many issues will the others have? We do not know, the Commission did not investigate the issues at all. == Solve the legitimacy problem == Let´s try to solve the legitimacy problem. Here are the things that at least need to be done: - Exclude unstable rights - Clear up grey area's - Rewrite all IP-laws - Scope of protection has to be drastically narrowed == Privatize the police == Right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions (framework art 4, see also the explanatory memorandum on this article). What will be the impact on neutrality of police investigation? Privatization of the police, how far should it go? What are the saveguards against abuse? For instance patents are used strategically. Will the police become part of power play by multinationals? These are really fundamental questions. The Commission provides no answers at all. How could it, the whole justification is one A4 page long, 463 words. == Subsidiarity == IPRED 2 is not needed: piracy is already forbidden in European countries. TRIPS already obliges members to provide criminal procedures (in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy). These obligations are seen as severe. And we already have the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive 2004. Not enough? We can not know, it is being implemented now. There is no need for IPRED 2. == Conclusion == With IPRED 2 Legitimacy is lost. IPRED 2 is excessive and distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems. The Commission is blind for all the issues. The justification is just one A4 page long, 463 words. IPRED 2 is a grave violation of the subsidiarity principle. |
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.
In copyright, parodies, independent recreations and citations are free. 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 criminal courts. For reasons of human rights, criminal laws require more precise definitions. And criminal law should be the ultimum remedium.
IPRED 2 covers 11 "intellectual property" rights. We see counterfeiting with copyright and trade marks. What are the other 9 "intellectual property" rights doing 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 problem has already been solved. IPRED 2 goes further than solving the problem, and becomes a problem itself.
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?
In a case like trade names, prison sentences go up more than a 100 times. IPRED 2 is excessive and distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems.
In trade marks, currently typically only counterfeiting is a crime. Trademark infringement in general is very complicated and subtle. Not suited for criminal sanctions.
Patent law has many issues. Definitions are unclear and drifting. There is a major quality problem. 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? Do we really want to see our neighbor, that hardworking owner of a Small or Medium Sized Enterprise put away for 4 years? IPRED 2 sets the framework. It is the lowest form of lawmaking.
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 responsible lawmaking, protection of carefully balanced national procedural law systems, subsidiarity and legal security, we ask you to say No to these superfluous and detrimental proposals.
On July 6th the European Parliament rejected the software patents directive. We heartily thank you for that. The IPRED 2 directive is even more absurd. It should be rejected in first reading. We wish the Parliament the wisdom it had on July 6th 2005.
Thank you.