[Hague-jur-commercial-law] Mark your calendar: IP& The HagueMarch 29-30 at USPTO

Miriam Nisbet mnisbet@alawash.org
Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:58:17 -0500


Adding just a bit to Chris' comment, Article 6 was one of the issues we
discussed at the brownbag meeting on Monday, March 8.  A suggestion was
made that if the language in Article 6 was intended to convey that the
convention not touch upon interim measures, which we understand to be
the case, then it would be better to state that expressly (such as,
"Interim relief is not enforceable under this Convention.").  One can
infer that, in that Article 3, paragraph 2 (definitions) states that a
"judgment" for purposes of the convention means a decision "on the
merits," but why not say so?

Miriam M. Nisbet
Legislative Counsel
American Library Association
1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW - #403
Washington, D.C. 20004-1701
Voice:  202-628-8410, x. 202, 
        or 800-941-8478, x. 202
Fax:     202-628-8419
e-mail:  mnisbet@alawash.org
http://www.ala.org/washoff

>>> "Chris Chiu" <CCHIU@aclu.org> 03/10/04 11:59AM >>>
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with Sarah's sentiments on
Article 6 (preliminary measures). I understand that at least some of the
drafters intended that the treaty not touch upon such measures at all,
and that Article 6 was intended to reflect that, but that provision's
vague language is still worrisome. Better to be safe than sorry...

Sincerely,
Christopher Chiu
Technology Policy Analyst
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street
New York NY 10004
USA
Phone: 212-549-2535 
E-mail: cchiu@aclu.org 


-----Original Message-----
From: Victoria Villamar [mailto:victoria.villamar@beuc.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:31 AM
To: 'sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com'; Michael Sondow
Cc: Hague list; hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@venice.essential.org 
Subject: RE: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Mark your calendar: IP& The
HagueMarch 29-30 at USPTO


Dear Sarah et al. 
Just a little clarification on Sarah's message. 
The IPR enforcement directive was not adopted yesterday in EU. There
was only the adoption of the opinion of the European Parliament. Since
this opinion and the Council's opinion is closed one to the other there
is no need to go for a 2nd reading in the Parliament. EU Ministers will
have a discussion on the directive tomorrow at the Competitiveness
council and the directive will be adopted by Ministers soon, before the
entry of the 10 new member states on 1st May 2004.
>From the consumer point of view the outcome of the EP opinion is bad as
the directive applies to all infringements of IPR, regardless its
commercial or non-commercial nature.
Best regards 
Victoria 


Victoria Villamar 
Legal Adviser 
BEUC- The European Consumers' Organisation 
Avenue de Tervuren 36/4 
B - 1040 Brussels 
Tel: (00 32) 2 743 15 95 
Fax: (00 32) 2 740 28 02 
Mailto:victoria.villamar@beuc.org 
Website:www.beuc.org 



-----Original Message----- 
From: sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com [mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com]

Sent: 09 March 2004 23:24 
To: Michael Sondow 
Cc: Hague list; hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@venice.essential.org 
Subject: Re: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Mark your calendar: IP& The 
HagueMarch 29-30 at USPTO 



The IPR enforcement directive just passed in Europe today and will now
be 
implemented over the next 2 years in 25 member states.  It allows
virtually 
unlimited injunctive relief to any IP holder (patent, trademark,
copyright, 
etc) against consumers and intermediaries without any prior notice. 
Article 5 I believe allows not only the IP owner, but their bounty
hunters, 
agents, collecting societies or other designees to seek this relief. 
We 
could be talking about orders to seize and search your property and 
equipment, block or filter Internet transmissions for ISPs or destroy 
property.   This is a very serious problem that makes the Article 6
issue 
in the Hague draft all the more important to remove. 
Sarah 


Sarah B. Deutsch 
Vice President & Associate General Counsel 
Verizon Communications 
Phone: 703-351-3044 
Fax:      703-351-3670 
sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com 




|---------+---------------------------------------------------> 
|         |           "Michael Sondow" <msondow@iciiu.org>    | 
|         |           Sent by:                                | 
|         |           hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@venice.es| 
|         |           sential.org                             | 
|         |                                                   | 
|         |                                                   | 
|         |           03/06/2004 05:47 PM                     | 
|         |                                                   | 
|---------+---------------------------------------------------> 
 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

  |                                                                    
                         | 
  |       To:       "Hague list"
<hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org>                 | 
  |       cc:                                                          
                         | 
  |       Subject:  Re: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Mark your calendar:
IP& The HagueMarch 29-30  | 
  |        at USPTO                                                    
                         | 
 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|





Manon Ress wrote: 
> Article 6 implies that interim relief may be sought from any 
> court anywhere. 
In the U.S., you usually don't get interim relief, which almost always

harms the defendent, without posting a bond with the court in case your

claims are not upheld at trial. Is article 6 at least going to
stipulate 
the procedures for granting interim relief, or are far-flung courts 
going to be allowed to apply it willy-nilly? In other words, what laws

of interim relief will be applied, those of the court where the 
plaintiff asks for relief, or some other? 
> US Copyright owners will get friendly courts to issue injunctive 
> relief. Maybe the UK courts? 
Do UK courts grant injunctive relief easily? They seem to grant 
restraining orders in libel claims readily enough. 
In any event, if governments are swinging behind the latest draft, as 
the Washington Internet Daily article says, then we can be sure there 
are many problems for us with the draft, as these governments are 
nothing more than a front for big business and as such couldn't care 
less about the harm that will be done to consumers and non-profits. 
M. Sondow 
============================================== 
"The law of nature, as a set of uncodified 
commands implicitly accepted by the mind and 
conscience of every reasonable person, is 
merely the concept of divine law under another 
name. Time and time again it has operated 
to overthrow entire systems of positive law." 
                        -Felix Morley 
============================================== 
Int'l Congress of Independent Internet Users 
              iciiu@iciiu.org 
============================================== 
_______________________________________________ 
Hague-jur-commercial-law mailing list 
Hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org 
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/hague-jur-commercial-law 





_______________________________________________ 
Hague-jur-commercial-law mailing list 
Hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org 
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/hague-jur-commercial-law 
_______________________________________________
Hague-jur-commercial-law mailing list
Hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org 
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/hague-jur-commercial-law