Open Up Copyright 1. "“Fair copyright for all across Europe” rallying call from libraries, archives and charities" is the strident call from the Chartered Institute of Library & Information Professionals (CILIP), according to a media release that was embargoed till 00:01 am this morning. It reads, in relevant part:
"In a bid for fair copyright laws that will benefit citizens and researchers across Europe organisations including the Wellcome Trust, the National Library of Scotland, the National Library of Wales, the Chartered Institute of Library & Information Professionals, Royal Museums Greenwich and the Open Rights Group have called for much needed reforms.Organisations are invited to show their support for fair copyright across Europe by signing in support of the London Manifesto at www.cilip.org.uk/londonmanifesto. Apart from using the link above, the text of the London Manifesto can also be accessed on the copyright-specialist 1709 Blog here, so that anyone wanting to discuss it is encouraged to do so there.
The London Manifesto calls for fair copyright for libraries and archives across Europe. The manifesto outlines needed reforms that will better support research, innovation and growth and will help create a digital single market. It focuses on the important role of libraries and archives.
The reforms would bolster the rights of disabled people by supporting equal access to knowledge. They would mean that libraries can acquire and lend commercially available digital materials and, with archives, can continue to underpin knowledgeable societies in the digital age. The reforms would allow libraries and archives to better support research through modern text and data mining techniques. They would also create a more manageable system of harmonised copyright laws across EU member states.
Non standardised copyright laws across Europe are failing to support the vision of a digital single market because they currently prevent fair access and use of digital content. This means that researchers and citizens in one country can be subject to a completely different copyright regime than in another country. For example this creates significant problems for researchers who are working collaboratively across Europe ..."
Open Up Copyright 2. Merpel has always admired the European Copyright Society (ECS). If you don't already know about it, you should. According to this infojustice.org link:
"The European Copyright Society (ECS) was founded in January 2012 with the aim of creating a platform for critical and independent scholarly thinking on European Copyright Law. Its members are renowned scholars and academics from various countries of Europe, seeking to promote their views of the overall public interest regarding the construction of European Copyright law".
Anyway, to speed up the process of bolstering the ECS's membership, Merpel has agreed to promote the cause. Right now, there isn't a formal application procedure for membership, so aspiring members are invited to email Merpel at email@example.com with the subject line "ECS membership" and she will forward their names to her friends at ECS on their behalf.
|This is what the UN Assembly chamber|
looks like when the football's on TV ...
|The PGI logo could be used|
with different text, inserting
the CSA's likeness
media statement issued from Google Inc's Googleplex headquarters in Mountain View, California, spokesperson Olaf Pirsol is quoted as saying:
“We are the world’s search engine and we organize the world’s data. We want to give something back to the online community, so we decided to acknowledge officially that ‘googling’ for information is now a legitimate usage of our company's name. From now on, our users can feel free to ‘google’ any search term, and they're even welcome to do so on another search engine. It’s all fine with us, and we're abandoning our trade mark registrations to show good faith in this regard.”Pirsol clarified that the company will be maintaining its registrations for the coloured Google logo and for the names of other services such as “Google Earth”, and is committed to enforcing these registrations with “unbending determination”.
When public policies collide. Katfriend and patent term extension enthusiast Mike Snodin (Parkgrove IP) has written to tell him that his article on the Warner-Lambert and Novartis cases relating to “skinny label” generic products [on which see also Darren's excellent analyses on this weblog here, here, here and here] has finally been published. It's called “When public policies collide: the battle to enforce second medical use patents for drugs in Europe” and it was published in Scrip Regulatory Affairs on 24 March but you can read it in its entirety, thanks to Mike's kindness, here. Explains Mike:
"With the High Court for England and Wales finding no infringement (either direct or indirect) and the Gerechtshof den Haag finding indirect infringement, it is clear that the core issues are not yet settled for skinny label products. Also, the appeal in the Warner-Lambert case that will be heard in late April will no doubt turn up some interesting new arguments – which could lead to the Court of Appeal for England and Wales disagreeing with Mr Justice Arnold on one or more points.
Nevertheless, it may well be some time before the courts across the EU reach a settled view on the scope of protection provided by second medical use claims (particularly those in Swiss format). In the interim, innovators will therefore need to develop strategies for dealing with difficulties that may arise when they seek to enforce their second medical use patents. In this respect, my article outlines a number of practical lessons that I believe can already be learned from the decisions in the Warner-Lambert and Novartis cases, which lessons can be used by innovators to (hopefully) help improve the chances of their second medical use patents being enforced against skinny label generic products".
Nagoya shame. Having mentioned Darren in the previous item, this Kat just wants to express his personal disappointment that the patent community in the European Union has not become more engaged in the Nagoya Protocol. Darren's very helpful and informative post on Monday, here, on the European Union's draft provisions on compliance with the Nagoya Protocol attracted surprisingly little attention, given its potential impact on investment and innovation, not to mention patent practice in Europe. Come on folk, give it the benefit of your brain-power and your constructive criticisms!