Tuesday, 20 December 2011

IP and Design - Reform is on the Way

The Government announced yesterday its first assessment of the need for reform of the design intellectual property framework. In May 2011, in his report to the Prime Minister, Professor Hargreaves concluded that design had a “very important contribution to make to growth” to the tune of £33 billion, yet he was critical of the policy makers whose role in supporting IP in this significant branch of the economy had been neglected.

The Government plans to publish a formal consultation on how to proceed in late spring 2012.
Nick Kounoupias, IP specialist at DMH Stallard and ACID’s Chief Legal Counsel said, “I am delighted to see that the possibility of introducing criminal sanctions for unregistered design right infringement is finally on the Government’s political agenda. It has been for too long anomalous that copyright and trade mark infringement can in appropriate cases be punished with a criminal sentence whilst unregistered design right infringement cannot. The harm caused to small and medium sized businesses by the flagrant and systematic copying of their designs is horrendous and to the layman in tantamount to theft. Accordingly it should be dealt with in the same way.”

ACID’s CEO Dids Macdonald said, “I welcome this assessment for design reform. However, it is important that any further research makes clear the relationship between (registered) design rights and innovation in the context of product design. The majority of the UK’s 232,000 designers (in 55 different design disciplines) rely on unregistered (copyright, design and trade marks) and informal rights. In this initial assessment, it is clear that UKIPO has listened and understands the problems facing many SME’s within design. Now the challenge will be to address them sensibly, practically and proactively with more action and less words”.

ACID also urges the Government to fully consider supporting the UK’s designers with the introduction of criminal sanctions for unregistered design right infringement, retaining UK unregistered rights protection and ensuring that in reforming the small claims access to justice system, they fully consider the relative effectiveness of remedies available and costs v outcome.

This announcement by Government is timely because in 2012 ACID will re-launch its “Commission it, Don’t Copy It” positive campaign aimed at retail buying departments which is “win win” all around. The designer is paid a commission and a royalty, The Retailer may use their purchasing power to produce the products more cost effectively and also has the opportunity to create a UK design signature range, thus, actively supporting UK Design and respect for IP in CSR. The consumer still gets an excellent deal but in the full knowledge that they are buying an original design and supporting British design.

DMH Stallard is a member of ACID, is trade association for designers and manufacturers with a diverse membership ranging from individuals to multinationals and spanning many industry sectors. The organisation is committed to fighting design theft and lobbying Parliament for design law reform.

Friday, 16 December 2011

Functionality is fair game!

 
The dispute between SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Limited looks to be nearing an end following Attorney General Bot’s preliminary opinion.

Central to the dispute is SAS’s contention that WPL had infringed its copyright by developing scripts which mimicked the functionality of SAS’s own - WPL’s scripts enabled SAS users to use SAS software without a SAS scripts’ licence. There was no suggestion WPL had accessed SAS’s source code or decompiled its object code to create the “offending” scripts.
The High Court referred to the issue to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) as it concerned the scope of EU copyright protection in regards to interoperability. The CJEU, in turn, looked to the AG for an opinion.

That opinion includes useful guidance and good news for developers designing software to be interoperable with other programs in that:

• Neither program functionality nor a programming language are, as such, eligible for copyright protection.

• Subject to two conditions, a licensee (such as WPL) may, without the author’s (read, SAS) authorisation, reproduce the source code or translate the form of the code of a data format in that program so as to write, in the licensees’ own program, a source code which reads and writes that data format.

The two conditions are:

(i) the reproduction must be absolutely indispensable for the purposes of obtaining the information necessary to achieve interoperability between the elements of the various programs; and

(ii) the reproduction must not have the effect of enabling the licensee to recopy the code of the original program in the licensee’s own program.

Before developers get too carried away, there still remains considerable room to infringe copyright when seeking to reproduce the functionality of another program. This may, for example, happen where a developer copies elements of another program’s build, including the programming steps taken and the way in which those steps are expressed to deliver efficiency and speed.

Of course, the AG’s opinion is just that: the CJEU may take an entirely different view when its delivers its decision, expected in early 2012.

Thursday, 8 December 2011

How to balance risk in cloud contracts by adopting best practice

The first of a two-parter that looks at how to minimise risk when moving to cloud.

Enthusiasm for cloud computing is undiminished with survey after survey showing that cloud adoption is significant. But, in their rush to embrace cloud, are customers taking on greater risks than they need to? And are cloud service providers seeking to exclude all risks when providing services?

The allocation of risk between a cloud service provider and its customer is done through the contract. A Cloud Industry Forum survey earlier this year indicated that 45 percent of customers were not offered the opportunity to negotiate contracts suggesting that cloud service providers are using standard contracts and click-through arrangements. Also, a third of customers reported that their cloud service providers could change the contract by simply posting a new version online. In some ways, the more revealing statistics are that many customers did not try to negotiate their contractual position and simply did not know what their contractual exposure was.

That is changing. Clearly, where customers are looking for a standardised or cheap cloud service there will not be much opportunity for them to discuss the allocation of risk with their cloud service provider, nor should they expect to. Otherwise, as cloud services mature, with more service providers and channel resellers offering cloud products, customers will have the ability to shop around for the best protection.

Not surprisingly, in a crowded market, cloud service providers and resellers are looking for ways to stand out in a crowded market. This includes joining industry bodies, such as the Cloud Industry Forum, which offers an accreditation scheme to a code of practice.

Cloud providers can also adopt best practice in their contracts. In conjunction with Cloud Industry Forum, earlier this year we published a whitepaper providing guidance to customers and cloud service providers on best practice in cloud contracts.

Best practice recommendations include:

Local law for local customers

A cloud service provider that offers a standardised public cloud service with data centres in the cheapest location will not wish to be drawn into any discussions, let alone the customer’s ability to apply its local law. But, where a service provider offers a bespoke or private cloud solution, then it might be willing to adopt the customer’s local law or concede on other issues instead. Not surprisingly, data location and security are key concerns for customers and if the data centre is local to the customer then choosing local law is probably not that difficult.

Identifying location of data centres

Overall, 75 percent of customers said it was important that their cloud service provider stores their data in the UK or the EU, with this increasing to 80 percent within the SMB sector and 82 percent in the public sector. The EU-wide data protection laws are possibly a contributory factor here, but clearly, a cloud service provider stands more chance of winning business the UK or the EU if it has its data centre in the UK or EU. Disclosing where the data centre is located is crucial to this. If the service provider offers a secondary facility from a non-UK/EU data centre, such as a back-up or failover service, it should state this too. It goes without saying that all cloud service providers will need to put in place adequate measures to ensure data security and avoid data leakage or loss.

Documented management systems, processes and resources

Not all cloud service providers are alike. Although there is not yet an international standard that applies to cloud solutions, there are others which might be useful and the customer should investigate. For example, does the provider comply with ISO 90001, ISO 27001 or SAS 70? Does the provider adhere to an industry code of practice, such as the one run by the Cloud Industry Forum? Has the provider documented its management systems, processes and resources? Is the provider willing for the customer to review these (under an obligation of confidentiality or otherwise)?

Best practice recommendations include:

•Local law for local customers
•Identifying location of data centres
•Documented management systems, processes and resources
•Clear SLAs showing average availability times
•Clear statements of what losses a cloud service provider will cover
•Changing and terminating the contract
•Adequate opportunity for customers to retrieve their data
•Migration assistance to a replacement provider

This article first appeared on CloudPro.