We have been asked to join EUNews as a contributor and have made our first posting on the topic of:
EU Commission Advances Digital Libraries Initiative.
We refer also to our LawPundit posting on this same topic, which contains longer excerpts of the text of the referenced Commssion Communication.
Our postings to EUNews will relate to our selection of important news in the European Union and will involve little or no opinion.
By contrast, here on EUPundit, some of our postings are more in the nature of OP-EDs (opinion editorials).
.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Foreign Investment in the European Union (EU)
EUobserver.com reports that investment in the new European Union members states increased by 70 percent whereas investment in the old EU member states dropped by 36 percent in the year 2004.
It should be noted for the world as a whole that, on average, foreign direct investment (FDI) in developed countries decreased at the same time that FDI in underdeveloped countries increased. FDI is dominated - on average - to 2/3 by equity investment, with intra-company loans accounting for 23% (on average) and reinvested earnings for 12% (on average). The top spot in the world in terms of total amount of investment increase was occupied by Hong Kong (China), or 46% by percent increase.
The figures come from the World Investment Report 2005, 29 September 2005, prepared annually by UNCTAD, which can be downloaded directly from the UNCTAD website.
The report is 366 pages and there is also an overview of 50 pages available. The report is available in English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish.
Crossposted to LawPundit.
Technorati Tags world economy, investment, foreign investment, european economy, EU, European Union, Europe, UNCTAD, United Nations.
.
It should be noted for the world as a whole that, on average, foreign direct investment (FDI) in developed countries decreased at the same time that FDI in underdeveloped countries increased. FDI is dominated - on average - to 2/3 by equity investment, with intra-company loans accounting for 23% (on average) and reinvested earnings for 12% (on average). The top spot in the world in terms of total amount of investment increase was occupied by Hong Kong (China), or 46% by percent increase.
The figures come from the World Investment Report 2005, 29 September 2005, prepared annually by UNCTAD, which can be downloaded directly from the UNCTAD website.
The report is 366 pages and there is also an overview of 50 pages available. The report is available in English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish.
Crossposted to LawPundit.
Technorati Tags world economy, investment, foreign investment, european economy, EU, European Union, Europe, UNCTAD, United Nations.
.
No Patents on Computer Programs in Europe - A Judge's Opinion
In the England and Wales High Court (Patents Court) Decisions, we have found a readable opinion by Deputy Judge Mr Peter Prescott (sitting as a Deputy Judge) IN THe MATTER OF Patent Applications GB 0226884.3 and 0419317.3 by CFPH L.L.C., [2005] EWHC 1589 (Pat) in which Judge Prescott writes about "what is an invention" in the EU and about the prohibition of software patents in Article 52 of the European Patent Convention (EPC). We have omitted the footnotes and our excerpted text of the opinion is as follows:
"The reason why computer programs, as such, are not allowed to be patented is quite different. Although it is hotly disputed now by some special interest groups, the truth is, or ought to be, well known. It is because at the time the EPC was under consideration it was felt in the computer industry that such patents were not really needed, were too cumbersome (it was felt that searching the prior art would be a big problem), and would do more harm than good. I shall not go into details here but it is worth noting that the software industry in America developed at an astonishing pace when no patent protection was available. Copyright law protects computer programs against copying. A patent on a computer program would stop others from using it even though there had been no copying at all. So there would have to be infringement searches. Furthermore you cannot have a sensible patent system unless there exists a proper body of prior art that can be searched. Not only are most computer programs supplied in binary form – unintelligible to humans – but most of the time it is actually illegal to convert them into human-readable form. A patent system where it is illegal to search most of the prior art is something of an absurdity.
...
Recently, the scope of this exclusion has been under re-consideration by the European Union. The Commission wanted to harmonise the law by defining the line between inventions that are properly patentable and mere computer programs. Although not strictly relevant to what I have to decide, I must admit I watched developments with some anxiety. Had the proposal succeeded it would have entrenched a test involving 'technical contribution' and 'technical features' that I suspect is too vague to be workable at the margin. On 6 July 2005 the proposed directive was defeated in the European Parliament and it will not be re-introduced."
Prescott has an equally cogent statement on the exclusion of patents for business methods:
"Now let us consider business methods. What is the policy reason that lies behind the exclusion of those? It is because, historically, patents for business methods were never granted yet business innovation went on very well without the benefit of that protection and without the red tape. Businessmen have been every bit as inventive as engineers. It was probably business administrators (and not poets or priests) who made the greatest "invention" of all time: phonetic writing. Consider as further examples: the invention of money; of double-entry bookkeeping; of negotiable bills of exchange; of joint-stock companies; of insurance policies; of clearance banking; of business name franchising; of the supermarket; and so on. None of these needed patent protection to get started. A patent system is always a burden on trade, commerce and industry: if only because of the "red tape" effect. The only question is whether the benefits outweigh the burdens. That has to be demonstrated by those who assert it is so, and in any case the decision is for the legislature. In this country and in Europe the legislature has not yet been persuaded."
Everyone interested in intellectual property law should read this beautifully written decision.
Via Out-Law.com (hat tip).
See also European Patent Convention (EPC)
nipc IP/it Update (nipcLaw Blog) - at that site Oracle, Software Patents Revisited
Crossposted to EUPundit.
Technorati Tags law, patents, software, computer programs, EU, European Union, business methods, High Court, England and Wales.
.
"The reason why computer programs, as such, are not allowed to be patented is quite different. Although it is hotly disputed now by some special interest groups, the truth is, or ought to be, well known. It is because at the time the EPC was under consideration it was felt in the computer industry that such patents were not really needed, were too cumbersome (it was felt that searching the prior art would be a big problem), and would do more harm than good. I shall not go into details here but it is worth noting that the software industry in America developed at an astonishing pace when no patent protection was available. Copyright law protects computer programs against copying. A patent on a computer program would stop others from using it even though there had been no copying at all. So there would have to be infringement searches. Furthermore you cannot have a sensible patent system unless there exists a proper body of prior art that can be searched. Not only are most computer programs supplied in binary form – unintelligible to humans – but most of the time it is actually illegal to convert them into human-readable form. A patent system where it is illegal to search most of the prior art is something of an absurdity.
...
Recently, the scope of this exclusion has been under re-consideration by the European Union. The Commission wanted to harmonise the law by defining the line between inventions that are properly patentable and mere computer programs. Although not strictly relevant to what I have to decide, I must admit I watched developments with some anxiety. Had the proposal succeeded it would have entrenched a test involving 'technical contribution' and 'technical features' that I suspect is too vague to be workable at the margin. On 6 July 2005 the proposed directive was defeated in the European Parliament and it will not be re-introduced."
Prescott has an equally cogent statement on the exclusion of patents for business methods:
"Now let us consider business methods. What is the policy reason that lies behind the exclusion of those? It is because, historically, patents for business methods were never granted yet business innovation went on very well without the benefit of that protection and without the red tape. Businessmen have been every bit as inventive as engineers. It was probably business administrators (and not poets or priests) who made the greatest "invention" of all time: phonetic writing. Consider as further examples: the invention of money; of double-entry bookkeeping; of negotiable bills of exchange; of joint-stock companies; of insurance policies; of clearance banking; of business name franchising; of the supermarket; and so on. None of these needed patent protection to get started. A patent system is always a burden on trade, commerce and industry: if only because of the "red tape" effect. The only question is whether the benefits outweigh the burdens. That has to be demonstrated by those who assert it is so, and in any case the decision is for the legislature. In this country and in Europe the legislature has not yet been persuaded."
Everyone interested in intellectual property law should read this beautifully written decision.
Via Out-Law.com (hat tip).
See also European Patent Convention (EPC)
nipc IP/it Update (nipcLaw Blog) - at that site Oracle, Software Patents Revisited
Crossposted to EUPundit.
Technorati Tags law, patents, software, computer programs, EU, European Union, business methods, High Court, England and Wales.
.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
WEF Country Rankings for Growth Competitiveness 2005-2006
The World Economic Forum has released its 2005 rankings for growth competitiveness by country, noting:
See the full Growth Competitiveness Report 2005-2006
.
"Finland remains the most competitive economy in the world and tops the rankings for the third consecutive year in The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006, released by the World Economic Forum. The US is in second position, followed by Sweden, Denmark, Taiwan and Singapore, respectively. "The Nordic countries share a number of characteristics that make them extremely competitive, such as very healthy macroeconomic environments and public institutions that are highly transparent and efficient," said Augusto Lopez-Claros, Chief Economist and Director of the Forum's Global Competitiveness Programme."See the full press release.
See the full Growth Competitiveness Report 2005-2006
.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Free for 3 Days
This is a deal!
I started with the featured bio of the immensely successful novelist Barbara Hamilton Cartland, the "Queen of Romance".
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which ordinarily costs 7500 English pounds to buy, is available online for free to read for 3 days, September 23 to 25, 2005.
If you are a biography buff, as I am, this will fill your weekend. Via the Guardian News Blog.
Cross-posted to LawPundit.
.
I started with the featured bio of the immensely successful novelist Barbara Hamilton Cartland, the "Queen of Romance".
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which ordinarily costs 7500 English pounds to buy, is available online for free to read for 3 days, September 23 to 25, 2005.
If you are a biography buff, as I am, this will fill your weekend. Via the Guardian News Blog.
Cross-posted to LawPundit.
.
EULegal.Org Links Updated
The EULegal.Org EU European Union links have been updated to correspond with recent changes at the EU website.
.
.
EU Pages Currently Not Accessible as Under Reconstruction
At EULegal.org I recently created a website providing quick links inter alia to the major EU institutions and their workings so that one could find one's way around the otherwise confusing, badly designed and non-intuitive official website of the European Union (EU).
The EU pages are now apparently being redone, but rather than having a sensible redirection system from the old pages and at least maintaining the most important portal pages, almost all EU website pages are currently not accessible due to their apparent reconstruction.
Rather, one gets the following errored message:
Aus technischen Gründen werden einige paginas [note that paginas is not a word in German !] auf EUROPA nicht abrufbar sein. Wir bitten Sie um Entschuldigung und danken Ihnen für Ihr Verständnis.
Due to technical reasons, some pages on EUROPA will be inaccessible. We wish to apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Pour des raisons techniques, certaines pages sur EUROPA seront inaccessibles. Nous vous prions de bien vouloir accepter nos excuses et vous remercions par avance de votre compréhension."
That message appears on a page which still contains remnants of graphics that are not loading and which then shows "error" text and the "red X" for the failing graphics.
These kinds of problems and errors should not exist at the level of the EU.
At the same time, we found some renovated website pages of the EU Parliament even though these also contain links to no longer accessible pages e.g. Europe Direct
What we did find online was:
EU Parliament Portal - language selection
EU Parliament - website modernized and updated
European Parliament - near you
European Parliament- public default
European Parliament - description
These pages are a start toward reaching state-of-the-art in website design, and we particularly like the incorporation of the EU map to find country-specific information, e.g. MEPs.
On the other hand, one must ask why the programmers do not center the materials but rather have that material squeezed into the left half of the sreen? Have they never heard of the simple HTML "center" command?
.
The EU pages are now apparently being redone, but rather than having a sensible redirection system from the old pages and at least maintaining the most important portal pages, almost all EU website pages are currently not accessible due to their apparent reconstruction.
Rather, one gets the following errored message:
Aus technischen Gründen werden einige paginas [note that paginas is not a word in German !] auf EUROPA nicht abrufbar sein. Wir bitten Sie um Entschuldigung und danken Ihnen für Ihr Verständnis.
Due to technical reasons, some pages on EUROPA will be inaccessible. We wish to apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Pour des raisons techniques, certaines pages sur EUROPA seront inaccessibles. Nous vous prions de bien vouloir accepter nos excuses et vous remercions par avance de votre compréhension."
That message appears on a page which still contains remnants of graphics that are not loading and which then shows "error" text and the "red X" for the failing graphics.
These kinds of problems and errors should not exist at the level of the EU.
At the same time, we found some renovated website pages of the EU Parliament even though these also contain links to no longer accessible pages e.g. Europe Direct
What we did find online was:
EU Parliament Portal - language selection
EU Parliament - website modernized and updated
European Parliament - near you
European Parliament- public default
European Parliament - description
These pages are a start toward reaching state-of-the-art in website design, and we particularly like the incorporation of the EU map to find country-specific information, e.g. MEPs.
On the other hand, one must ask why the programmers do not center the materials but rather have that material squeezed into the left half of the sreen? Have they never heard of the simple HTML "center" command?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
