On Friday, July 20, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again heard the case Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office. The plaintiffs in the case are represented by the ACLU and PubPat, while the primary defendant in the case is Myriad Genetics.
Case History
WBU: we look forward to the revision tomorrow and we will study carefully. We see ourselves as technical advisors and we are available today and tomorrow for consultation.
STM (publishers); we have been supportive. But framework should not undermine publishers ambition….a legal instrument should be limited where there is no existing …it has to be limited to the essential. Should also be mindful to respect flexibilities. Authorized entities can be trusted By all stakeholders. that could be provided if operationaly prepared and ….
Proposals for revised text for document SCCR23/7
July 20, 2012
(Proposal by the European Union and its Member States)
“authorized entity”:
means a governmental agency, a non-profit entity or non-profit organization that
ARTICLE F1 OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES
Member States shall ensure that beneficiaries of the exception provided by Article C have the means to enjoy the exception where technological protection measures have been applied to a work.
In technical discussions on the meaning of “authorized entity”, Nigeria, Iran and India proposed the following language:
Authorized entity
“means a governmental or non-governmental entity, an organization, educational or teaching institution, including organizations enabled by governments that address the needs of persons with visual impairments/print disabilities including providing them with services relating to instructional training, adaptive reading or information access needs.”
During the three hours of informal negotiations, I am told the discussions focused on among the definition, the first paragraph regarding “authorized entity”
[in SCCR23/7 Auhtorized entities]
means a governmental agency, a non-profit entity or non-profit organization that has as one of its activities to assist persons with print disabilities by providing them with services relating to education, training, adaptive reading, or information access needs, in accordance with national law.
The WIPO SCCR 24 delegates are still meeting behind closed doors (no NGOS and no streaming nor recording). I heard they are still talking about the definitions (see below) and that the 5pm plenary is delayed. Yesterday and this morning we heard quite a bit about “works” and “authorized entity”. If they agreed on these maybe they are now arguing over the meaning of “reasonable price for developed countries” and “reasonable price for developing countries”
SCCR/23/7 ORIGINAL: English DATE: December 16, 2011
ARTICLE A DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of these provisions
Continue Reading
Today is day 5 of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights which for over 2 years has been discussing the first ever treaty that would involved a limitation to copyright, in these case to benefit blind people as well as people with other disabilities. It is day 2 of plenary discussions regarding the treaty for people with disabilities.
Late morning at WIPO SCCR 24 meeting regarding the treaty for people with disabilities.
The US is asking now to go into “informal” discussions.
Continue Reading
Today the discussion on the definition of “authorized entity” has started. It is one of the important and technical issues that could make a treaty good or bad, useful or ineffective.
An “authorized entity” or AE is the institution that provides the works in accessible format to the people with visual impairments who are the beneficiaries of the future treaty. Depending on how broad or narrow or inclusive v. restrictive the definition gets to be by the end of the negotiation, access is conditioned.
Some of the questions this morning: