Derechos de autor en La India
India: open standards y eGovernance
Más sobre La India. Dentro de poco los alumni lvcentinvs deberán empezar a familiarizarse con conceptos tales como "open standards" y las implicaciones que tienen para la propiedad intelectual y otras áreas del Derecho. En La India, ya se están preparando, tal y como pone de manifiesto el informe preparando por el Department of IT y que me ha llegado vía Spicy-IP.
Los problemas de Google: Derecho de la competencia
Begoña Uriarte nos ilustró sobre el particular en la Jornada UAIPIT del pasado viernes. Ahora, la Comisión Europea le toma la palabra: "The top European antitrust regulator opened an investigation into Google on Tuesday to examine allegations that the Internet giant has abused its dominance in online search. The commission said that it was also looking into whether Google may have given its own services “preferential placement” in search results. In addition to its search engine, Google has a growing number of other online businesses, including mapping, translation, video and electronic commerce services, many of which, like the search engine, are supported by advertising" (New York Times).
Patent prosecution highway de la OEPM
La OEPM se apunta al carro de las patent prosecution highways al final acuerdos con Japón, Canadá y la USPTO.
La Corte suprema conocerá otra vez un caso de patentes
Se trata del asunto "Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd", referido a la infracción de una patente de i4i en el programa Word. Segun leo en Patently-O: "The Supreme Court has granted Microsoft's petition for a writ of certiorari and will consider whether patent law requires clear and convincing evidence of invalidity in order to invalidate an issued patent. Microsoft asks that the standard be lowered – at least for the situation where the evidence of invalidity was not considered by the patent office before the patent issued. The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the issue. However, in KSR v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court did note that the "the rationale underlying the presumption — that the PTO, in its expertise, has approved the claim — seems much diminished" in cases where the patentee "fail[ed] to disclose" the key prior art to the PTO".
