tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2686441950688059831..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: From 1 October UK will have exceptions for private copying, broader quotation and parodyVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17212668140769592922014-08-04T15:56:08.012+01:002014-08-04T15:56:08.012+01:00Thank you Ron for the exhaustive treatment - I am ...Thank you Ron for the exhaustive treatment - I am bookmarking the page!<br /><br />What I would love to see (but outside the purr-view here, methinks) is an equivalent treatment of the USPTO and their recently enlarged power to set fees.<br /><br />That fee setting power came with a rather large string attached: the fees must balance in the aggregate. However, given as the fees were raised across the board, notwithstanding the additional reductions for universities and other new micro entities, I have never seen - and truly doubt it exists - ANY attempt at the "aggregate" picture.<br /><br />A power granted that runs so complicated - and so unchecked - is a power that will be abused. That is just human nature, and to expect otherwise is more than merely foolish - it is complicit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78151997880302072492014-08-04T02:26:13.889+01:002014-08-04T02:26:13.889+01:00Back numbers of the CIPA Journal and the Internet ...Back numbers of the CIPA Journal and the Internet produced the following:<br /><br />CIPA July 1993 pages 233 to 237 published correspondence about the PO's surplus between Michael Burnside and Paul Hartnack, the then-comptroller of the Patent Office. Paul was in no doubt as to what the surplus could be used for, explicitly not copyright, saying: <br /><br /><i>"...As the corporate plan makes clear, the "surplus" is, however, on deposit and is available for use if as it seems likely we have to make a major IT investment towards the end of the century in order to match investments made by the EPO and other major offices. Alternatively it could be used for other purposes unconnected with day-to-day running costs such as publicity and marketing.<br /><br />......... The only real pressure is copyright where I depend on the DTI <b>(since copyright is not fee-earning and under the statutes cannot be subvented from Patent Office revenue) </b>and even on copyright we are able to cope at least for the time being. ...."</i><br /><br />The Comptroller clearly believed that there were legal constraints on the use of the PO's income from official fees (which constitutes virtually all of its income) and includes EP renewal fees.<br /><br />The Comptroller's belief is prima facie consistent with information buried in the 102-page "Guide to the establishment and operation of trading funds ", Financial Reporting Team, HM Treasury, May 2004 (Updated August 2006)<br /><br /><i>12.5.2 For legal reasons, the price of a statutory service should never be set deliberately to generate a surplus above the agreed return on capital employed (3.5 per cent in the SR2002 and SR2004 periods), unless the statute specifically provides for this. <b>A planned surplus would be interpreted as illegal taxation.</b> [emphasis added]<br /><br />12.5.3 As is made clear in the Fees and Charges Guide, the treatment of surplus receipts and deficits of a trading fund needs to be considered in the light of a trading fund’s financial objectives. Where, inadvertently, a trading fund earns surplus receipts, they may be used to mitigate or eliminate increases in charges, reduce charges, cover any planned loss in the following year or be used to finance capital expenditure, subject to the agreement of the sponsoring department and resource budgeting requirements. ....</i><br /><br />From the 2005 Comptroller's report to parliament <br /><br /><i>Objectives and strategy<br />The DTI Innovation Report released in 2003 gave us the job of helping business to understand how to create and use intellectual property effectively. The same report also charged the Patent Office with improving the regime for enforcing IP rights and counteracting counterfeiting and piracy. In parallel with the Innovation Report, the Lambert Review highlighted the need to provide an effective framework to facilitate technology transfer from publicly funded research, including university research to the market place.<br /><br />Statutory Background<br />The operating surplus on ordinary activities was £8 million. ......A special dividend of £40 million was also paid in year from reserves to the DTI to support innovation. This was the final tranche of a <b>£100 million special dividend </b>over three years.</i><br /><br />The principles set out in 12.5.2 of the treasury guide that surpluses should not <b>intentionally</b> be generated from activities paid for by statutory fees were evidently overlooked, or perhaps the wording of the trading orders had been stretched by considering that promoting innovation in general fell under paragraph 4 "operations incidental, conducive or ancillary to the operations described above". <br /><br />Whatever the reason, creaming off those hundred millions had such a disastrous impact on the Patent Office's 5 year budget that 15 examiners were "offered" voluntary early retirement in 2003 to make the books balance over the 5 year cycle. They have been struggling to catch up ever since. <br />Ronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67176519862387616522014-08-03T11:38:06.350+01:002014-08-03T11:38:06.350+01:00Hi George, I can still see the push-ups! Check it ...Hi George, I can still see the push-ups! Check it out again ;-)Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88681638180683058112014-08-03T00:51:08.953+01:002014-08-03T00:51:08.953+01:00the movie "Strong and (clearly) respected&quo...the movie "Strong and (clearly) respected" has been shortened -- where have the push-ups gone? The GIF is now only about 2MB, but it was 3MB.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />George Brock-NannestadAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60958155485792268302014-08-01T00:22:28.324+01:002014-08-01T00:22:28.324+01:00At the risk of bringing these comments back on top...At the risk of bringing these comments back on topic, I would like to draw attention to <a href="http://www.francisdavey.co.uk/2014/07/private-copying-new-copyright-exception.html" rel="nofollow">Francis Davey's thoughtful piece</a> on how the private copying exception might work in practice. Andy Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62478181006360089172014-07-31T10:57:52.224+01:002014-07-31T10:57:52.224+01:00>> I thought that the original intention of ...>> I thought that the original intention of the establishment of the trading fund was that the office should only cover its operating costs and not be used as a profit centre to fund BIS projects not directly related with the activities of the patent office.<br /><br />I'm not sure that's right. The IPO target is to make a profit - although it is currently exceeding that target so it could be said that it is making "too much" money and should reduce fees...<br /><br />I think the point of a trading fund is more about a degree of independence in terms of its financial management - it does not have to ask the treasury to approve spending all the time as long as it has the money to spend. s1. of the Act talks about "improved efficiency and effectiveness of the management...". Whether or not you believe that it really is more efficient, it doesn't seem to be <i>primarily</i> about ringfencing profits.Freddie Noblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17694201114706054704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27978805083854766142014-07-31T10:57:48.322+01:002014-07-31T10:57:48.322+01:00Thahks Freddie and Ron for your thoughtful comment...Thahks Freddie and Ron for your thoughtful comments!Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2154512108332849672014-07-31T10:28:15.265+01:002014-07-31T10:28:15.265+01:00It may be significant that the minutes of the IPO&...It may be significant that the minutes of the IPO's steering board show that the vires of certain items of the IPO's proposed expenditure have been raised over a period of several years by various board members . Someone is actioned to investigate, but the outcome of any such investigations has not (yet) appeared in the minutes. As has been announced in the IPO's corporate plan and elsewhere, the BIS is proposing to syphon of some £25,000,000 to fund projects not directly connected with "operations of the office" , justification apparently being that, as the BIS is effectively the sole shareholder of the IPO's business, it can withdraw it as a special "dividend", since the IPO has managed to accumulate a substantial profit as a consequence of operating to ministerial targets. I thought that the original intention of the establishment of the trading fund was that the office should only cover its operating costs and not be used as a profit centre to fund BIS projects not directly related with the activities of the patent office. <br /><br />You can find the steering board minutes on the IPO's web site if you delve deeply enough. Ronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4117605060826066572014-07-31T10:00:36.488+01:002014-07-31T10:00:36.488+01:00I don't know the answer as to the legality of ...I don't know the answer as to the legality of UK IPO funding the Police IP Crime Unit, but from what I understand of the IPO accounts (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about-anrep1213.pdf) the trading fund pays the Treasury a dividend of around £3m per year, so holders of registered rights in principle might be said to be subsidising all kinds of Government activities which have nothing to do with IP at all.<br /><br />Lots of money comes from renewal fees on EP(GB) patents - it makes the difference between a rather disastrous loss and a healthy profit in the patents department. In 2012-13 trade marks made a loss of £2.3m, but that was more than covered by the profit on the patents side.Freddie Noblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17694201114706054704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30252589518943140992014-07-31T07:52:33.233+01:002014-07-31T07:52:33.233+01:00Hi Ron, yours is a very interesting point. Would y...Hi Ron, yours is a very interesting point. Would you be interested in letting us know more? If so, do please drop me an email. Thanks!Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89540500330095112132014-07-30T21:21:08.289+01:002014-07-30T21:21:08.289+01:00I do wonder whether the IPO's (a.k.a. Patent ...I do wonder whether the IPO's (a.k.a. Patent Office's) funding of non-IPO activities such as the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit is ultra vires the terms of the IPO's trading fund order (SI 1991 No. 1796).<br /><br />It may be recalled that all the IPO's income comes form the fees paid by its users, and the operations to be funded by the trading fund are set out in the SI, which says :<br /><br /><i>"The operations to be funded by the fund are all the operations of the Patent Office relating to <br /><br />(a) copyright,<br />(b) design right,<br />(c) patents,<br />(d) patent and trade mark agents,<br />(e) registered designs,<br />(f) rights in performances,<br />(g) trade marks and service marks,<br /><br />including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing<br /><br />1. operations concerning the promotion and administration of legislation relating to the foregoing,<br /><br />2. operations arising out of ( European Community Activities etc.) in relation to or in connection with the foregoing,<br /><br />3. the provision and dissemination of information and the procurement of publicity and advertising relating to the foregoing,<br /><br />4. operations incidental, conducive or ancillary to the operations described above. "</i><br /><br />My understanding is that the Patent Office's only significant <b>statutory </b>involvement in copyright is in connection with the "promotion and administration of legislation" and the activities of the PAT, in connection with establishing royalty rates (Schedule 1 item 1), and "information, advertising and publicity" (item 3 of schedule 1). <br /><br />Copyright enforcement is surely a matter for the owner of the copyright. Enforcement is not something that the Patent Office gets involved in, and so is hardly an "operation of the Patent Office". Funding the London Police Force 's IP crime prevention unit is I am sure a very laudable thing and arguably in the public interest, but it is difficult to see how it falls under any of the "operations o the Patent Office" set out in the schedule. It is clearly an activity of the Police force, and not and "Operation of the Patent Office". It is not as if the owners of copyright are contributing anything to the IPO's income, since no fees are payable to get copyright. The owners of paid-for IPR are subsidising the enforcement of copyright-owners rights.<br />Ronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-21227775728450159572014-07-30T19:00:23.424+01:002014-07-30T19:00:23.424+01:00The debate is also available on the excellent They...The debate is also available on the excellent TheyWorkForYou site, which also allows notes and annotations to be added.<br /><br />http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2014-07-29a.1553.2<br /><br />It's rather depressing to read lord after lord -- including frontbench Labour and Lib-Dems, and ex-minister Estelle Morris -- standing up to berate the government for not allowing the industry a "golden opportunity" to gouge consumers again for the privilege of using "cloud lockers" to hold and access the content they have already bought.<br /><br />Who knew that these party spokesmen were such bought-and-paid-for shills? Or that this government, of all people, were such defenders of the individual?<br /><br />Thank goodness for a lone voice of sense from the Earl of Erroll.<br /><br />Truly, a shocker of a debate.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84529161486321902632014-07-30T14:52:45.430+01:002014-07-30T14:52:45.430+01:00Thanks Andy J, I just assumed people would have li...Thanks Andy J, I just assumed people would have liked to read everything that was discussed yesterday :-) <br /><br />I have now replaced the link with the one you provided, thanks!Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37407114312677997962014-07-30T14:34:07.264+01:002014-07-30T14:34:07.264+01:00Thanks Eleonora,
As I'm sure you are aware, th...Thanks Eleonora,<br />As I'm sure you are aware, there's a much simpler and more targeted method of linking to specific Parliamentary business, than referring to the pdf for the whole of the day's business. <br />For instance, <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/140729-0001.htm#14072947000224" rel="nofollow">here is a link</a> to the relevant part of yesterday's debate in the Lords on the new copyright exceptions. Andy Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4015309772020535582014-07-30T12:47:13.971+01:002014-07-30T12:47:13.971+01:00Well done HMG. A very fair and balanced implementa...Well done HMG. A very fair and balanced implementation, as well as some nice beacons for the courts to follow, by way of the quoted examples which fall inside and outside the exceptions, and a legislative update that was well overdue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com