Question: Can somebody explain in a comprehensive way what IPRED is as a start of this page?

Reinier Bakels made a presentation for SANE. You can download it in:

• ISO Open Document Format attachment:RBB060517.odp
  • [verwijderen | ophalen | bekijken] (876.2 KB) attachment:RBB060517.pdf
  • [verwijderen | ophalen | bekijken] (445.5 KB) attachment:RBB060517.ppt
  • [verwijderen | ophalen | bekijken] (117.6 KB) attachment:RBB060517.sxi

European Commission exceeds competence with criminal measures on violations of "intellectual property" rights

IPRED2: Makes violations of "intellectual property rights", such as patents, a crime. Adolescents that share files on the internet can be treated as organised criminals.

It is the first time Brussels interferes with criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? Ipred.org says no. A Union that lacks legitimacy, writing criminal laws - it is the start of oppression.

And the answer is certainly no, if the Commission exceeds its competence. As minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En pointed out], harmonisation of penalties should only be done if there is a real EU interest. The [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty only legal ground] for a directive like this, a harmonisation of criminal measures, is a distortion of trade, i.e, if the non-harmonised state leads to a competitive advantage of member states having lower penalties.

In 10 of the EU's 25 countries patent infringement is a crime. Does the fact that it is not a crime in all 25 countries lead to distortion in trade, does it give the countries in which it is not a crime a competitive advantage? Nobody has ever claimed such a thing. There is no legal ground for including patent infringement in this directive. There are 10 more IP rights for which this question has to be answered.

If the competence issue is solved for some of the IP rights, then the 4 requirements of a crime (see below) have to be met in order to meet the subsidiarity and proportionality requirements. The Commission proposal does not meet them.

Without the competence, subsidiarity and proportionality requirements met, the directive is illegal, has to be rejected.

As far as many companies are concerned, patents have to go out - a political reason for rejection.

Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? - a political reason for rejection.

Do we want our adolescents that share files on the internet to be treated as organised criminals? - yet an other reason for rejection.

The Commission made a severe faute passe in a sensitive field. The proposal should meet a flat rejection in first reading in the European Parliament.

In April 2006 the European Commission [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en announced the directive.]

Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.]

[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations)

[http://www.ipred.org/history History]

Main points

Scope

Patents have to be taken out. [http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII:] "It is in practice impossible to write and sell software products without certainty that your product does not violate one of the 65,000 software or business method patents granted by the European Patent Office." [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En Others] protested criminalisation of patent infringement too.

No criminalising of inciting and abetting beyond general rules that exist in some countries making it a crime to incite to a crime

Elements of a crime

Reto M. Hilty, Managing Director, Max Planck Institute for IP, Professor of Law [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty said:]

"As a matter of fact, a harmonisation of IP criminal statutes can be justified from the point of view of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality only in connection with actions by which the following elements of a crime are fulfilled cumulatively:

• - Identity of the exploited object of protection (the good takes on characteristic elements of a protected product or label in a targeted and unmodified fashion – construction, assembly, etc.) - Commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit - Potential to cause considerable damage - Intent or contingent intent (dolus eventualis)"

Note these are the minimal elements. They are better defined more sharp to prevent accidents. The Commission proposal does not even meet the minimal elements. Since the stated aim of the directive is to combat "piracy", the fourth requirement should be "criminal intention", not "Intent or contingent intent".

==

[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations)

[http://tinyurl.com/9djqm EU docs]

[http://www.ipred.org/2005 the 2005 proposals]

2005 : COM(2005)276 final / 2005/0127(COD) / 2005/0128(CNS)

[http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII: Call on the 25 Governments to remove criminal sanctions in case of patent infringement]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/JuriHearing060131En Hearing 31st Jan. 2006]

[http://www.ffii.org/~ante/FFII-ipred051127.pdf FFII letter Nov 27th]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En European Parliament hearing 22 November 2005]

[http://www.ipred.org/nl NL: Gevangenisstraf voor octrooiinbreuk]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2En FFII]

[http://plone.ffii.org/Members/coordinator/FFII%20UK%20IPRED2%20consultation.pdf/download FFIII-UK]

[http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ipred2.en.html FSFE]

[http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0276en01.pdf 2005 Commission proposal]

[http://www.aippi.org/reports/resolutions/Q169_E.pdf AIPPI paper]

[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004)

[http://europa.eu.int/servlet/portail/RenderServlet?search=DocNumber&lg=en&nb_docs=25&domain=Legislation&coll=&in_force=NO&an_doc=2003&nu_doc=1383&type_doc=Regulation Customs regulation]