Today is World Intellectual Parasites Day, the day where patent trolls rejoice over sucking more blood out of software companies. Patent parasites rejoice over the creation of the european Unitary Patent Court (UPC), which will create an undemocratic monster fully captured by the parasite industry. Patent parasites are also pushing for a rewrite of the laws in the United States, in order to restore software patents, and continue to suck more blood out the software industry. Video: Unified Patent Court effets on SMEs in Europe
Planisware CEO Pierre Demonsant explains attacks from patent trolls (seek to 02:05). Links
World Intellectual Property Day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Day Tick parasite, credit: Wikipedia https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tick_male_(aka).jpg FFII: Software Patents through a central patent court:http://epla.ffii.org/quotes Youtube: Unified Patent Court effects on SMEs in Europehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR2l3UC67Rc&t=127 EFF: The Tillis-Coons patent bill will be a disaster for innovation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/tillis-coons-patent-bill-will-be-disaster-innovation
Dear Prime Minister of Estonia,
Dear Members of Parliament of Estonia,
I am calling on Estonian politicians to “take back control” over its nationalposition over the adoption of controversal Copyright Directive (“internetupload filters”) that is scheduled to be “formally” adopted on Mondayby the Romanian Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Estonia has made the following statement  yesterday regarding the adoption of the directive:
“Estonia has always supported the objective of the Directive, namely better access to content online, the functioning of key exceptions in the digital and cross-border environment and the better and balanced functioning of thecopyright marketplace.However, Estonia considers that the final text of the Directive does notstrike a sufficient balance between different interests in all aspects.Furthermore, Estonia has recently had parliamentary elections and our new government and parliament have not been able to give their position on the final compromise text.” I have personally contacted the permanent representation of Estonia (COREPER) in Brussels, which has confirmed that, despite the newly formed government and parliament, it is not the intention of the Estonian delegation in Council to ask for a removal of the dossier from the A-items list on Monday. I am therefore calling on your Government and your newly elected Parliament  to ask for a formal delay, and to assess properly the negative economic consequences of this ill-conceived directive, notably for the burgeoning internet economy. Best regards,
PRESS RELEASE — [ Europe / Democracy / Censorship / Economy / Copyright ]
Brussels, 01 April 2019 – Github has installed upload filters over the week-end to comply with the new european copyright directive on ‘upload filters’. Microsoft lawyers have been busy interpreting the new exception for “open source code sharing platforms” that the directive provides. They came to the conclusion that Github was not covered by the exception, since it also hosts many code repositories without a proper open source LICENSE file. Jürgen Voss, open source developer for Bosch, says: “This Sunday I tried to push some changes via Github, some commits were refused because Github installed some copyright filters. The pre-git-commit-hook message was complaining about “citation too long”, as I was quoting an article from IAMBIASED IP magazine.
Brussels, 29 March 2019 – FFII is calling on angry protesters against internet upload filters to reverse the position of their country by calling for a vote in their national parliament. Council of the Ministers is an undemocratic institution where decisions on this particular subject are made by officials of the Member States’s ministries of culture. FFII call on national parliaments to ‘take back control’. The adoption of internet upload filters is a strategic mistake that will fuel the eurosceptics game at the coming elections. Boris Johnson’s reaction to european parliament vote yesterday left no doubt about it.
The case that article 13 EU copyright reform proposal will not lead to internet upload filters, has crumbled, now that the German government acknowledges that article 13 would lead to such filters. Proponents of article 13 have claimed that alternatives to upload filters exist which will ensure that copyright protected works are not available on internet platforms. However, in discussions proponents have only mentioned manual filtering as an alternative. This didn’t convince, due to the massive amounts of uploads to filter. In an article major German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reports, under the title Bundesregierung rechnet mit ‘Uploadfiltern’ that the German government admits upload filters are likely to be needed. The newspaper mentions that Christian Lange, Parliamentary State Secretary to the German Federal Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection, wrote in answer to a parliamentary question:
“In the [German] federal government’s view it appears likely that algorithmic measures will have to be taken in connection with large volumes of data for practical reasons alone.” (Translation Florian Mueller, see his blog.)
The German government acknowledges what everyone sees as unavoidable in case of large volumes of uploads.
One member of the European Parliament Green group, Helga Trüpel, responded to the blog “Nine Green MEPs voted in favour of upload filters”. She argues that her vote in favour of article 13 copyright reform proposal is not a vote for upload filters. I am grateful for her reaction, which clarifies some issues. I will highlight some of her arguments. The discussion below reveals that Trüpel misrepresents article 13 as notice and take down, often disregards that rights holders do not have to grant a licence, and sees filtering by humans as an alternative to automatic filtering.
The European Parliament has voted in favour of article 13 of the copyright reform proposal. The text of article 13, as adopted by the Parliament, makes internet platforms liable for users’ uploads, but does not mention upload filters. However, as explained by many, including academics, if platforms are liable, they will have to filter to avoid liability. General mandatory upload filters are not allowed in the EU; they interfere too much with our freedom of expression. With its vote, the Parliament voted in favour of upload filters without mentioning them.
About a year ago I requested documents regarding the negotiations on the EU – South Korea trade agreement, provisionally applied since July 2011 and formally ratified in December 2015. I was especially interested in documents regarding the negotiations on intellectual property rights, specifically the documents regarding criminal enforcement. On 24 November 2017 the European Commission provided a link to the partially declassified “Recommendation from the Commission to the Council”. The commission did not declassify the interesting part, the directives for the negotiations. I recently received a list of 15 documents (Annex 1); eight documents are withheld; I received seven partially disclosed documents (zip).
European politicians want more algorithmic transparency. However, they also want to sign the EU-Japan trade agreement, which restricts audits of software and algorithms. 1
For regulatory supervision we need access to source code. The Volkswagen emissions scandal has shown that devices can be programmed to mislead researchers. 2 In addition, audits can reveal whether decision making software contains biases. And Facebook’s role in elections and referendums shows that the use of personal data is not only a civil rights issue, but may compromise the integrity of our institutions.
The Netherlands has published a new model bilateral investment treaty (BIT). It gives multinationals far reaching rights to challenge government decisions and it places its enforcement mechanism (investor-to-state dispute settlement or ISDS) under U.S. and Dutch influence. Enforcement mechanism
The most remarkable change is that all members of ISDS tribunals would be appointed by an appointing authority, the secretary-general of ICSID or the secretary-general of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (article 20). Both are not judges. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is part of the World Bank.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.