data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12d3e/12d3ec8a47c1cedfa4a74c4495a0150924517b3f" alt=""
Everything you wanted to know about the Hague Agreement here
Albania, according to Wikipedia, the Albanian Foreign Ministry and the CIA
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b9919/b9919e40467d0dbe07879fa4f0d8f7b88df77d6c" alt=""
On 15 January 2007 Koninklijke Philips Electronics filed a complaint. Its grievance was that it had invented some of the core technologies for recordable compact discs, for which it held some patents. Taiwan etc (a.k.a. "Chinese Taipei") has granted compulsory licences in respect of those patents, illegally in Philips' opinion. The licensee is a local manufacturer, Gigastorage Corporation. Article 76 of the Patent Act of Chinese Taipei provides for the granting of compulsory licences in certain specified circumstances. According to Philips, Article 76 is inconsistent with Article 28(1)(a) of the TRIPs Agreement because the patent owner's exclusive rights have not been respected. Article 31 of TRIPs permits the granting of compulsory patent licences, but only under certain conditions that have not been fulfilled in this instance. The Commission agrees that a prima facie case has been made out and a full investigation will now take place.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cbd24/cbd24808a4fa5a11ba1a4b514baeac491e515515" alt="".jpg)
Right: Philips' history stretches back to the days of non-compact, non-recordable discs - which still seemed pretty cool at the time
How recordable CDs work here
Chinese Taipei here
Taiwan here
Formosa here
Tidings from Tirana; Chinese Taipei comes under EU CD-R scrutiny
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Rating:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/16078/16078363ec56e75a46009ccd1b45f0e069ed5813" alt="Tidings from Tirana; Chinese Taipei comes under EU CD-R scrutiny"
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html