IP Policy Committee blog

MEP Gallo´s and Commissioner Barnier´s
crusade against access to our cultural legacy

French Member of the European Parliament Marielle Gallo is leading a destructive political campaign to close the door on easing access to the vast cultural legacy of millions of books, films and songs that are not presently available to citizens due to being out of print, off the market and whose authors are often not known or not able to be located.

MEP Gallo along with her French political companions Sarkozy and EU Commissioner Barnier are determined to prevent mass digitization of our heritage, which is the only way to recover this knowledge and culture for broad social use and innovation. According to Gallo, Barnier and Sarkozy these unaccessible works are “better dead than read” in order to protect the business of their friends in the copyright industry.

Gallo and her allies have pushed forward a series of obstructive legislative amendments aimed at making practically impossible for libraries, universities, broadcasters and IT industries to easily identify and clear for cultural use  “orphan works”.  By proposing a series of torturous and expensive procedures to be followed by public libraries Gallo hopes to render totally useless the Orphan Works Directive now being considered before the European Parliament. The objective of Gallo, Barnier and the French Government is to try to block a series of mass digitization contracts between libraries, universities and Google. Without any other viable plan for mass digitization the French right has opted for a “scorched earth” policy to assure that  the the pages flake, the celluloids disintegrate and the sound recordings fade. Instead of a EU framework that would encourage a digital renaissance of our inaccessible heritage through easy author search mechanisms, balanced public-private partnerships and clear limits on claims and renumeration,  the fervent Gallo brigades of copyright extremists insist on enforcing cultural euthanasia.

European Digital Rights on ACTA´s Democratic Vacuum
The European Parliament has given its legal service the task of explaining
why a circle is a square – or rather why ACTA is simultaneously in line with
existing EU legal provisions, while not denying that it will ultimately
require changes to EU law.

The sleight of hand of the European Commission relies on the fact that
Member States will have to approve the criminal measures of ACTA, while the
EU will have to approve the rest.

The first task is therefore to beat democratically elected national
parliaments into submission. They are doing this by holding high-level
signing ceremonies in, for example, the World Trade Organisation. No
parliament will want to be seen to holding back an initiative that appears
to have such momentum – even though ACTA lives, and has always lived in a
democratic vacuum and has no democratic legitimacy.

Having being pushed into agreeing to impose criminal sanctions (with no
minimum level to ensure any level of proportionality) for undefined
“commercial level” infringements or “indirect” infringements, the 27 Member
States will implement 27 different levels of criminal sanctions. Then, to do
its duty of harmonizing the single market (which it has failed to do on
exceptions and limitations, licensing, etc), the European Commission will
have no choice but to propose a Directive on criminal sanctions for
copyright enforcement, harmonizing around the more restrictive countries’
policies. It is, after all, a complete coincidence that the Commissioner
responsible and the MEP leading the charge in the Parliament are from the
same political party, in France, which has some of the most restrictive,
repressive copyright enforcement laws in Europe.

And there you have it, EU legislation proposed as a reaction to ACTA…
which is already in line with EU law… apparently. No wonder the European
Parliament legal service representative at today’s Legal Affairs Committee
meeting looked uncomfortable.

EDRI (EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS)

 

As ACTA D-day approaches the debate heats up in Brussels. Today French Sarkozyist MEP Marielle Gallo started leading the forward charge of the  music and entertainment lobbyist light brigade.   MEPs are already being bullied into rushing into parliamentary approval of ACTA within 3 or 4 months without even seeking the opinion of the European Court of Justice.  Ms. Gallo ended the today´s presentation of her enthusiastically pro-ACTA opinion in the Judicial Affairs Committee by warning of the dire consequences of “losing 2 more years” waiting for a European Court ruling on how the implementation of ACTA could affect fundamental rights, as requested by Green and Liberal MEPs.

Ms. Gallo called upon MEPs to “ignore the far-fetched opinions” of those who question the “key role of IPR in innovation and the knowledge based economy.”   The general assessment of Gallo´s draft opinion on ACTA states that ACTA is compatible with EU law, that ACTA includes safeguards “against abuse and in favor of proportionality, that it respects privacy and that it poses no obstacle to legitimate trade”.  She also dismissed any criticism on the lack of transparency by lauding the great efforts made by the European Commission in informing the Parliament and by citing an ombudsman report that confirmed the right of the Council to restrict certain public access to documents during an international negotiation.

Pirate MEP Christan Engstrom responded to Gallo by quoting the opinion of the EP legal services that with calculated ambiguity says “it appears that the agreement per se does not impose violation of fundamental rights…but depends on how it is applied in EU member state laws.”  Engstrom openly attacked the lack of proportionality in ACTA that  proposes “retail value” damages and remedies. He gave the example of a teenager´s hard disk that might have up to a half million downloaded songs and who could theoretically be sued for astronomical damages. He asked: “What would the family do? Sell their house?”  He also criticized the dangerous vagueness of “intermediary cooperation” of Internet servers with IPR enforcement. While the graduated response or “3 strikes” for internet disconnection is not directly spoken of in ACTA, he insisted that the preparatory documents be made public in order to clarify this question. He added that ACTA is “at best borderline on fundamental rights” and an European Court of Justice opinion was needed to clarify the legality of ACTA´s implementation by member states.  He ended by saying that with ACTA we would “lose our moral high ground when dealing with countries like China on human rights questions.”

Liberal MEP Thein also supported the call for a European Court opinion. Austrian Green MEP Eva Lichtenberger explained that ACTA had an uncertain, open-ended legal base that needed guidance from the ECJ regarding its scope and application.

A very nervous and extremely cautious EP legal service representative took the floor to say that while ACTA must respect the EU Treaty it may not be in line with existing legislations of EU member states and that might suggest an eventual amendment of EU law. In other words, the Parliament´s legal services is discreetly admitting that ACTA is an exercise of “legislation laundering”, of using the instrument of an international trade agreement to bypass normal political procedures to force legal changes, first in the EU member states and then eventually in EU law itself. This unusual opaque political strategy means introducing draconian IPR criminal enforcement through the back door without the democratic guarantees of a normal bottom-up procedure. It tries to bully EU legislators into new laws that they have not been able to consider thoroughly and openly.

Now there will also be ACTA opinions from other EP committees (Development, Civil Liberties and Industry) while the lead report will by drawn up by the International Trade Committee. Shortly after  the final  plenary vote on the ACTA report there will be a “consent” vote on ACTA (“yes”, “no” or “abstention”) probably in the month of April or May.

If citizens do not want their democratic representatives to be force fed a dangerous international treaty they should make their voices audible before it is too late.

 

 

European Commission and the right to read:

If you can´t beat them, join them and try to spoil it

 

Last week in Geneva at WIPO the EU was dragged kicking and screaming into a concrete textual debate on the creation of a legal international instrument for the Visually Impaired for an exception and limitation on copyright. Under heavy pressure and criticism from the European Parliament and the European Blind Union, the European Commission, represented by French Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier, has been forced to abandon its previous outright rejection of a legally binding treaty and now has launched a new strategy. The EU, represented by the Commission has made a series of obstructive and destructive amendments to the working text of the World Intellectual Property Organization with the double objective of undermining the whole purpose of a Treaty and provoking an endless debate in order to filibuster any practical solution for millions of print-disabled persons. The European Blind Union and the World Blind Union strongly reject most of the EU´s significant amendments for going against the needs of millions of print-disabled persons.

 

Considering that the whole point of the Treaty for the Visually Impaired is to establish an “exception and limitation on copyright” for certain uses and taking into account that the very title of this area of negotiations at WIPO are called “Exceptions and Limitations”, it is pretty startling that one of the first EU “de-constructive” amendments proposes to suppress entirely from the text “copyright exceptions and limitations” and to substitute it with “appropriate measures”! Also in this uncooperative sense the EU also proposes to eliminate from the text “ to provide the necessary flexibilities… to open the door to licensing alternatives.”.

 

When it comes to defining the “trusted entities” that would be responsible for distributing reading material to the print disabled, the EU propose to radically narrow the scope to only organizations whose “primary mission” is serving the print-disabled. This would eliminate public libraries, schools and universities, as well as severely limiting access to books in poor countries of the South where there a very few or no strong organizations whose “primary mission” is to serve the visually impaired.

 

The EU especially fails when it comes to social sensitivity to blind persons of the South. The EU proposes to define a “reasonable price for developing countries” as “the accessible format copy of the work is available at a similar or lower price that the price of the work available to persons without print disabilities in that market,..” Considering that an “E-book” could cost between 15 and 25 Euro, this EU proposal will not be of much use for the disabled persons of Guatemala or South Africa.

 

The EU also attemps to sink the copyright exception flagship with this proposed torpedo: eliminating the phrase “ without the authorization of the rightholders”. Obviously, if blind persons NGOs´ must negotiate permission book by book with rightsholders there is really no point of having an international legal instrument at all.

 

Where the EU reveals its shocking ignorance of what kind of formats disabled persons need is when it proposes an ammendment that establishes that no exception to copyright will apply if their is “a work commercially available”. The EU ignores the fact that many commercially available audio works are either not technically accessible, are not formatted to be useful for academic study, are not available at public libraries or are simply not affordable to most visually impaired persons. The EU suggests that the Spanish blind persons organization ONCE cannot share its formatted works with blind persons of Paraguay if those works are in some way or form “commercially available” even if the practicality of that “availability” is useless.

 

Other EU amendments (see below with comments by World Blind Union) all go in the same direction of blocking and spoiling any meaningful progress toward the real-life access to reading material on the part of the print-disabled.

 

Why is the EU taking this obtuse position? Why is the European Commission ignoring the will of the European Parliament? Why is the EU making unrealistic, draconian demands on an international legal instrument when the copyright exceptions already existing in most EU members states are far more flexible and simple?

 

The answer is clear: the EU has assumed the fundamentalist and ideological positions of the copyright lobby that refuses to come out of its deep bunker for a fair and pragmatic solution that facilitates the right to read of visually impaired persons around the world.

 

 

 

 

 

TREATY FOR THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED (EU AMENDMENTS)

Comments by World Blind Union (WBU) in brackets

0.13. In the thirteenth paragraph, “copyright exceptions and limitations” should be replaced by “appropriate measures” (European Union).

• [NO- this instrument deals specifically with E&L. Other measures should be dealt with in the appropriate places]

0.17. The seventeenth paragraph should read “Taking into account the importance of increasing the number and range of accessible format works available to visually impaired persons/persons with print disabilities in the world, and to ensure full and equal access to information and communication for persons who are visually impaired or have a print disability in order to support their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others, and to ensure the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and intellectual potential, for their own benefit and for the enrichment of society,” (European Union).

• [Eliminates language on “to provide the necessary minimum flexibilities.... , so as to open to door to licensing alternatives.” This is not appropriate in a law providing exceptions.]

……………………………….

LEGAL TEXT:

A.09 As to the definition of “authorized entity”, first paragraph, the phrase “activities” should be replaced by “primary missions” (European Union, United States of America).

• [NO to “primary” – would exclude many schools, universities and other bona fide organisations for whom accessible format provision is vital work but not a “primary” part of what they do]

A.12 As to the definition of “authorized entity”, the second paragraph should read “an authorized entity maintains rules and procedures to establish the bona fide nature of persons with print disabilities that they serve.” (European Union).

• [The authorized entity should decide what rules and procedures it uses to establish the bona fide nature of persons with print disabilities.]

A.16 As to the definition of “authorized entity”, the third paragraph should have and additional sentence that reads “Member States/Contracting parties should encourage rightholders and beneficiary persons to cooperate and participate in authorized entities.” (European Union).

• [NO! This is not a definition- why would it sit here?] ……………………………….COMMENTS ON ART. A OF LEGAL TEXT

A.21 The definition of “reasonable price for developing countries” should be replaced by “means that the accessible format copy of the work is available at a similar or lower price than the price of the work available to persons without print disabilities in that market, taking into account the needs and income disparities of persons who have limited vision and those with print disabilities in that market.” (European Union).

• [No, it should be affordable in developing countries.] A.22 Further discussions and debates are essential on the complex issue of “reasonable price” as

it is not mature (European Union). • [Each Member State should have the flexibility to determine what is reasonable price

in that Member State.] A.23 The definition of “copyright” should be further discussed (European Union).

• [Asper22] COMMENTS ON ART. C OF LEGAL TEXT:

C.04 The phrase in Paragraph (1) “to facilitate the availability of works in accessible formats” significantly broadens the aim of the instrument and has broad implications. It should be preceded by the phrase “or any other equally effective measure” (European Union).

• [No- the instrument is specifically intended to facilitate the availability of works in accessible formats. That’s what this is all about.]

C.06 Paragraph (2)(a) should read “Authorized entities shall be permitted to make an accessible format copy of a work, obtain from another authorized entity a work in accessible format, and supply such a copy to a beneficiary person by any means, including by non-commercial lending or by electronic communication by wire or wireless means, and undertake any intermediate steps to achieve those objectives, when all of the following conditions are met:” (European Union).

• [NO. This adds RH authorization into an instrument we need for cases where we have been unable to get help from RH. Getting rid of the “without the authorization of the RH” contradicts the essence of an exception, that permission is not needed! The words “without seeking/asking for the authorization of the RH” could be used as the other option might seem to imply an “unauthorized distribution”.]

C.08 In Paragraph (3), delete reference to three-step test “that is limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.” A separate Article Ebis is proposed in this connection (European Union).

• [The EU proposal for Ebis appears unhelpful, in our opinion, and would need some work. We believe it should say, that the provisions of the treaty are without prejudice

to other flexibilities countries have in the Berne, the WCT or the TRIPS, all of which are important, and including such things as the first sale doctrine]

C.10 Paragraph (4) should read “the Member State/Contracting Party shall limit the exceptions or limitations provided for in this article to published works which, in an applicable special format, cannot be otherwise obtained within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price” (European Union).

The word “otherwise” should be retained in this paragraph (Brazil, United States of America). Exceptions should not depend on the existence of commercially available works, as in this case the question is defending a fundamental human right (Ecuador).

• [This is very important to WBU. Any restriction saying that the exception should not apply when the work is commercially available must be on the strict proviso that the book is available at the same time and price, in the format needed by the individual requesting it. A commercial audio book can't be used by a deaf blind person, and a commercially available large print book can't be used by a blind person. Then, if the commercially available audio book or large print book is not affordable or available from a library, it is not available to the individual either.]

COMMENTS ON ART. D OF LEGAL TEXT:

D.05 In Paragraph (2)(a), delete “without the authorization of the rightholder”

(European Union). • [ Totally unacceptable to WBU]

D.06 In Paragraph (2)(b), delete “without the authorization of the rightholder”

(European Union). • [Totally unacceptable to WBU]

D.09 In Paragraph (3), delete reference to three-step test “that is limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.” A separate Article Ebis is proposed in this connection (European Union).

• [As stated above, we believe that the draft Ebis is problematic]

D.11 It is proposed to add a new paragraph 3bis that reads “The Member State/Contracting Party should/shall limit the exceptions or limitations provided for in this article to published works which, in an applicable special format, cannot be otherwise obtained within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price in the country of importation.” (European Union).

• [“Should/shall” to be replaced with “may”. Member States should have the flexibility to decide this, especially developing countries. Special” needs to be changed to “accessible”.]

COMMENTS ON ART. E OF LEGAL TEXT:

E.02 Delete the phrase “without the copyright rights holder’s authorization.” (European Union, United States of America). Article E should allow Member States to mirror the flexibility of their exception in relation to imports. That phrase could mean, for example, that in other articles where it is not specified, there is no need the right holders’ authorization. This article requires further discussion, in particular regarding the notion of importation in relation to copyright (European Union).

• [WBU strongly against deletion suggested by EU. This is a text for a future law on copyright exceptions; not a licensing scheme]

 

 

 

Price Shock: antidepressive drug has gone up with 1,100 percent.
In the last two weeks the price of the antidepressive drug Sertraline has increased dramaticallyin Denmark. The Danish Minister of Health is left speechless.

The drug Sertraline produced the pharmaceutical company Hexal used to treat patients with depression, OCD and for anxiety has increased by 1,100 percent in just 14 days.

Until the 13th of November the price for Sertraline was 88 dkk cent (10 cent) per pill, however, since then the price has suddenly risen to 9.71 (11 euro) per pill. A pack of 100 pcs. 50 mg has risen from 90 danish kroner (12 euro) to more than 970 dkk (130 Euro) before state reimbursement, writes the Danish newspaper bt.dk.
Generic products disappeared
According to the Institute for Rational Pharmacotherapy (IRF), who informs GPs about the advantages and disadvantages of different medicines in Denmark, the reason for this drastic price jump is that the generic product for Sertraline is currently out of production. Therefore, pharmacists are forced give out the more expensive drug.

To ensure that patients receive the lowest price on medications, pharmacists are normally obliged to always sell the cheapest version of a drug, which in the case Sertraline from Hexal may be a generic product. The problem for users of Sertraline is that currently only Hexal produces Sertraline, which means that pharmacists are forced to sell the Hexal drug. Therefore, Hexal has accordingly set the price exactly as they want on Sertraline, writes bt.dk
Minister will look at case

Danish Minister for Health , Astrid Krag (SF), is now considering letting the competition authorities look into the matter.
“It is not possible to take action against the company with the laws we have on the Health Affairs area, but if the company Hexal is exploiting its dominant monopoly position on the market, it may be a matter for the competition authorities,” says Astrid Krag to bt.dk

EU Policy Opportunities in Biomedical Innovation and the Public Good

November 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

TransAtlantic Consumers Dialogue                     Health Action International

Knowledge management is becoming increasingly central to our social and economic well-being. This is especially relevant to the sphere of pharmaceuticals. The current model of biomedical innovation tends to enclose knowledge through the awarding of intellectual property (IP) rights. However, in view of today’s social and economic reality, this model of innovation often fails to take into account economic sustainability, does not always deliver needs-oriented innovation, and tends to neglect the least wealthy parts of the world’s population including many European Union (EU) citizens. It is quite worrying that pharmaceutical companies’ new production pipelines are drying up and fewer truly innovative medicines that add any real therapeutic value are reaching the markets. Meanwhile, , as the cost of biomedical innovation is used, among other factors, to justify the high price of medical products, the unsustainability of this situation in the midst of a ic debt crisis is forcing several EU governments to take difficult financial decisions which, limit access to life-saving medical technologies to the detriment of patients and consumers,

Another important consequence of an innovation system based on IP is that scientists are less able or inclined to share information about their research, for fear that their knowledge could be claimed by another owner. This intrinsic model of secrecy is particularly worrisome in the field of medical research, where non-disclosure of essential Research and Development (R&D) health data means additional delays, bottlenecks and wasteful repetition in the development of life-saving drugs.

Even worse, this system which shrouds in secrecy the results of health research data resulting from clinical trials leads to an unethical situation in which many patients are being exposed to the harmful secondary effects of drugs where the risks are already known but are not revealed due to commercial confidentiality

It is now time for the EU to be a leader in exploring alternative strategies to biomedical innovation. The Horizon 2020 EU Research and Innovation Framework provides the EU with an opportunity to make socially responsible choices that lead to new sustainable models of innovation which contribute to the common good. The EU needs to be a smart investor that makes sure the health of all citizens reaps the benefits of its investments.

In light of Horizon 2020 and the Innovation Union agenda, this Policy Brief offers an overview of the most important contemporary discussions, initiatives and proposals on biomedical innovation, and provides recommendations to European institutions on how to become leaders in exploring new and complementary models of innovation, establishing a truly innovative research agenda while implementing their commitments to Health Equity within the EU and to Global Health. Business as usual is no longer an option. There are moral reasons, but also economic and prudential imperatives for policy-makers to explore the proposals being developed, as these aim not only to ensure broad access to medical technologies, but also to ensure the sustainability of European health systems, by rationalising public investment and improving innovation through efficient knowledge management.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (GSPA) of May 2008, and the EU Council Conclusions on Global Health in May 2010 both called for needs-driven innovation and the further exploration of innovation models that de-link the cost of R&D from the price of medicines to ensure both innovation and access to essential medical technologies. “De-linkage” of R&D costs from the price of medicines addresses three weaknesses of the current model of medical innovation: unaffordability, unavailability and unsuitability. Today, a number of EU taxpayers who financed the development of a drug cannot obtain it for their family members because they cannot afford it. Thence the core of the question we pose in this Policy Brief is whether knowledge generated by EU financed medical research (in other words, supported by European taxpayers) should continue to predominantly be guided by the generation of returns for private actors or whether EU health research should contain clear social conditionality. Should billions of Euros stemming from EU funding continue to be awarded without any strings attached and little consideration for public health benefit and affordability?

For example, the taxpayers Various proposals and projects have been developed by governments, civil society, academics and industry which promote access and innovation, and de-link R&D and price. Some are relevant for patients within the EU, while others focus entirely on developing countries and/or neglected diseases, which are relevant to EU policies and commitments in Development and Global Health. While a number of these initiatives have already been implemented, others still remain policy proposals. These include:

Socially responsible IP management or Equitable licensing – The rationale behind equitable licensing is to generate the highest possible social benefit out of publicly funded research. It encourages the open or non-exclusive licensing of patented technology. It would promote R&D in the field of neglected diseases and antibiotics. We propose conditions to be attached to the participation rules of Horizon 2020, specifically to grants for biomedical research.

Open Source research – A new paradigm of innovation in medical technologies which is gaining ground and which is based around the sharing of knowledge rather than enclosing it by means of IP protection. “Open Access” usually refers to projects that provide open data once published. The current expensive medical journals, high data access fees, and the secrecy shrouding raw research data and the results of clinical trials all prevent timely and wide use of crucial health-related information. A number of open source initiatives have been launched in the medical fields over the last decade. Open source medicine can be an especially useful tool for neglected diseases, antibiotic research or for certain conditions that are not properly addressed in the pure market-driven model.

Voluntary licenses to the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) – Obtaining a licence for an existing patent can be done on a case by case basis through voluntary or non-voluntary licensing. But it is also possible to manage IP collectively through patent pooling. The MPP allows producers to pay royalties to patent owners in order to manufacture patented medicines and sell them in countries well before the expiration of the patent term. The MPP is designed to reduce the price of existing medicines and speed up their availability as well as the development of fixed dose combinations and paediatric treatments.

Product Development Partnerships (PDPs) – Aimed at developing new medicines and vaccines through a combination of resources from the public sector, philanthropy, and the pharmaceutical industry. PDPs research, develop and support accessibility of new health technologies that target diseases which disproportionately affect developing countries. The R&D pipeline for neglected diseases is now beginning to show signs of life, with PDPs managing almost 150 projects in pre-clinical and clinical development.

Innovation inducement prizes – Prizes are an incentive system to induce R&D for new essential medicines, and can be implemented in a manner that ensures competition, affordability and widespread access. In the open licensing approach, cash prizes would be a substitute for exclusive rights to sell products and monopoly prices. Innovators would be awarded large monetary “prizes” based in part or in whole on the improvements to health outcomes over existing products. There already exists a variety of prize schemes relevant to medicines development

Intergovernmental Instrument on Coordination & Financing of Biomedical R&D – Currently being considered by the WHO, this instrument would combine financial obligations for countries to contribute to R&D financing with incentives that deliver innovation and access.

RECOMMENDATIONS: The way innovation is currently being rewarded is putting the economic sustainability of EU research financing at peril. The EU cannot limit itself to “planting the seeds” of innovation and then naively expect growth, private re-investment in socially relevant projects, and the blossoming of innovation. Thence the EU´s Horizon 2020 project should condition any release of knowledge property to a plan that conforms to ethical, social and environmental objectives in accordance with the public interest.Furthermore, for the EU to be a leader in technological innovation, it needs to take a broader perspective and look at key developments in open source research and open medicine.  We call upon the European Parliament and the European Commission to:

Incorporate Equitable licensing as a condition for its biomedical research grants, most notably in Horizon 2020 grants.

Engage in meaningful technology transfer; Horizon 2020 should provide at least the same level of incentives and support for researchers from developing countries as FP7.

Engage in feasibility studies and pilots for various innovation inducement prizes, in particular concerning cancer research, HIV/AIDs and antibiotics.

Constructively engage in negotiations for an Essential Health and R&D Treaty at the World Health Organisation as being proposed by the Expert Working Group.

Orient receptors of EU grants to license to the MPP mechanism.

Clear rules in Horizon 2020 to mandate open access to EU financed health related research results.

Now is the time for the EU to take the lead. The upcoming Horizon 2020 EU Research and Innovation Framework provides the EU with an opportunity to make socially responsible choices that lead to new sustainable models of innovation which contribute to the common good. The Research program has a budget of 80 billion Euros, unequalled by research budgets globally. Openness, knowledge sharing and de-linkage or disassociation of the R&D costs from the price of products should be the underlying principles.

For more information please contact:

Sophie Bloemen, Health Action International Europe – sophie@haieurope.org

David Hammerstein, Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue  david@davidhammerstein.org

 

 

 

 

Health Action International (HAI) is an independent, global network, working to increase access to essential medicines and improve their rational use through research excellence and evidence-based advocacy.

TransAtlantic Consumers Dialogue is a forum of European and US consumer organizations

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ADVOCATE GENERAL OPINION:

COMPUTER PROGRAM FUNCTIONALITY AND PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES CANNOT BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Seminar on 1 December at 16 00 at the Solvay Library in Brussels to discuss the case

Court of Justice Advocate General Yves Bot today delivered his Opinion on  SAS Institute Inc. (SAS)  v. World Programming Ltd (WPL), case C-406/10, favouring interoperability and rejecting SAS’s arguments.

The case will be discussed in depth by some of the world’s top experts on copyright at the ECIS seminar on Thursday, 1 December, in Brussels. Details are at the bottom of this email.

Bot answered the three big questions raised by the case and the answers favoured interoperability, just as a British court had done last year.

First, Bot said computer program functionality is not protected by copyright, because otherwise it “would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas.”

Second, Bot said programming languages are not protected by copyright.

Finally, Bot said that a licensed user of a program can generally write code to connect to a rival program, even without the permission of the holder of the copyright.

A full 13-member Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice will now reach a decision taking into account Bot’s opinion. However, the decision of the full court may not follow the A-G’s opinion. The decision may be handed down some time in 2012.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression November, 2011

WIPO SCCR 23: Declaration from the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue.

“Freedom of expression and opinion is a human right. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the right to freedom of opinion and expression “includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and, to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

The digital age we now live in provides technology which could allow blind, partially sighted and other reading disabled people across the world to both receive and impart information regardless of frontiers, and therefore enjoy this human right fully.
This should be a wonderfully empowering development, helping reading disabled people to access information on an equal basis with others for the first time in history. However, the reality is starkly different. Blind and partially sighted people face a “book famine” in which the vast majority of books are never made into accessible formats like braille, audio or large print.

WIPO SCCR23 has an opportunity and a responsibility to help to solve this problem, by removing the copyright barriers which prevent access for reading disabled people. To that end, the Committee has a draft text for consideration which could and should form the basis for a binding treaty (SCCR_22_16).
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=188547

In my capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, I urge all WIPO Member States’ delegates of SCCR23 to work assiduously to agree a binding WIPO treaty for blind and other reading disabled people, and to thereby open a door to reading, ideas and information for reading disabled people across the world.”

Frank La Rue

Relator Especial