Judge considers (in Spain) that files available for dowloads involving works protected by copyright are permitted 2

And so the judge concluded that P2P networks are only transmitting data between users of the Internet itself then does not infringe the intellectual property laws. They would be “inventory” of files that are not protected, or they had their rights prescribed, and others are copyrighted but not members of the SGAE. The arguments, as noted, are quite distinct from the long sentence that granted an injunction in precisely the opposite sense in a region of Paraná. (More details at: http://www.conjur.com.br/2010-mar-17/juiz-espanhol-compartilhar-arquivo-trocar-fitas-cassetes2
By Fabiana Schiavon)
Judge Raúl García-Orejudo, Barcelona, believes that peer-to-per (P2P) are comparable to, years ago, the exchange tapes, as was the case until the 90th, and then configure simple exchange of files between individuals without the objective direct or indirect of profit. It was filed by the Sociedad General de auto y Editores (SGAE) v Jeush Calderon, the author of the site “El Rincón de Jesus”, which offers movies, music and posters for download. The defense by Calderón argued that the site is not intended to profit, and only provide access to links like eMule, the software that makes it possible for download through the P2P network type.
Comment:
The debate is intensified with the approach of adopting the new law on information technology with the creation and implementation of the National Culture Program and – in view of all this, the reform of the Copyright Law. In fact the arguments of the Spanish judge would not be contrary just because he says there is no harm to protected works. He does not seem to go against the Law. The problem is how he interprets the facts and so then it applies the law. Para ele não há sequer obras protegidas sendo violadas, ora porque não há mais direitos sobre elas (caíram no domínio público) ora porque as obras protegidas não são de titularidade de quem o autor da ação representa.  The rguments that could effectively oppose the brasilian decision (of Paraná) refers to the technical analysis on the “linkage”… if to link in a site that allows dowload creates a liability or not …
Angela Kretschmann

About the book: Intellectual Property – tensions between capital and society

Book for understanding the contradictions that are being faced by the Industrial Property in its foundations. As stated by Fábio Villares, introducing the work. He said the system of industrial property acquired great importance in recent decades, and great discussions also arise in divergence and contradictions. The conclusion is that the current discussion on IP is to “go beyond technical aspects to the extent that appear to influence the rate and accumulation process, the very creation and dissemination of culture in its broadest sense! (p. 10). The research presented in about a year, the team of IISS (Institute for International Economic Studies), and was transformed into a workshop and book, and involved the discussion of the ramifications of IP with the accumulation of capital and the cultural diffusion. Draws attention to the fact that currently there seems to be “perplexed distress widespread in society, due to the triviality in the granting of patents and copyrights, and particularly the tightening of restrictions proposed by the SPI (system property) in fields up so little accustomed to these types of control, and a copy of sections of publications, and play music and videos, the use of excerpts of works and studies in your own work, and so on “(p. 11)
Details of this debate can be seen in the lectures of Alexander Farmer, Carlos Correa, Daniela Battle Trettel, Gilberto Dupas, Imre Simon, Konstantinos Karachalios, José Manuel Quijano, Marilena Lazzarini, Maristela Basso, Said Miguel Vieira, Roberto Jaguaribe, among others. The main discussion, however poses the question of the protection system being discredited and accused of hindering innovation in various fields and to obstruct the creation and diffusion of knowledge, and so far, would serve to justify the existence of the protection … It is a critical look at the Intellectual Property that are worth seeing, if you want to keep their pillars, seeking the necessary balance to the fundamentals remain effectively making any sense! The book, released in 2007, is supported by the Ford Foundation, and is edited by Paz e Terra.

Judge considers (in Spain) that files available for dowloads involving works protected by copyright are permitted

And so the judge concluded that P2P networks are only transmitting data between users of the Internet itself then does not infringe the intellectual property laws. They would be “inventory” of files that are not protected, or they had their rights prescribed, and others are copyrighted but not members of the SGAE. The arguments, as noted, are quite distinct from the long sentence that granted an injunction in precisely the opposite sense in a region of Paraná. (More details at: http://www.conjur.com.br/2010-mar-17/juiz-espanhol-compartilhar-arquivo-trocar-fitas-cassetes2
By Fabiana Schiavon)
Judge Raúl García-Orejudo, Barcelona, believes that peer-to-per (P2P) are comparable to, years ago, the exchange tapes, as was the case until the 90th, and then configure simple exchange of files between individuals without the objective direct or indirect of profit. It was filed by the Sociedad General de auto y Editores (SGAE) v Jeush Calderon, the author of the site “El Rincón de Jesus”, which offers movies, music and posters for download. The defense by Calderón argued that the site is not intended to profit, and only provide access to links like eMule, the software that makes it possible for download through the P2P network type.
Comment:
The debate is intensified with the approach of adopting the new law on information technology with the creation and implementation of the National Culture Program and – in view of all this, the reform of the Copyright Law. In fact the arguments of the Spanish judge would not be contrary just because he says there is no harm to protected works. He does not seem to go against the Law. The problem is how he interprets the facts and so then it applies the law. Para ele não há sequer obras protegidas sendo violadas, ora porque não há mais direitos sobre elas (caíram no domínio público) ora porque as obras protegidas não são de titularidade de quem o autor da ação representa.  The rguments that could effectively oppose the brasilian decision (of Paraná) refers to the technical analysis on the “linkage”… if to link in a site that allows dowload creates a liability or not …
Angela Kretschmann

APPLE WILL PAY $25M TO PATENT TROLL TO AVOID EAST TEXAS TRIAL

“I know my ideas when I see them on a screen,” inventor said in 2011.

 

A software company is founded in 2001, just as the dot-com bust slips the tech sector into a recession. The product never takes off, and the company gives up and shuts its doors in 2004.

A few years later, the company founder is contacted about his patents. Promised a small percentage of whatever “monetization” takes place, the founder sells to a hedge fund. The fund creates an LLC and in 2008, he proceeds to sue several tech companies in the court that looks most promising: the Eastern District of Texas.

Sound like a familiar story? It’s happened literally hundreds of times, but a long-running case that just ended this week is special. David Gelernter isn’t a typical patent owner. He’s a well-known computer scientist who teaches at Yale.  The lawsuit (PDF) over his patents, Mirror Worlds LLC v. Apple, claimed Gelernter invented the basic ideas behind features like Spotlight, Cover Flow, and the Time Machine. The case reached a turning point in 2010, when a jury said (PDF) that Apple infringed three of Gelernter’s patents and should pay a royalty of $625 million.

It would have been one of the largest of all time, if it had stood. But six months after winning the massive verdict, the judge who oversaw the case ripped it away, ruling that Mirror Worlds’ lawyers hadn’t sufficiently proved their case. Mirror Worlds appealed, but to no avail.

Gelernter, his investors, and his lawyers will all finally get a payday, albeit one that’s just a fraction of what they nearly had in 2011. Gelernter’s idea—essentially, the presentation of documents in chronological order—would likely have a harder time getting a patent today. And multi-million dollar settlements with patent-holding companies aren’t common anymore. So why did Gelernter’s patents succeed where others failed?

In part, it’s because Gelernter is famous within certain circles, and his company briefly got the attention of Steve Jobs. It’s also because the “patent troll” companies that ultimately took control of his patent had good timing and got lucky—although not nearly as lucky as they almost were in 2011.

Early visionary

When Mirror Worlds ran out of appeals, it gave up and sold its patent—to another patent troll called Network-1 Security. In 2013, Network-1 created a similarly named LLC, this time called Mirror Worlds Technologies, and filed another lawsuit (PDF) in the Eastern District of Texas. The same patent, No. 6,006,227, was used to sue the same target, Apple.

Apple said the issue was precluded by the result in an earlier case. After more than a year of additional litigation, a different judge said that the “new” Mirror Worlds could indeed sue again. They were suing over new versions of Mac OS X that didn’t exist earlier.

But while Mirror Worlds would get a kind of “do-over” on its arguments, Apple wouldn’t get the same treatment—Judge Davis had ruled against Apple on validity, and that was final. Faced with the prospect of that depressing playing field, Apple settled on Friday, a few days before a second trial was due to start.

Mirror Worlds is the name of a book Gelernter wrote, published in 1991. It includes early hypothesizing about how software models will change the world, and in a vague way it predicted some of what came about through the modern Web.

“Mirror Worlds aren’t mere information services,” wrote Gelernter, in a passage quoted later in The Economist. “They are places you can ‘stroll around’, meeting and electronically conversing with friends or random passers-by. If you find something you don’t like, post a note; you’ll soon discover whether anyone agrees with you.”

Gelernter’s book got a fair amount of press attention, including from the New York Times’ John Markoff, who wrote about the Yale professor’s vision of a wholly networked world in 1992.

While Gelernter’s fan-base among journalists and intellectuals was growing, his optimistic view of technology also made him a dangerous enemy. Ted Kaczynski, the anti-technology fanatic who became known as the “Unabomber,” targeted Gelernter with a letter-bomb in 1993. The bomb put Gelernter in the hospital for weeks, blinded him in one eye, and caused severe and permanent damage to his right hand, which he covers with a glove.

The injuries didn’t prevent the professor from succeeding as a professor, writer, and businessperson. In 2001, he created a company called Mirror Worlds, which marketed a product called Scopeware that would organize digital documents into “streams.” Despite positive press coverage, the company didn’t gain traction.

Scopeware briefly got Steve Jobs’ attention, however. “Please check out this software ASAP,” wrote Jobs in an e-mail that later came out in litigation. “It may be something for our future, and we may want to secure a license ASAP.” Apple met with Mirror Worlds, but nothing came of it.

When Apple started to come out with features like Cover Flow and Time Machine, Gelernter believed his own ideas being used. “I know my ideas—our ideas—when I see them on a screen,” he told the New York Times in 2011, while his case was on appeal.

At that point, Gelernter said, it was more about getting credit than getting money. He described his financial interest in Mirror Worlds as being modest—”2 percent of something,” he told the NYT.

Gelernter didn’t respond to interview requests for this story.

Mirror Worlds targeted several other big companies, as well, including H-P, Dell, Lenovo, Samsung, and Microsoft. By late last year, those defendants had all settled. Microsoft reportedly paid $4.6 million to settle the Mirror Worlds claims.

BY:

Joe Mullin Joe has covered the intersection of law and technology, including the world’s biggest copyright and patent battles, since 2007.

INDIA REJECTS 955 PHARMA PATENT APPLICATIONS IN LAST THREE YEARS

NEW DELHI: India has rejected as many as 955 patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector in the  @EconomicTimes http://ecoti.in/ONOnab

NEW DELHI: India has rejected as many as 955 patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector in the last three years.

“… 618 applications have been rejected citing Section 3 (d) of the Patents Act, 1970, as one of the grounds for rejection in the last three years,” Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said in a written reply to the Lok Sabha today.

“A total of 955 patent applications in pharma have been rejected by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in the l ..

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/53383273.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

GUIDE TO GOING GLOBAL: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TECHNOLOGY

As business grows more global, the challenge for in-house counsel seeking to comply with the shifting landscape of IPT laws in all jurisdictions where they operate is intensifying. We designed our complimentary Guide to Going Global to help you meet that challenge head on. Inside this guide, we outline crucial aspects of IP and Technology laws in 34 jurisdictions that are particularly relevant to businesses seeking to expand their operations globally. We also summarize some fundamental commercial terms that customarily appear in IPT-related agreements.

You will find answers to such common questions as:

  • Which jurisdictions recognize moral rights?
  • What does my business need to do to have an enforceable assignment of intellectual property from an employee, from a consultant?
  • What kind of liability can be excluded from a commercial contract?

With this edition, we’ve also included a section for each country that discusses the enforceability of electronic signatures. Whether you are moving into new jurisdictions or managing your business across numerous borders, our guide helps to give you confidence that your organization has access to current information wherever you do business. We hope it will become an invaluable resource for you.

Downloads from DLA Piper is a global law firm with lawyers located in more than 30 countries throughout the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific.