The outcome in France

Having previously posted on the battle over technology such as iTunes in France, and differing views within Parliamentary chambers, thanks to the BBC for this pithy report on the final outcome.

Sharing of technology can still be required - so the not mentioned by name iTunes offering can be made more widely available. BUT, authors and right owners can consent to their work being available only on limited systems. Not only does still create muddied waters (how many authors, companies and collecting societies could be involved) but end product means that consumers unlikely to benefit. So not such a revolution as it might have been - but a new authority to require interoperability promises future fun and games

New transparency for regional trade agreements

One of the many difficulties for RTAs in the WTO is the minutiae of article 24 GATT, when one is permitted and how the official "clearance" procedure is to work - or even if. Helpful developments from the WTO in this regard - the question of TRIPS PLUS, international ratcheting, breach of MFN and other joys remain unchanged.

Microsoft increased fine

So many sources to choose from (sadly Commission link doesn't work). But thanks for this detail of the $357 million fine and the unsurprising fact that Microsoft are not too happy and will appeal. Here we go again.

The Commission are clearly digging in with their view of the facts and business. I will be very interested to see the CFI decision on such basic questions as market definition, what is abuse, how innovation markets are to be treated etcetcetc

Nominet and ICANN - Happy Ever After

Links between the .co.uk body Nominet and ICANN increased at Marrakech, with each recognising the status of the other in an exchange of letters. This likely does, as suggested by the Register, bolster the international status of ICANN - but the questions still remain. Is it really in charge of domain names? Should it be ? Who made it so? Can it be unmade? Competition, human rights and the odd trade mark question abound.

Microsoft yet again

The long running disagreement between Microsoft and the EC Commission continues. Although Microsoft have appealed the finding of abuse of a dominant position (most recent hearing last month before the CFI), it failed in attempts to stay imposition of any ruling, pending the appeal. As Microsoft and the Commission have different views on what will constitute compliance with the Commission's order (particularly as complying with US regulator's requirements is considered not to be enough) the tom toms have long been augering additional daily fine. The threats, according to the Register, are getting louder - what will happen? Who will win the game of boundary pushing???

The WIPO Development Agenda - what next?

Thanks to IP Watch for details of WIPO's discussion over future directions. Although the establishment of the talks and the recognition of the need for a development agenda is significant progress, the stalling at this vital stage could be a sign of trouble ahead. No firm proposals will be made to the UN but there will be further discussion in the future.

A quick read of commentary did begin to sound rather like recent WHO and WTO discussions. No bad thing in itself - but if IP is to include human rights, as a matter of practice and policy, yet also reflect economic and commercial reality, more cohesion and agreement is necessary.

Human Rights, IP, Paradox and a bit of competition

Charlotte Waelde and Abbe Brown presented a joint paper at the excellent CIER Utrecht conference "The Human Rights Paradox in Intellectual Property" on 3-4 July. The conference included delegates from all over the world, with a good cross section of commercial, IP and human rights perspectives. Particularly interesting were the contributions of Cees Flinterman and Rosemary Coombe - and their reminders that human rights exist, and should be respected, beyond the confines of legislation, courts and national law.

Given the focus of our project, it was interesting to observe some delegates as they embraced the new challenges of human rights or IP. Building on that, our addition of competition, particularly as a possible means of obtaining a practical result (we developed one of the case studies from our March meeting) provoked helpful comment.

We will be preparing our paper for publication in the next Molengraff edition. Many thanks to Willem Grosheide Lucky Belder and Jerzy Koopman - we look forward to many more.