Via: TAHIR AMIN
UK court to unmask 'file-sharers'
Ten internet service providers have been ordered to
hand over the details of 150 UK customers accused of
illegally sharing software.
The High Court order follows a 12-month covert
investigation by the Federation Against Software Theft
(Fast).
Among the internet providers are BT, NTL, Telewest and
Tiscali.
Over the next two weeks, they are expected to provide
the names, addresses and other personal details of the
alleged file-sharers.
'First wave'
An undercover investigator working for Fast in a
project codenamed Operation Tracker identified 150
people suspected of illegally sharing software.
Most file-sharers use false names and e-mail
addresses. So the software anti-piracy group went to
the High Court to force the internet providers to hand
over customer details.
We expect to be bringing these actions anytime and
anywhere we see software being misused
Julian Heathcote Hobbins, Fast legal counsel
The federation said it would approach the police and
Crown Prosecution Service once it has the personal
information.
"We can easily take down links, but this does not
tackle the root causes of software piracy, because the
links will reappear elsewhere in a matter of hours,"
said John Lovelock, director general at Fast.
"Instead, we plan to take action a lot further, making
an example of the perpetrators to stop them from
stealing and passing on the intellectual property of
our members for good."
The federation accuses the 150 individuals of breaking
copyright law by uploading software and sharing it
online.
Penalties for the illegal communication to the public
of copyrighted works, including software, can attract
a maximum punishment of up to two years imprisonment
and/or an unlimited fine.
Julian Heathcote Hobbins, Fast's senior legal counsel,
said the court action was "only the first wave of an
ongoing strategy".
"We expect to be bringing these actions anytime and
anywhere we see software being misused," he said.
According to the anti-piracy trade group, the Business
Software Alliance, about a quarter of software used in
the UK is an unlicensed, counterfeit or pirated copy.
Via: Monica Narula
Hi all
Somewhat amusing in depicting how life can be fully appropriated!
http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
best
M
Monica Narula
Raqs Media Collective
Sarai-CSDS
29 Rajpur Road
Delhi 110 054
www.raqsmediacollective.net
www.sarai.net
Via: TAHIR AMIN
ALF and Lawyers Collective, on behalf of the Cancer
Patients Aid Association, also filed an opposition to
Glivec (as did CIPLA, Sun Pharma and Ranbaxy in their
own right). We have yet to receive a decision, but it
should reflect what is reported below.
Tahir
Novartis loses patent claim on cancer drug Patents
Controller upholds Natco contention
C.R. Sukumar
Hyderabad , Jan. 25
IN a major setback, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant
Novartis AG has lost a patent claim for an anti-cancer
drug Imatinib Mesylate before the office of the
Indian Controller of Patents and Designs on Wednesday.
Following serious objections raised by Natco Pharma
Ltd, a Hyderabad-based pharma company, the office of
the Controller of Patents & Designs at Chennai has
ruled against the claim of Novartis AG.
The patents office has refused to proceed further with
the application for a patent filed by Novartis AG for
Gleevec (Imatinib Mesylate), a life-saving drug used
in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia, sources
told Business Line.
Novartis was earlier granted exclusive marketing
rights (EMRs) in India for Gleevac. Natco Pharma,
which launched a generic version of Gleevac under the
brand `Veenat', had challenged the grant of EMRs to
Novartis. This case is currently pending before the
Supreme Court.
Subsequently, Novartis had applied for an Indian
patent and Natco had filed pre-grant opposition
petition before the Controller of Patents & Designs,
as provided in the amended Patents Act and Rules.
According to the judgment copy available with this
newspaper, the patent application was rejected after
due hearings on three grounds anticipation by prior
publication, obviousness, priority and also on the
ground that the product was a derivative of a known
substance.
Natco has submitted to the Controller that Novartis AG
has filed claim for a polymorphic form of Imatinib
Mesylate. As per Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, any
salt, polymorph or derivative of known substance is
not patentable unless such salt, polymorph or other
substance shows enhanced efficacy of the substance.
The Controller was informed that the specification
states that wherever beta-crystals are used, the
Imatinib free base or other salts can be used.
Further, Natco has submitted that the technical expert
has conducted studies to compare the relative
bioavailability of the free base with that of
beta-crystal form of Imatinib Mesylate and has said
that the difference in bioavailability is only 30 per
cent and also the difference in bioavailability may be
due to the difference in their solubility in water.
"The present patent specification (of Novartis AG)
does not bring out any improvement in the efficacy of
the beta-crystal form over the known substances rather
it states the base can be used equally in the
treatment of diseases or in the preparation of
pharmacological agents wherever the beta-crystal is
used.
"Even the affidavit submitted on behalf of the
Applicant (Novartis AG) does not prove any significant
enhancement of known efficacy," Natco submitted to the
Controller.
Following this, the Assistant Controller of Patents &
Designs, Mr V. Rengasamy, in his ruling on Wednesday
said he was not convinced with the contentions of
Novartis AG that the patent application claims a new
substance. "It is only a new form of a known
substance. It is found that this patent application
claims only a new form of a known substance without
having any significant improvement in efficacy."
Further, stating that Novartis AG failed to prove
enhanced efficacy of the beta-isomer over the known
substance, the Assistant Controller has concluded
that, "the subject matter of this (patent) application
(filed by Novartis AG) is not patentable under Section
3(d) of the Patents Act 1970 as amended by the Patents
(Amendment) Act, 2005."
Via: Hasit seth
Hi All,
This is a goldmine - http://itunes.stanford.edu/ . The finest audio
treasure here is Steve Jobs' 2005 commencement address. It is all in
iTunes, but all free from Stanford. This has lot to do with creation,
creativity, and technology. Jobs as you know is the greatest
technology visionary alive today - Macintosh, NeXT, iPod, Pixar, iMac,
iTunes...all have Job's fingerprints.
You will need to install free iTunes to enjoy this thing.
take care,
Hasit
Via: TAHIR AMIN
Microsoft to give access to code
Microsoft has said it will give rival software
companies access to parts of the source code for its
Windows operating system.
The concession was made in response to a 2004 European
Union (EU) anti-trust ruling which ordered the company
to share its code with competitors.
It came three weeks ahead of the EU's compliance
deadline, which threatened fines of 2m euros (£1.4m;
$2.4m) a day.
The code will help rivals make their software
compatible with Microsoft's.
"Today we are putting our most valuable intellectual
property on the table so we can put technical
compliance issues to rest and move forward with a
serious discussion about the substance of the case,"
said Microsoft's legal chief, Brad Smith.
Record fine
The compliance deadline was set in December when the
European Commission said that Microsoft's offer of
12,000 pages of documentation and 500 hours of free
technical support was not adequate.
The landmark 2004 ruling said the world's biggest
software company was guilty of abusing its position
and hit Microsoft with a record 497m euros fine,
telling it to open up its operating systems.
Microsoft said that the latest concession went "far
beyond" the 2004 decision.
It maintains that it has tried to comply with the EU's
demands, but says that Brussels keeps changing it
guidelines.
The EU's second highest court, the European Court of
First Instance, will hear Microsoft's appeal against
the 2004 ruling in April.
Via: prabhu ram
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3b421120-8d33-11da-9daf-0000779e2340.html
US demands Chinese reply over intellectual property
By Christopher Swann and Edward Alden in Washington
Published: January 24 2006 23:50 | Last updated: January 24 2006 23:50
Washington could be forced to launch a dispute- settlement case in
the World Trade Organisation if China continues to refuse to hand over
information on its enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR),
say US trade officials.
The Chinese last month rebuffed an initial request from the office of
the US trade representative and has even questioned the US right to
ask for such information. Yesterday a senior US trade official said
dialogue was continuing with China but suggested they were now
expecting a prompt response to their demands.
"We are running out of options short of litigation at the [WTO]," the
official said. He indicated that impatience was mounting over piracy
and counterfeiting in China.
"A resort to WTO litigation remains an option," the official added.
The US, along with Japan and Switzerland, had set a January 23
deadline for China to respond to a request for detailed information on
how China is using its regulatory and criminal procedures to crack
down on intellectual property violations.
Washington is looking for tools short of a formal WTO
dispute-settlement case to force China to protect US software, movies
and music. It last month invoked a rarely used procedure that requires
China to provided extensive data on its domestic enforcement efforts.
But US officials warned at the time that Beijing's refusal to
co-operate would call into doubt the ability of the two governments to
resolve the issues amicably.
The US is seeking a case-by-case accounting of penalties or remedies
imposed for IPR infringement, the names of the authorities responsible
for handling the cases and data on the types of products and
operations involved.
A review of China published by the USTR in April last year said that
"when criminal prosecutions are pursued, a lack of transparency makes
it difficult to ascertain whether they resulted in convictions and, if
so, what penalties were imposed".
US officials have argued that they are entitled to this information
under article 63.3 of the WTO Agreement of Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights, which allows members to request
information on judicial decisions or administrative rulings on
intellectual property.
Frustration within the US has been mounting over widespread breaches
in China of US intellectual property, one of the driving forces of US
economic competitiveness. In October, when the original request for
information was made, Robert Portman, the US trade representative,
expressed disappointment that "piracy and counterfeiting remain
rampant in China despite years of engagement on this issue".
"If China believes it is doing enough to protect intellectual
property, then it should view this process as a chance to prove its
case," he added.
