For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Friday, 11 July 2008

G8 on IP

On thing that the G8 leaders, meeting in Japan, seem to have agreed on is that intellectual property is a jolly good thing. So good in fact that they want it better protected.

Speculation is rife, including in the Guardian, that they want to ratify an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta), which will empower border control agencies to search for intellectual property infringement. It is claimed that this may give customers officers the power to search individual users' laptops and MP3 players for illegal downloads.

A quick look at the Report of the G8 Intellectual Property Experts’ Group Meeting reveals other issues on the agenda. The group reaffirms its commitment to the merits of a 'well functioning and efficient' IP system. and outlines the following measures:

1. Advancing our anti-counterfeiting and piracy initiatives
2. Facilitating an efficient and fully functioning IP system conducive to economic
development (including patent law harmonisation)
3. Promoting the benefits of IPR as a development tool of economy and
innovation
4. Enhancing Cooperation with emerging economies through the Heiligendamm
Process

The IPKat is rather suspicious of anything which is so wholeheartedly in favour of IP, without mentioning the need to balance between the rights of owners, competitors and users, though he suspects anything so detailed would be beyond the ambit of a general summit of world leaders. As for individuals being stopped at customs, the IPKat reckons this would be too costly and time consuming to do on a large scale.

1 comment:

MaxDrei said...

In the USA, harmonisation is a dirty word (unless it means that, in the interests of efficiency, everybody else adopts the US system). Take the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art 69 EPC as something useful, that really does balance the legitimate expectations of IPR owners with those staring down the gun barrel from the distal end. But even the Art 69 Protocol just let everybody carry on as they had done before.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':