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
4. Enhancing Cooperation with emerging economies through the Heiligendamm

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.
G8 on IP G8 on IP Reviewed by Unknown on Friday, July 11, 2008 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. 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.


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

Powered by Blogger.