7,541 research outputs found
Les inventions mises en oeuvre par ordinateur : actualité et enjeux de l’extension contemporaine de la brevetabilité
No full textLa question de la brevetabilité des inventions mises en œuvre par ordinateur constitue un sujet crucial pour le droit moderne des brevets et plus généralement pour le droit de la propriété intellectuelle. Absent des initiatives législatives depuis que le Parlement européen en 2005 a rejeté à une écrasante majorité une proposition de directive sur le sujet, la question n’a pourtant pas disparu de l’actualité juridique, notamment parce que les inventions « logicielles » ont continué de faire l’objet de décisions des chambres de recours de l’Office européen des brevets et de tribunaux nationaux. De plus, dans le contexte d’une économie désormais mondialisée, les évolutions jurisprudentielles d’autres juridictions comme les Etats-Unis jouent un rôle très important et sont scrutées avec grande attention, dans la mesure où les exploitations des inventions se font souvent dans un contexte global. Cette contribution introductive de l’ouvrage à paraitre sur la question dans la collection du CEIPI (M. Dhenne et Ch. Geiger (dir.), « Les inventions mises en oeuvre par ordinateur : enjeux, pratiques et perspectives », Collection du CEIPI No.67, LexisNexis, 2019) revient sur trois des principaux enjeux, à savoir les enjeux juridiques, socio-économiques et théoriques, de l’extension contemporaine de la brevetabilité dans le domaine des créations informatiques.The patentability of computer-implemented inventions is an issue of crucial importance to modern patent law and to intellectual property law in general. Despite the absence of legislative initiatives on this topic since 2005, when the European Parliament rejected a proposal for a directive on this subject by an overwhelming majority, the issue has not disappeared from legal discussions, mainly due to the fact that "software" inventions continued to be the subject of decisions delivered by the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office and by national courts. Moreover, in the context of an increasingly globalized economy where inventions are exploited internationally, developments taking place in the case-law of other jurisdictions, and particularly in the United States, play and important role and are subject to close scrutiny. This contribution which forms the introductory chapter to a volume that is to be published on this topic in the CEIPI collection (M. Dhenne and Ch. Geiger (eds.), “Computer-Implemented Inventions: Challenges, Current Practices and Perspectives", Collection of the CEIPI No.67, LexisNexis, 2019) examines the legal, socio-economic and theoretical implications of the extension of patentability to computer-implemented inventions under the current patent law system
Healthcare Activism, Marketization, and the Collective Good
No full textThis chapter engages with three key dynamics of contemporary healthcare - digitalization, marketization and individualization. It draws on several theoretical frameworks to conceptualize the notion of collective good and to consider how healthcare activism may play into defining and defending the collective good when faced with the outlined societal, economic, and scientific dynamics. Presenting contemporary examples from the Covid-19 pandemic, the chapter argues that the way activists define and defend the collective good can only fully be understood by grasping how this good is shaped by other, often more dominant, stakeholders in healthcare: governmental institutions, professional experts, scientists, and private industry – the latter being a focal point of concern for this current volume.European Commission Horizon 2020Check for published version during checkdate report - AC2021-04-28 JG: PDF replaced at author's request2021-06-04 JG: embargo removed following documentation from author/publishe
Geiger, Milton C.
No full textCentro Asturiano membership record of Milton C. Geiger; Socio Number: 122890.https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/asturiano_membership/3114/thumbnail.jp
Anatoma jansenae Geiger, 2006, new species
No full textAnatoma jansenae new species: Figure 18 Anatoma SWA: Jansen 1999: 50, figs. 16–18. Anatoma australis partim: Geiger & Jansen 2004 a: fig. 5 (A. jansenae), not figs. 3–4 (A. australis). Type material. Holotype (AMS C. 402717). Paratypes (AMS C.450272, 7; AMS C.402720, 7; AMS C.402721, 1). Type locality. 238 – 183 m, SW of Cape Naturaliste, Western Australia, Australia, 33.742 °S, 114.435 °E. Etymology. Named after Patty Jansen, New South Wales, Australia, who first recognized the distinctness of the species, and for her contributions to the knowledge of Australian micromolluscs. Description. Shell trochiform globular, medium size (to 2.5 mm). Protoconch of 0.75 whorls, with flocculant sculpture, apertural varix not connected to embryonic cap, apertural margin somewhat sinusoid. Teleoconch I of 0.75 whols, 17–21 distinct axials, spiral of same strength as axial in position of selenizone. Teleoconch II of up to 2.25 whorls. Shoulder somewhat convex, approximately 75 distinct axials on last whorl, 12–18 fine spirals forming at intersection with axials minute, dull points. Base with similar sculpture as shoulder, approximately 20 somewhat stronger spirals; spirals always cords, not as shingles. Umbilicus narrow, continuously sloping with base. Selenizone at periphery, keels moderately strong, moderately elevated; slit open margins converging towards apertural rim. Aperture rounded in lower portion, suborbicular under shoulder. Differential diagnosis. Anatoma australis (Hedley, 1903: Fig. 19) from the eastern Australia has coarser sculpture on the base, particularly with a decrease in density of the spirals in the third closest to the umbilicus; adumbilical margin of adumbilical spirals usually not fully differentiated from surface giving shinglelike appearance. Anatoma tobeyoides Geiger & Jansen, 2004 from southeastern Australia lacks the protoconch varix, and on teleoconch I of less than 0.5 whorls lacks a spiral cord in the position of the selenizone. Anatoma funiculata Geiger & Jansen, 2004 from Queensland is less globular and more angular in overall shape, has a teleoconch I of approximately 0.5 whorls, and a distinct shell strand (funiculus) running into the umbilicus. Distribution. Western Australia, Coral Sea. Specimen records. Coral Sea. 6 m, Saumarez Reef, 21.817 °S, 153.667 °E (AMS C.402669, 1). Timor Sea. 27 m, Sahul Banks, 11.5 °S, 125.5 °E (AMS C.377600, 1). Australia, Western Australia. 75 m, Off Albany, 35.240 °S, 118.342 °E (AMS C.378550, 7). 158 m, Great Australian Bight, E of Hood Point, 34.417 °S, 121.333 °E (AMS C.378551, 2). South Cowaramup, 33.883 °S, 114.983 °E (AMS C.379071, 7). 238 – 183 m, SW of Cape Naturaliste, 33.742 °S, 114.435 °E (AMS C.402717, 1: holotype; AMS C.ex. C.402717, 7: paratypes). 155 m, NW of Bunbury, 33.250 °S, 114.617 °E (AMS C.402719, 1). 200–221 m, NW of Bunbury, 33.000 °S, 114.617 °E (AMS C.402747, 6). 176–182 m, W of Garden Island, 32.262 °S, 115.112 °E (AMS C.402741, 1). 210–212 m, W of Garden Island, 32.250 °S, 115.117 °E (AMS C.402750, 2). Minim Cove, Mosman Park, Swan River, 32.017 °S, 115.767 °E (AMS C.379070, 1). 116 m, off Rottnest Island, 31.673 °S, 115.198 °E (AMS C.378552, 8). 160 m, off Rottnest Island, 31.650 °S, 115.080 °E (AMS C.402749, 1). 110 m, off Rottnest Island, 31.630 °S, 115.178 °E (AMS C.378549, 3). 732 m, W of Rottnest Island, 31.083 °S, 114.767 °E (AMS C.402751, 1). 237–274 m, W of Green Head, 30.750 °S, 114.767 °E (AMS C.402748, 1). 238–247 m, off Cervantes Island, 30.533 °S, 114.683 °E (AMS C.402752, 2). 256 – 192 m, NW of Cervantes, 30.500 °S, 114.633 °E (AMS C.402718, 10). 223–245 m, off Jurien Bay, 30.133 °S, 114.500 °E (AMS C.402745, 1). 197–219 m, NW of Green Head, 29.967 °S, 114.450 °E (AMS C.402721, 1: paratype). 183 m, NW of Beagle Island, 29.725 °S, 114.333 °E (AMS C.402746, 1). 274–283 m, NW of Beagle Island, 29.717 °S, 114.283 °E (AMS C.402720, 7: paratypes). 146 m, W of Dongara, 29.350 °S, 114.117 °E (AMS C.402742, 1). 219 m, W.of Dongara, 29.183 °S, 113.900 °E (AMS C.402744, 1). 183 m, W of Dongara, 29.142 °S, 113.913 °E (AMS C.402743, 1). Point Quobba, N of Carnarvon, 24.483 °S, 113.417 °E (AMS C.379976, 1). 108 m, Off North West Cape, 22.705 °S, 113.540 °E (AMS C.402644, 1; 402645, 1). 2 m, Ningaloo Reef, off Neds Camp, 21.992 °S, 113.908 °E (AMS C.377284, 2). 238 m, North West Shelf, ca 230 ml W Roebuck Bay, 18.500 °S, 118.050 °E (AMS C.402676, 1). Remarks. Geiger & Jansen (2004) noted that there was no consistent difference in the eastern and western specimens of A. australis and Anatoma “SWA” of Jansen (1999). Recent re–examination of the material showed the above indicated subtle differences. Anatoma munieri (Fischer, 1862): Figure 20 Scissurella munieri Fischer October 1, 1862: 390–391, not illustrated. Scissurella munieri: Munier Chalmas 1865: 397. Scissurella munieri: Fischer 1867: 305, 468, pl,. 9, fig. 4 [The figure caption on plate 9 for figure 4 reads Scissurella munieriana, an error noted on the errata page 468 of the volume]. Scissurella munieri: Paetel 1888: 289. Scissurella munieri: Pilsbry 1890: 54. Scissurella munieri: Thiele 1912: 14 –15. scissurellid: Bandel 1991: pl. 2, fig. 7. Scissurella munieri: Higo & Goto 1993: 15. Scissurella ? munieri: Geiger 2003: 77. Synonyms + Anatomus turbinatus A. Adams November, 1862: 347–348, not illustrated. Type material. Holotype (BMNH 1874.5. 19.62. Higo et al. 2001: G 82), 2.5 mm. Type locality. Minosima, [= Mishima Island, Hagi City, Yamaguchi Prefecture, Japan (34.767 °N, 131.166 E): see also Kawamoto and Tanabe (1956)] 63 fms. [= 115 m] (OD). Etymology. Turbinatus: Latin adjective: that which whirls; whirlwind, tornado; spinning top; spiral. Referring to the high spired shell shape. Scissurella turbinata: Crosse 1863: 109. Scissurella turbinata: Paetel 1888: 289. Anatomus turbinatus: Pilsbry 1890: 59. Scissurella turbinata: Pilsbry 1895: 106. Scissurella turbinata: Thiele 1912: 15, pl. 2, figs. 9–10 [after a specimen in the British Museum: type?]. Schizotrochus turbinatus: Habe 1951: 68, pl. 11, figs. 12–13. Scissurella turbinata: Kuroda & Habe 1952: 85. Scissurella (Schizotrochus) turbinata: Kawamoto & Tanabe 1956: 3, pl. 2, fig. 11 [copy figure Thiele 1912. fide T. Sasaki pers. comm. 2005]. Anatoma turbinata: Habe & Kosuge, 1964: 4. Anatoma turbinata: Higo 1973: 13. Anatoma turbinata: Tsuchida et al. 1991: 5 –6, pl. 1, figs. 2 –3, 5. Anatoma turbinata: Higo & Goto 1993: 15. Anatoma turbinata: Yu &Feng 1996: pl. 1,figs. 1–4. Anatoma turbinata: Okutani & Hasegawa 2000: 37, fig. 5. Anatoma turbinata: Higo et al. 2001: G 82 [holotype]. Anatoma turbinata: Geiger 2003: 74. Anatoma turbinata: Geiger & Jansen 2004 a: 18 –21. figs. 9 –10, 18 [map]. Anatoma turbinata: Geiger 2004: textfig. p. 5. Misidentifications Anatoma agulhasensis: Bandel 1998: 34 –35, pl. 11, figs. 4–6. [is A. munieri]. Anatoma agulhasensis: Jansen 1999: 48,figs. 1–3. [is A. munieri]. not Scissurella turbinata: Yokoyama (1924: 35–36, pl. 5, fig. 21) [is Sci. staminea. Fide Oyama 1973: 10. plate reprinted in Taki & Oyama 1954: pl. 42: shows Sci. staminea. Specimen in UMUT CM 21891 fide T. Sasaki pers. comm. 2005). Type material. Syntypes (MNHN, 2), 1.5 x 1.66 mm. Lectotype here designated (see remarks). Type locality. Seas of China, in bottom sands (OD). Etymology. Named after E. Munier Chalmas (OD). Description and differential diagnosis. The species was recently treated by Geiger & Jansen (2004 a) as A. turbinata. Remarks. Anatoma munieri and A. turbinata are clearly synonymous. Supporting characters include the overall turreted shape of the shell, the strong constriction below the selenizone with a subsequent spiral edge, a minor spiral edge on the base 0.66 towards the umbilicus, the shell ornamentation showing a regular reticulate pattern composed of spiral and axial cord, and the open umbilicus, which slopes continuously with the base. Anatoma munieri has only one month priority over A. turbinata. The date on the first page of the issue in which Sci. munieri was described, agrees with the publication dates given by Winckworth (1936). Although the latter species name is somewhat better known, the general rule of priority should be enforced in this case. It is not possible to apply the nomen oblitum/protectum rules, because munieri has been used as a valid species after 1900. FischerPiette (1950: 69) indicated there to be a holotype and one paratype. The holotype was not specifically designated in the original description, hence, the two specimens constitute syntypes. The subsequent holotype indication can not be viewed as a lectotype designation (ICZN Art. 74.5). The specimen shown in Figure 20 A is here designated as the lectotype with the express purpose of taxon stabilization in case other nonconspecific syntypes should be located. Bandel (1991) showed an unidentified “scissurellid”, which is here identified as A. munieri. Bandel (1998: 42) referred in his discussion of Hainella pulchella (= A. pulchella: see Geiger, 2003 for discussion of generic taxa) to an illustration in his 1991 publication that illustrated the species with a specimen from Cebu. There was no specific reference to pagination, plate or figure number, and three Bandel (1991) references were used, but only one dealing with specimens from the Philippines: Bandel (1991) of this contribution. Although A. pulchella is very distinct from A. munieri, it is likely that the reference by Bandel (1998) was a lapsus calami.Published as part of Geiger, Daniel L., 2006, Eight new species of Scissurellidae and Anatomidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Vetigastropoda) from around the world, with discussion of two new senior synonyms, pp. 1-33 in Zootaxa 1128 on pages 24-30, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.27335
Microscopic mechanism of charged-particle radioactivity and generalization of the Geiger-Nuttall law
No full textA linear relation for charged-particle emissions is presented starting from the microscopic mechanism of the radioactive decay. It relates the logarithms of the decay half-lives with two variables, called. chi' and. rho', which depend upon the Q values of the outgoing clusters as well as the masses and charges of the nuclei involved in the decay. This relation explains well all known cluster decays. It is found to be a generalization of the Geiger-Nuttall law in a radioactivity, and therefore we call it the universal decay law. Predictions of the most likely emissions of various clusters are presented by applying the law over the whole nuclear chart. It is seen that the decays of heavier clusters with nonequal proton and neutron numbers are mostly located in the trans-lead region. The emissions of clusters with equal protons and neutrons, like (12)C and (16)O, are possible in some neutron-deficient nuclei with Z >= 54.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000271352900039&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=8e1609b174ce4e31116a60747a720701Physics, NuclearSCI(E)51ARTICLE4null8
Cobitis avicennae Mousavi-Sabet, Vatandoust, Esmaeili, Geiger & Freyhof 2015
No full textCobitis avicennae Mousavi-Sabet, Vatandoust, Esmaeili, Geiger & Freyhof, 2015 (Fig. 4) Cobitis avicennae Mousavi-Sabet, Vatandoust, Esmaeili, Geiger & Freyhof, 2015: 562, figs. 3–4 (type locality: Iran: Hamedan prov.: Gamasiab River at Dehno, a tributary to Karkhek, 34.170 48.355). Material examined. FSJF 3225, 18, 26–37 mm SL; Iran: Hamedan prov.: Gamasiab River at Solgi Sharak, a tributary to Karkheh, 34.281 48.157.— FSJF 3231, 10, 31–56 mm SL; Iran: Kermanshah prov.: Sepidbarg River about 3 km west of Javanrud, 34.805 46.458. Material used in molecular genetic analysis. FSJF DNA-1994; Iran: Kermanshah prov.: Sepidbarg River about 3 km west of Javanrud, 34.805 46.458. (GenBank accession numbers: KP 050516, KP 050525).— FSJF DNA 2712; Iran: Kermanshah prov.: s tream about 1 km south-east of Dinawar, 34.573 47.456. (BOLD accession number: EUFWF 2713-18). Diagnosis. Cobitis avicennae is distinguished from other Cobitis species in the Persian Gulf basin by having one lamina circularis in the male (vs. two in C. elazigensis and C. linea) and distinct, large, dark-brown, usually horizontally elongated blotches in Z4 along the anterior part of the flank, roundish or vertically elongated on the caudal peduncle (vs. indistinct minute dark-grey roundish dots in Z 4 in C. kellei). Distribution. Cobitis avicennae is found in tributaries of the Karkheh and Karun Rivers, which are lower tributaries of the Tigris in Iran. Cobitis from the Little Zab River in Iraqi Kurdistan (Coad 2010) might also belong to this species. Remarks. Molecular data presented by Perdices et al. (2018) and Mousavi-Sabet et al. (2015) and shown in Figure 1, place C. avicennae close to C. faridpaki and C. saniae from the southern Caspian Sea basin and it might be speculated that its ancestors entered the Persian Gulf basin from the Caspian Sea basin by river captures. See below for details to distinguish C avicennae from C. faridpaki and C. saniae. Our own molecular data as well as Perdices et al. (2018) place C. avicennae in the C. taenia species group (Fig. 1). Based on DNA barcoding C. avicennae is well separated from all other Cobitis included in this study and by a minimum K2P distance of 5.7% to C. faridpaki. It is also supported as an own PTP and mPTP entity.Published as part of Freyhof, Jörg, Bayçelebi, Esra & Geiger, Matthias, 2018, Review of the genus Cobitis in the Middle East, with the description of eight new species (Teleostei: Cobitidae), pp. 1-75 in Zootaxa 4535 (1) on page 10, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4535.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/261577
Geiger, Minnie
No full textJohn C. Geiger - husbandhttps://stars.library.ucf.edu/cfm-ch-memoranda-1935/1626/thumbnail.jp
Elaborating a Human Rights friendly Copyright Framework for Generative AI
No full textAs works are increasingly produced by machines using artificial intelligence (AI) systems, with a result that is often difficult to distinguish from that of a human creator, the question of what should be the appropriate response of the legal system and, in particular, of the copyright system has become central. If the generator of copyright protection has traditionally been the author’s creative input, AI forces us to reassess what in the creative process is special in human creativity and where the creative input lies in AI-generated works. But it also poses more fundamental questions on what the copyright system should achieve and who/what it should protect. In particular, since many human authors will potentially face the competition of these AI machines on the market, new ways of remunerating creators will have to be imagined while making sure that the copyright system does not stand in the way of these important technological developments.
This contribution analyses the copyright issues related to so-called “generative AI” systems and reviews the arguments currently being advanced to change the copyright regime for AI-generated works. To do so, the underlying human rights framing intellectual property laws are used as the starting point from which a balanced copyright framework for generative AI could (and even should) be derived. It follows from the applicable human rights framework for copyright, but also from the anthropocentric approach of human rights, that the protection of creators and human creativity must be considered the point of reference when assessing future reforms with regard to copyright and generative AI systems. This approach establishes generative AI systems as an instrument of the human creator – and not as a substitute. It also reinforces the notion that copyright should be a tool to protect creativity and creators, not a legal mechanism to secure the amortization of economic investments in AI technology. As a consequence, it is argued that the copyrightability of AI-generated outputs should be considered with utmost care and only when AI is used as a technical tool for creators in their creation process – in other words, when they can serve a human author. At the same time, AI systems are here to stay, and their development should not be inhibited, as they can have many beneficial aspects (including for creators) if appropriately regulated.
The right to train generative AI systems via machine learning technology can be derived from the right to science and culture and freedom of (artistic) expression (Arts. 19 and 27(1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); Art. 15(1)(a) and (b) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); Arts. 11 and 13 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCFR)), as AI can lead to useful advances in science and the arts; moreover, it is important for human creators to be able to use outputs produced by generative AI in their creative process. This grounding is even stronger when the training is conducted for research purposes, as the training process can then also benefit from the fundamental right-to-research justification. However, since a large quantity of copyrighted works is required for the training of generative AI systems, a remuneration obligation for these uses arises from a human rights perspective, in particular when AI systems have a commercial purpose. It follows from the right to the protection of the creator’s moral and material interests (Arts. 27(2) and 17 UDHR, 15(1)(c) ICESCR; 17(2) EUCFR, 1 Protocol No. 1, 8 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) that authors must be adequately remunerated for the commercial use of their works unless there is a strong justification legitimizing the use. For this reason, it is proposed that the machine learning process using copyright-protected works to train the AI gives rise to a limitation-based remuneration right to the benefit of human creators. The article also briefly explores if and when the moral interest of creators deriving from human rights protection could justify their opposition to the use of their work for the purpose of training AI systems. It is argued that the weaker the fundamental rights claim to train the AI is, the stronger the moral rights claim could be. For example, training an AI to produce works for discriminatory or racist purposes will benefit from a weaker (if any) fundamental rights protection, but will potentially raise important moral concerns of the author of the work used for training purposes.
More generally, the article concludes that in order to secure a vibrant space for culture and creativity, (finally) cherishing and putting the Human Author at the center of the copyright system is necessary (and not only to erect fences to the benefit of copyright industries, which could be the unfortunate result of the recent first broad regulatory intervention on AI by the EU, the so-called “Artificial Intelligence Act”). In doing so, it might be possible in the future to have AI-systems that serve creators and creativity, and not the other way around
Right to Culture and Copyright: Participation and Access
No full textIn its process of expansion and increasing international standardization, intellectual property (IP) law has repeatedly entered into conflict with a plethora of international human rights. Yet, while clashes such as those between patents and the right to health, or copyright and freedom of expression have given rise to numerous scholarly interventions and advocacy initiatives, the impact of IP rights on access to and participation in cultural life has long been neglected.
This situation has changed in the last two decades, due to the detrimental effects of new digital copyright rules on the creation and sharing of cultural and scientific products. The spotlight has turned towards the privatization of public domain and the severe limitations imposed by the new regulatory framework to access to knowledge and participation in cultural life. Several authors have pointed out the need to proceed with copyright reform in order to restore a proper balance between authors’ private interests, individual human rights and public needs, and proposed different solutions to tackle their negative interactions. However, and in spite of the frequent recourse to human rights arguments, few contributions ground their theories on the states’ international legal obligations under international human rights instruments.
This paper constitutes an attempt to fill this gap. After a brief overview of the reasons of the oblivion surrounding cultural rights (§1) and of the most eloquent examples of their clashes with IP rights (§ 2), the chapter sketches the legislative framework related to access to and participation in cultural life, focusing on Article 15 ICESCR and its interpretation, as provided by the CESCR General Comments n.17 and n.21 (§3). Then, in an effort to remedy the Comments’ silence and omissions as to the relationship between its three rights – and particularly between the right to take part in cultural life (Article 15(1)(a)) and IP rights (Article 15(1)(c)) – it translates the indications of General Comment n.21 on Article 15(1)(a) into the language of IP law, providing examples of measures that states may be requested to implement in the field of copyright in order to comply with their obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the right to culture. In this context, a multi-level approach to state obligations, involving in their compliance not only legislators but also courts, is deemed necessary to effectively incorporate human rights in the copyright discourse and, in the long run, to reach that stable copyright balance which got lost in the headlong rush of the international IP standardization (§4)
Regulatory and Policy Issues Arising from Intellectual Property and Investor-State Dispute Settlement in the EU: A Closer Look at the TTIP and CETA
No full textFor the European Union (EU), the dynamics of signing bilateral trade and investment agreements with third countries is steadily going forward. Good examples of such agreements are the controversial “Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement” (“CETA”) between Canada and the EU and, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP”) that has been negotiated between the European Union and the United States since 2013. The CETA and TTIP agreements have given rise to concerns in European public opinion, particularly due to the secret nature of the discussions surrounding the negotiation process. Both agreements contain provisions dedicated to intellectual property rights but their principal characteristic lies in the inclusion of intellectual property rights in the list of investments protected by a specific section of the agreement. If implemented, the enforcement of this protection would be entrusted to arbitration tribunals or to a special court for the protection of investments that is yet to be set up. Hence the question arises whether the regulation of intellectual property by the European Union or one of its Member States, in a way that would affect the scope of the intellectual property rights held by certain large private companies, could be considered as a potential threat to their investments. If this was the case, proceedings could be brought against the EU or one of its Member States, leading to the risk of considerable limitations being imposed on legislators in the necessary implementation of a balanced and effective intellectual property law in Europe
- …
