Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

US IP Law Comparisons with Other Countries? 59

Posted by Cliff from the is-there-any-place-better dept.
jpalk asks: "Something I've been wondering about lately is how US intellectual property laws stack up with those from other industrialized nations? Specifically, I've been wondering about things like the durations of copyrights and patents and the number of works that are patented/copywrighted every year vs. the number of such that expire. I know where to find (some) of that information for the US, but I'm clueless about where to find that for other countries." How many countries have IP laws that differ significantly from the framework established by the International Copyright Laws?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US IP Law Comparisons with Other Countries? More

US IP Law Comparisons with Other Countries?

Comments Filter:
  • The English model is not prevalent around Europe. I utterly fail to understand how people got this impression.

  • you can find information on patent issues in Finland in here [www.prh.fi], all in english and so. don't know how relevant this is but certainly interesting

  • PRV (Score:1)

    by eddy ( 18759 )

    The Swedish equivalent is Patent och registrerings verket [www.prv.se]. The site seems devoid of any useful statistics thought.

  • You will more than likely see similar IP laws among most of the European Nations, as well as in Canada and really, and quite possibly Japan.
    The reason for this (near as I can tell) is that these countries have undergone a switch from what I call "productionism" to "consumerism".

    Well, actually the reason most European nations, Canada, and actually a whole lot of other countries are similar in terms of IP laws is because of the Berne Convention. For a full list of countries that have signed on check out some interesting info on the Berne Convention at wipo.org [wipo.org] There are too many to list here.

    Anyway, the three principles behind the convention are:


    (a) Works originating in one of the contracting States (that is, works the author of which is a national of such a State or works which were first published in such a State) must be given the same protection in each of the other contracting States as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals (principle of "national treatment") [3].

    (b) Such protection must not be conditional upon compliance with any formality (principle of "automatic" protection)[3].

    (c) Such protection is independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work (principle of the "independence" of protection). If, however, a contracting State provides for a longer term than the minimum prescribed by the Convention and the work ceases to be protected in the country of origin, protection may be denied once protection in the country of origin ceases[3].


    So that pretty much explains why the laws are all the same: per the Berne Convention they have to be.
  • American law isn't a patch on UK law either. completely different basis.

  • Amerika vs the world (Score:5)

    by lrichardson ( 220639 ) on Friday November 03, 2000 @04:20AM (#653671) Homepage
    The original question was how does US law compare? In short, the US system grants longer patents, covers a lot more territory, and allows more broadness in it's patents.

    The length is pretty simple to explain - longer patents benefit the corporation (or, in less than 1 percent, the individual) holding the patent. The US politicians take whopping bribes...er, PAC and soft money, and repay their benefactors by extending the patents.

    I'm not up on my European law, but England had two points that kept the patent system a lot less corrupt - first, many patents were shot down simply because they were viewed as either 'stifling legitimate competition', or against public interest. The second was that it used to cost a heck of a lot to actually patent something, making spurious and incremental patents much less prevelent than the US.

    The second point is what is allowable. To give the simplest example, Europe won't allow you to patent life forms, while it's big business in the US. (Go Stargazers!)

    Finally, while the trend is slowing, the US allowed a given patent to cover far more than England (and, AFAIK, Europe). Look at Bell's patent, and read about just how much ended up paying to use it, for a case study in legal elegance. In England, a patent could be struck down if any part of it was invalid (i.e. you patent a new car engine, but forget to specifically exclude the spark plugs, tough). The US _does_ have similar laws ... just that they rarely see the light of day. The US, geez, there was some guy who had patented 'sending music over wires using modulated electricity'. And you thought RIAA was bad!

    Finally, the US is exactly like England and Europe in one regard - the patent system, since it's inception, has become just another place where corporations (and individuals) fight to establish dominance. The practice of 'licensing' highly questionable patents to a few of your close business partners (for under-the-table considerations), then going after your actual opponents in court ("But your honor, these seven other highly respected software companies are paying licensing fees, Sun is obviously just being criminal!) dates back to the first few years after the patent office came into existence.

  • It's only 0.5% according to that website, but still it's a totally stupid pattent.
    Anyone in the US managed to pattent bottles yet ?

  • It's ONE WORLD (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There used to be a lot of differences, but, directly and indirectly because of pressure from drug, music, entertainment and publishing companies, these laws have harmonized a lot internationally over the last 25 years or so.

    On the copyright front, the U.S. adopted the Berne Convention in 1989, which did away with a lot of formalities and mandated national treatment of copyright owners from other member companies. Thanks to this law, copyright owners can sue infringers in most countries without much trouble.

    On the patent front, there's been a lot of harmonization of procedures, starting in the 19th century, but really picking up speed with the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and more recently with the NAFTA and TRIPS and WTO agreements and a few other changes since 1990-96. By giving up some of its dearly held parochial (and protectionist) differences (e.g., 17 year term from patent issue, blindness to foreign invention in determining priority), the U.S., again being driven by industry, got many foreign countries to agree to start meaningfully enacting/enforcing IP laws to protect drugs, software and music. This is part of what people are calling Globalization.

    Today, there are still differences in what various countries will protect under patent law, with the U.S. still way out in front on life forms, software and business methods, some of this as a result of grass roots political pressure in addition to big corporation pressure.

    For software and Internet stuff, however, the U.S. is such a big market that the international scene becomes less significant. Who would make a big investment elsewhere in a software business in which someone else has already tied up the U.S. rights? Also, with broad concepts of jurisdiction that developed with respect to domain name issues (not to mention antitrust and securities!), conduct outside the U.S. has a way of ending up in front of the U.S. courts.

    The bottom line is that in many respects, it's really ONE WORLD now in the IP business.

  • Actually it's completely the same basis. The original US legal system was based on the English Common Law as brought over with the original settlers. Many things have changed since then, notably the written constitution that the US has, to the point where the systems are fairly different in operation. However the original basis for the two systems were the same.

    J

  • Summary...

    Various countries:

    • must apply for patent before publishing
    • maintenance fees required

    Countries that follow Paris Convention:

    • If you register IP in one country, you have one year to register in other countries, and have priority over applications filed after registration in first country

    --
  • what actually happens when a copyright is held on one thing in two countries by two companies?
    That shouldn't ever happen, because whoever created it first gains instant copyright protection in all countries that are signatory to the treaty. So, whoever can prove that they created it first can sue the other for breach of copyright.

  • A good starting point for Australian IP information is The Australian Digital Alliance [digital.org.au], in particular their links [digital.org.au] page.

    Then of course there's the article Against Intellectual Property [danny.oz.au] by Australian academic Brian Martin [uow.edu.au] (which was a /. article a few months back).

    Danny.

  • The original question was how does US law compare? In short, the US system grants longer patents, covers a lot more territory, and allows more broadness in it's patents.

    In actuality the term of a US Patent is currently 20 years after application, which is exactly the same as European patents. In the US it used to be 17 years after issuance, however this was changed to correspond to international practice.

    In Europe the main differences are 1). Life forms and software patents are not granted, and 2). The standards for innovation are tougher. As far as I know there is no practical difference in breadth of covereage.

    Another big difference is the publication and review process. The rest of the world publishes applications after 18 months, and allows objections during the patenting process. The US is moving towards this model, and I expect in 5 years there will be very littel effective difference between Europe and the US.

    Japan's patent system is REALLY screwed up - and is a big reason they do not do much fundamental R&D. In Jpan the scope of covereage of a patent is much narrower than in the US and Europe which results in a very bad situation where if you come out with an innovation you can find your patent 'surrounded' by your competition when they patent a legion of trivial variations on your basic work.

  • I find it curious that the previous post has been moderated as a Troll. I believe that the tone of the poster may be flippant - however, pragmatically speaking, I believe that his point has some validity.

    Has /. come to the point where one cannot have differing opinions of the majority without being modded down as irrelevant or a troll?
  • If you think the US patent system is messed up, a Russian company name Intellekt managed to get patents on bottles, nails, and railroad tracks.

    As with the USPO the Russian patent examiners appear to only consider previous patents as "prior art" and to have overworked examiners. The difference is that the Russians regard this as a problem and the filing of such patents as a kindof fraud.
  • Unless you live in Turkey or various other countries, where you can buy materials under someone else's name for dirt cheap, legally. E.g. Armani, Levi, etc. made by some seamstresses out in the mountains somewhere, but with an authentic label stuck on it because they can.

    The issue is that global megacorps dictate the law and so if they don't like something they will either prosecute to the full extent under the law of the relevant country, or pull all trading from that country. And people think that Libertarianism is a good thing? Pah!

  • First, you've got to separate the worlds of patent and copyright. The standard for holding a valid copyright is originality, not novelty. Infringement of a copyright requires copying, and can't be found from independent development. Therefore, two companies from different countries can both have valid copyrights to the same work, in their respective countries or even the same country. And each can exploit the copyrighted work without liability to the other, as long as they don't copy. For example, if two people, working independently and without knowledge of the other's work, develop identical works, claim copyrights on them, and have the copyrights registered, they will each hold a valid copyright to the same work, because each work is original, that is, wasn't copied. If Person A notices that Person B is marketing the copyrighted work and sues, Person A has to prove that Person B copied the work to get him for infringement. If Person B shows that his work was developed independently, he is not infringing. In your scenario, if one company had copied the work from the other company, the copier's copyright is invalid, and that's how the dispute would be handled. If neither side copied, both copyrights are valid, and neither company is infringing. They'll just have to compete with each other. Patents are another ball of wax...
  • Because of the lacks in the moderation system, I've been there.. There simply isnt an option for -1 stupid, therefore troll is often selected instead.
  • As long as it's not Microsoft condoms - full of holes, no protection from nasty bugs, and regular General Protection Faults.
  • The UK Patent Office wants to hear people's opinions on extending patents to cover software and business methods.

    See this article [slashdot.org] for more details.

  • To answer the original question (Score:3)

    by (deleted - SCI) ( 207889 ) on Friday November 03, 2000 @06:06AM (#653686)
    Not that anyone would want to actually answer the original question posted in the article or anything, but WIPO has a number of resources that might help.

    There's the WIPO Collection of Laws for International Access (CLEA) [wipo.org] [Note the the .INT TLD! Also, be aware that the default search page is Java-enabled, so pick HTML-only, if you aren't]

    You might enjoy browsing the "International Patent Data Collections [wipo.int] (When it's complete, it hopes to cover the world - not yet complete, however)

    In fact, WIPO [wipo.int] (World Intellectual Property Organization) or OMPI (Organization Mondiale Proprietaire Intellectuelle - pardon my French) has recently put a lot of new materials on its website, so it's worth a second visit, even if you thought you were familiar with WIPO offerings

    And finally, there's WipoNET [wipo.net] which is gradually providing access to all the IP offices in the WIPO member nations.

  • As of today, computer programs are patentable in US, China, Japan, Australia.

    Despite what many patent attorneys claim, according the law (Art 52 EPC [ffii.org]), computer programs (which are not part of a hardware machine) are not patentable in the European Community (nor India).

    However, in Europe courts and the EPO revision boards have frequently yielded to patent applicants desires, so that legal text and patent grant practice and jurisdiction have been in dischord in many EU countries (less so in France or UK, more so in Germany).

    The European Commission (as well as the UKPTO, see learned from mickwd's posting) is currently doing a revision of the EU patent law and till 15 Dec 2000, inviting comments [eu.int] on patentability of software.

    With legal spirit and practice being divided, the decision may either widen or narrow to the distance to US/AU/JP/ZH (or IN, on the other hand).

    If you do have an opinion the road EU should take, please respond to this invitation. You also might consider supporting petition.eurolinux.org [eurolinux.org] or freepatents.org [freepatents.org].

  • In so far as it's enacted by the UK's Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which does exactly what it says on the can) "moral right" is the right not to have one's work falsely attributed to someone else, or a derivative of one's work attributed to oneself, plus some other minor bits and pieces that don't amount to much. Interestingly, it's legally impossible to sell or sign these away.

  • But the US is still the laughing-stock of the rest of the world wrt software patents, with the Patent Office still granting patents on patently unpatentable concepts. How much longer before someone patents the concept of a word?

  • >what actually happens when a copyright is held on one thing in two countries by two companies?

    That shouldn't ever happen, because whoever created it first gains instant copyright protection in all countries that are signatory to the treaty. So, whoever can prove that they created it first can sue the other for breach of copyright.

    Think again! This is intellectual property (ie it's assignable). Therefor the copyright owners, even if they originally own the rights in all countries, can freely assign the rights for specific countries to others. This frequently happens in the music industry for instance, where some collecting societies in some countries work on the basis of the artist assigning copyright to the society, and others don't.

    A bit of revision before you head into that IP exam I think ...

  • The bottom line is that in many respects, it's really ONE WORLD now in the IP business.

    Forget the rest of the crud you may have read on this story, the AC has got it right.

    Sure there are still differences between industrialised (and non-industrialised) nations, but these are being progressively harmonised out if existence. Historically, of course, the US was always the IP skeptic, as pointed out about they signed the Berne Convention in 1989, over a century after the convention was originally drawn up in Berne (Sep 9, 1886, last revised 1971). Now, however the US seems to be leading the pack. A cynic might believe this is because the US administration has fallen captive to large corporate interests, but this could hardly be the case with a democratically elected government, surely?

    In any case your question (how does US ip law compare) is most easily answered by comparing US legislation with the text of various international argeements. [wipo.int] Undoubtedly the one with the most teeth is TRIPS [wto.org] (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), because it falls under the aegis of the WTO. In fact compliance to TRIP is a requirement of WTO membership. TRIPS is how we managed to stop those fiendish Brazilians from forcing defenceless drug companies from printing the name of the pharmaceutical in a larger font than the brand name on their products (which had the undesirable effect of causing people to buy lower cost generic brands of the same substances). TRIPS was how we forced the Indians to actually afford patent protection to pharmaceuticals (they had previously refused - something about making medicines affordable for poor people - like we're supposed to care that the profits of Swiss drug conglumerates are paid for in the lives of Indian children). TRIPS, it should be noted, also incorporates much of the previous international treatiage, such as parts of the Berne, Paris, etc. treaties.

    While some differences do remain, TRIPS for instance specifically exempts members from enacting the kind of (continental) European 'moral rights' (Berne Conv Art 6bis) discussed above, it is becoming increasingly true that we are being made subject to a global IP regime.

  • 99 little bugs in the code,
    99 bugs in the code.
    You fix one bug,
    compile it again,
    100 little bugs in the code.

    (Repeat song until bugs == 0)
  • Most Europeon countries are pretty close to the International Copyright Laws. The only difference is what happens should a conflict arise. France's rule of law is based on the Napoleonic code. Most of the rest of Western Europe has a judicial system that is closer to the english system (without the funny wigs).
  • It does matter, because if you are a global company, and your patent only applies in the US, then you will look equally ridiculous as with the reverse situation.

    Be careful how you interpret US/European co-ventures. Such ventures are mutual and are undertaken to provide a US company with access to a large European or Japanese market, as well as working in the opposite direction.
  • If you think the US patent system is messed up, a Russian company name Intellekt managed to get patents on bottles [csmonitor.com], nails, and railroad tracks. They had demanded 11 breweries pay them %5 of gross revenues from bottled beer sales.

  • Re:Microsoft Beer (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    >how long it will be before I can buy Intel toilet paper

    isn't that the stock too?
  • Thanks to the rise of global coporate power, and the ease with which western governments give in to powerful industrial lobby groups, international Commercial Law will have converged within a matter of years.

    Of course, reconciling this with other divergeant legal areas might get difficult. Eg, you can move your company to any western country and enjoy the same legal privelages, but you can't move your workforce thanks to draconian immigration law.

  • USPTO discusses this. (Score:4)

    by flossie ( 135232 ) on Friday November 03, 2000 @03:42AM (#653698) Homepage
    The US patent office has a number of FAQs, one of which discusses differences between US patent law and the rest of the world. You can read it here [uspto.gov].


    -- flossie
    http [2130706433] telnet [017700000001]

  • Actually, it isn't "Microsoft Beer" but Windows 99(TM) Beer. Read the article from St. Petersburg Times [sptimes.ru] and the Slashdot discussion [slashdot.org].
  • They are quite different indeed. However, they have more in common with each other than with the civil law judicial systems. No matter the differences, stating that the basis is completely different is a bit overdone.
  • Most developed countries are signatories to the Berne Convention which sets international standards for IP Laws. Countries that are not generally are undeveloped third world nations that have economies that are barely keeping (or maybe not) their population alive.

  • That is not a problem at all. If you commercialise it in the first country, you have to work the legal details out with the first company, as soon as you operate in the other country, you have to work them out with the second company. And if you buy it in the first country and go to the second country it is not a problem either. The doctrine of 'depletion' applies in such a case so you won't violate a copyright.
  • Actually the odd man out in Europe is the UK (with Ireland) which is based on common law like the USA. The other are more similar to the French Napoleanic code as Napolean imposed this system on most countries in Europe during his rule. The most important thing is that the EU law which is more and more involved in IP is based on French law.
  • I do not know if it is fake, or not, but it sure closely resembles what's happening in the USA :)

    --
  • Here [tufts.edu]:& lt;p>INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF

    PERFORMERS, PRODUCERS OF PHONOGRAMS

    AND BROADCASTING ORGANISATIONS (1961)

    Article 5

    1. Each Contracting State shall grant national treatment to producers of phonograms if any of the following conditions is met:

    (a) the producer of phonogram is a national of another Contracting State (criterion of nationality);

    ...

  • I would like to know what in this guys post got him modded as a troll? I read nothing here that is trollish, he made a good, somewhat insightfull comment. At least as insightfull (if not more) than half the comments on this story.

    Perhaps you should read before you mod...

  • That shouldn't ever happen, because whoever created it first gains instant copyright protection in all countries that are signatory to the treaty.

    Is is generally true that the creator of a work is recognized as one and the same person in all countries (even in those that haven't signed the relevant treaties), but the creator isn't always identical to the copyright owner.

    Different countries have different rules regarding who owns what rights with respect to works made for hire. Normally such issues are resolved by explicit clauses in the work contract, but in the absence of such a clause something made for hire in the USA may be found to belong to the employer in the USA but to the physical author in, say, Sweden.

    If the author dies without selling his copyright, it is inherited according to either an explicit will or inheritance laws. If the author has no living heirs, again different countries have different laws with respect to where the property ends up. In Sweden, inheritance without heirs goes to a special fund, Allmänna Arvsfonden [arvsfonden.nu], which awards money for charity purposes. In the USA, I believe it's simply collected by the government.

    A recent, strange case is that of the copyright to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf [algonet.se]. The Free State of Bavaria, which considers itself the legal owner of Hitler's estate, sued a Swedish publisher for copyright infringement. However, the Swedish Supreme Court declared that Bavaria was not the legal owner of Hitler's works in Sweden, and they were therefore not allowed to bring the lawsuit in the first place. Unfortunately, the publisher was in the process unable to show that he had obtained the rights from anyone to publish the book, so the Supreme Court upheld a ban on the publication issued earlier.

  • Droit Moral (Score:4)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Friday November 03, 2000 @05:25AM (#653708) Homepage
    According to this paper [harvard.edu], copyrights in France and Germany have a different philosophical basis than in the US or elsewhere.

    One posssible basis for copyrights is "natural law", where an author has rights to their works forever. (eg. IP is very similar to physical property)

    Another is "instrumentalist theory", where copyrights give an author some control for a limited time, to induce authors to create works.

    Then there's "droit moral" (supported by Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel), which says something along the lines of: "property is acquired not necessarily by labor, but rather by one's joining of his individual Will to some object external to the self. As a result of this process, the thing possessed comes to embody the owner's personality". As a result, if someone disrespects/parodies/any-action, it's said that they're partly doing that to the author. "no strange work be presented as his, but that his own work not be presented in a changed form." Also, some followers of this theory separate authors' rights into two classes: alienable and inalienable. This seems to be a nice compromise between the two previous theories.

    I don't know how accurate or current the paper is. But it's an interesting difference, IMHO.
    --

  • You will more than likely see similar IP laws among most of the European Nations, as well as in Canada, and quite possibly Japan.
    The reason for this (near as I can tell) is that these countries have undergone a switch from what I call "productionism" to "consumerism".

    A simpler explanation would be that the same corporate interests, indeed in many cases the same corporate organisations, are lobbying for such changes in law.
    Also "consumerism" is a poor term since the people who's interests are least served by the new versions of IP laws are consumers (and other end users.)
  • <p>
    Even though the French legislation fully complies with international agreements on copyright law, it keeps as its primary reference the notion of droit d'auteur, or 'authorright', and considers an author has permanent, inalienable and non-transferable rights on their creation. An example is that French movie directors are much more likely to have the final cut than producers in France.
    <p>
    Concerning patents, things are mostly managed on the EU level, with roughly the same rules as the US patent office, except that patents are more expensive to file, so their is not this flood of nonsense patent applications.

  • Terms very similar worldwide (Score:3)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Friday November 03, 2000 @05:32AM (#653711) Journal
    Short, untrue but useful, answer: not much variation in practice. The following are broad answers to give a sense of an answer -- the devil truly lies in the details.

    Although the answers below suggest substantial verisimilitude, there are differences from country to country, both in terms of the subject matter and scope of protection available, that make it necessary for individuals to get specific advice for each nation in which protection is sought.

    While there are substantial similarities in terms of IP these days, there remain substantial differences in other regards, and this may impact on the generality of the remarks below. Each nation protects different things differently, and sometimes gives different terms of protection for each.

    Patents:

    In most industrial nations, the term of a utility patent is twenty (20) years from the date of first filing in the first nation in which protection was sought, regardless when the patent issued. This was not the case in the United States until the nineties, before which the term was seventeen (17) years from the date the patent issued. However, the United States now follows the international model.

    Copyrights

    The well-adhered-to Berne convention requires a minimum term of life of the author plus 50 years. The UCC requires only a minimum term of the life of the author plus 25 years. Signatory nations may have longer terms if they see fit.

    However, the European Union, and later, the United States have extended their term for published works to life of the author plus 70 years. Many nations accordingly feel pressure to, and either have or are anticipated to, increase their terms accordingly.

    Under various circumstances, other terms may apply. Some nations give different, sometimes fixed, terms for motion pictures, computer software and the like. Your mileage may vary. ENESCO has an excellent page with English language translations of international copyright law [unesco.org] for those interested in researching the interstices.

    Trademarks

    In many industrial nations, including the United States, trademarks or their analogues have potentially indefinite terms -- typically lasting so long as the trademark remains valid, and the trademark owner conforms with applicable registration requirements.
  • this comes from the French notion of droit d'auteur, or author's right, which are indeed non-transferable. French law only allows financial revenue to be transfered, excluding all other rights.
  • And viruses get through all the time! I can just imagine Microsoft trying to cover up the holes by calling them features.
    "Microsoft Lubricated 2000 - Now with 20% fewer....add-ons"
  • One of the main differences between US patent system and (virtually) the rest of the world is that in the US, the patent is granted to the first to invent a product, while in the rest of the world, the patent is granted to the first person to file the patent application.

    While the US system seems more fair at the first glance, it also requires everybody to keep records that can be proven to be non-forged of all steps leading up to the actual invention, in case someone else sues because they claim they came up with the idea first.

    Because of that, more people try to sue their way to patents, rather than actually spend time on actual inventing.

    The drawback of the "first to file"-system is (basically) that if you're just a single day later than your competitor (even if he actually stole your drawings on the same day he filed the application), you won't be granted the patent.

    /FLu (Sweden, Europe).

  • An example of how different patent systems work is the case of laser barcode readers. Symbol has some patents that are only recognized in the US. Other countries think that they are about well known facts.

    Manufacturers from Europe and Asia have declined to license those patents in the US as that would mean that they would have to license them in the rest of the world too. As a consequence Symbol has a near monopoly in the US.

    Who is this foolish moderator who thinks that gay frustrations are on topic for this item?
  • Thanks, that looks like it applies to entertainment specifically. My wife works as a patent searcher for a conglomerate, and it seems an entirely different kettle of fish re IP.
    That's just one treaty, there are other treaties with similar wording that cover "publications" etc. (like this [cornell.edu] one does here [cornell.edu]). Bear in mind that these are treaties, not laws - they are agreements between nations to impliment laws, and I believe that the signatory nations have done so, at least in the majority.
  • The big difference between U.S. and European patents, is that the European patent office does a long research, which usually takes about 6 months, before granting a patent. A patent that is granted by the Europian patent office is valid in all countries of the Europian Union, but some countries also have national patent offices, some do less secure research about patents. A U.S. patent is granted very easily, but can also be attacked very easy. On the other hand, if the E.P.O. grants a patent it is almost impossible to attack it. The holder of a patent receives a monopoly on a technology for the first year after the patent is granted. If the patentholder decides to use the patent commercially within this year, this monopoly is extended for the duration of the patent. If he doesn't do this, he *must* let others also use the technology, allthough he remains the owner of the patent. In general the European patent system seems to work better than the U.S. system. There are no stupid issues about patents on hyperlinks here.
  • I am sorry that you found it necessary to post something as me and unfortunately I retired before your post even went up. But just to set the record straightI am the real Anne Marie at educatedescort.com [educatedescort.com] who is now retired and happy thank you very much.
  • On the contrary. Quite bit of Europe is considered as a part of the French-Roman civil law tradition, while most of the rest, with the exception of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, are considered as a part of the German-Romand civil law tradition. Scotland is unique in itself, it is partly common law, partly roman law which applies. You have other mixtures, like The Netherlands which is a mix of German-Roman and French-Roman Law. Belgium is firmly rooted in the French-Roman civil tradition for example. Not that these distinctions matter that much, since intellectual property is one of the fields where most systems are converging.

  • Similar (Score:3)

    by Jon Erikson ( 198204 ) on Friday November 03, 2000 @03:10AM (#653720)

    Due to the fact that a lot of the details of American law is based on the English model, which is also prevalent around Europe, there aren't that many differences in the fundamental concepts behind intellectual property laws in much of the world.

    Of course, the actual figures will be different owing to America's vast corporate feudal lords have more influence upon the state than in other countries, and passing laws to get all kinds of IP extended in their favour. And when Bush wins the election, you can be sure that the situation will get even worse as his corporate masters carry on pimping him...

  • Microsoft Beer (Score:3)

    by batobin ( 10158 ) on Friday November 03, 2000 @03:01AM (#653721) Homepage
    All I know is that you can buy Microsoft beer in Russia. I want to know how long it will be before I can buy Intel toilet paper and Apple condoms in America.
  • As you were referring already to the international framework, it is not much different outside the USA. I can only speak for Europe, but the differences are quite nuanced, especially in copyright law. The fair use doctrine in copyright law for example is a typical common law concept, and does not always have a counterpart in civil law systems. Most of the differences are in areas like whether you can still exert a copyright law were trademark law or design law apply as well.
  • You will more than likely see similar IP laws among most of the European Nations, as well as in Canada, and quite possibly Japan.

    The reason for this (near as I can tell) is that these countries have undergone a switch from what I call "productionism" to "consumerism".

    Basically, production based societies are oriented towards making goods to ship/export all over the world. Consumer based societies not only make and consume their own items, but that of other societies.

    In countries with a low amount of consumerism (I.E. Saudi Arabia) IP laws exist, but are not enforced strongly. Countries that make goods based on so called "prior art" or are direct copies, generally tend to not consume those same items. (If they did, Habib A would be screaming bloody murder about Habib B stealing his work.)

    In European countries (I.E. westernized) the trend goes in the opposite direction. For the most part, you will see high amounts of enforcement, and legal rights over Intellectual Property, and very little actual "balloon stealing."

    This is because your consumer who wants a "Sony Walkman" is probably going to go buy a "Sony" Walkman, and not some re-skinned knock off.

    Another thing that helps westernized nations in this is a significant increase in so called "Commercial Centers." The trend away from open air markets in small villages keeps knock offs, which are produced in a limited supply from gaining shelf space in your local shopping plaza.

    IP laws are usually pretty fair the world over. Any developing nation probably has some law or another on the subject. The difference comes in how the consumer views the object being copied, or in how the object maker can sell his or her wares.

    krystal_blade

  • So what actually happens when a copyright is held on one thing in two countries by two companies?

    How does this get worked out internationally?

    Does it break down to who can afford most lawyers? Or is there an international court for copyrights?

    It seems to me that there'd be a huge risk with any system of the smaller, poorer, 'less important' nations suffering in this type of system. Especially as there are more and more ill thought out Patents/copyrights being granted.

Slashdot Top Deals

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Close