Web Dispute Resolution Policy

Philip Argy, Chairman of the WIPO Planning Committee has sent out a new draft Web Dispute Resolution Policy and invited comment. He is in Geneva at WIPO conferences, so if you are there, look him up, otherwise you can join the WDRP discussion group on Facebook or email him comments. It is a shame WIPO are not producing the policy as a well formatted web page. Here is my attempt at a web translation:

1. Purpose. This Web Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") is incorporated by reference into your agreement with us as an organisation that provides any web-based facility or application, and sets forth the terms and conditions that will apply in connection with any dispute between you and a third party involving intellectual property which includes copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, patents, designs including matters such as the use of an identity, name or avatar used by you, or otherwise challenging the legality of your conduct. Proceedings under this Policy will be conducted according to the Rules for Web Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules of Procedure"), which are available at www.wipo.org/wdrp/wdrp-rules-24nov2009.htm , and WIPO's supplemental rules available at www.wipo.org/wdrp/wdrp-supprules-24nov2009.htm.

2. Your Representations. By participating in our site or availing yourself of any services or facilities we provide, you hereby represent and warrant to us that (a) the information that you provided during your registration process are true, complete and accurate; (b) to your knowledge, the name, identity, avatar, photograph and other mechanisms by which you participate in our site do not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party; (c) you are not registering for an unlawful purpose; and (d) you will not violate, nor cause us to violate, any applicable laws or regulations in connection with your acts or omissions in interacting with our site. It is your responsibility to determine whether your conduct violates the law or someone else's rights.

3. Cancellations, Transfers, and Changes. We will cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to your registration under any of the following circumstances:

a. subject to the provisions of Paragraph 8 , our receipt of written or appropriate electronic instructions from you or your authorized agent to take such action;

b. our receipt of an order from a court or arbitral tribunal, in each case of competent jurisdiction, requiring such action; and/or

c. our receipt of an order by an Administrative Panel requiring such action in any administrative proceeding to which you were a party and which was conducted under this Policy or a later version of this Policy adopted by WIPO.

We may also cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to a registration in accordance with the terms of your Registration Agreement or other legal requirements.

4. Mandatory Administrative Proceeding.

This Paragraph sets forth the type of disputes for which you are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding. These proceedings will be conducted under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organisation ("WIPO").

a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to WIPO, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that your conduct involving our application or facility:

(i) infringes any intellectual property rights of the complainant; and

(ii) there is no legitimate basis for your conduct; and

(iii) your conduct is in bad faith.

In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.

b. Evidence of Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) , any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, constitutes prima facie evidence that your conduct is in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that your conduct was engaged in primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring rights to the complainant or to another person, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to your acquisition of those rights; or

(ii) you have used the complainant's intellectual property in a way which prevents the complainant or someone who derives rights from the complainant from enjoying the full benefits of those intellectual property rights, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have used the complainant's intellectual property primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the complainant or another person; or

(iv) you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion between you, or any goods or services you offer, and another person or any goods or services they offer, in relation to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location or on a website or location to which a link is provided on or from your website or location .

c. How to Demonstrate a Legitimate Basis for Your Conduct in Responding to a Complaint. When you receive a complaint, you should refer to Paragraph 5 of the Rules of Procedure in determining how your response should be prepared. Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, constitute conclusive evidence that there is a legitimate basis for your conduct for the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) :

(i) before you first became aware or should have become aware of the complainant's intellectual property rights, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the intellectual property rights your use of which are the subject of the complaint in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services by you or by a person deriving rights from you (but excluding domain monetisation conduct); or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have legitimately acquired the intellectual property rights your use of which are the subject of the complaint, even if you have no formally registered rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of intellectual property rights, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the complainant or its intellectual property rights.

d. WIPO. WIPO is to administer the proceeding, except in cases of consolidation as described in Paragraph 4(f) .

e. Initiation of Proceeding and Process and Appointment of Administrative Panel. The Rules of Procedure state the process for initiating and conducting a proceeding and for appointing the panel that will decide the dispute (the "Administrative Panel").

f. Consolidation. In the event of multiple disputes between you and a complainant, either you or the complainant may petition to consolidate the disputes before a single Administrative Panel. This petition shall be made to the first Administrative Panel appointed to hear a pending dispute between the parties. This Administrative Panel may consolidate before it any or all such disputes in its sole discretion, provided that the disputes being consolidated are governed by this Policy or a later version of this Policy adopted by WIPO .

g. Fees. All fees charged by WIPO in connection with any dispute before an Administrative Panel pursuant to this Policy must be paid by the complainant, except in cases where you elect to expand the Administrative Panel from one to three panelists as provided in Paragraph 5(b)(iv) of the Rules of Procedure, in which case all fees will be borne equally by you and the complainant.

h. Our Involvement in Administrative Proceedings. We do not, and will not, participate in the administration or conduct of any proceeding before an Administrative Panel. In addition, we will not be liable as a result of any decisions rendered by the Administrative Panel.

i. Remedies. The remedies available to a complainant pursuant to any proceeding before an Administrative Panel are limited to requiring the cancellation and/or banning of your registration with us, or the dismissal of the complaint .

j. Notification and Publication. WIPO will notify us of any decision made by an Administrative Panel with respect to your registration with us. All decisions under this Policy will be made publicly available on WIPO's website, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.

k. Availability of Court Proceedings. The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 do not prevent either you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded. If an Administrative Panel orders that your registration should be cancelled or transferred, we will wait 10 business days (as observed in the location of our principal office) after we are informed by WIPO of the Administrative Panel's decision before implementing that decision. We will then implement the decision unless we have received from you during that 10 business day period official documentation (such as a copy of court initiating process, sealed by the court) evidencing that you have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure. (In general, that jurisdiction is either the location of our principal office or of your address as shown in our database. See Paragraphs 1 and 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure for details.) If we receive such documentation within the 10 business day period, we will not implement the Administrative Panel's decision, and we will take no further action, until we receive (i) evidence satisfactory to us of a resolution between the parties; (ii) evidence satisfactory to us that your lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn; or (iii) a copy of an order from such court dismissing your lawsuit or declaring that you do not have the right to continue your registration with us .

5. All Other Disputes and Litigation. All other disputes between you and any party other than us regarding your conduct that are not brought pursuant to the mandatory administrative proceeding provisions of Paragraph 4 are to be resolved between you and such other party through any court, arbitration or other proceeding that may be available.

6. Our Involvement in Disputes. We will not participate in any way in any dispute between you and any party other than us regarding your registration and conduct. You must not name us as a party or otherwise include us in any such proceeding. In the event that we are named as a party in any such proceeding, we reserve the right to raise any and all defences deemed appropriate, and to take any other action necessary to defend ourselves.

7. Maintaining the Status Quo. We will not cancel, transfer, activate, deactivate, or otherwise change the status of any registration under this Policy except as provided in Paragraph 3 above or in accordance with any of our other terms and conditions by which you are bound .

8. Transfers During a Dispute.

a. Transfers. You may not transfer your registration to another person (i) during a pending administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Paragraph 4 or for a period of 15 business days (as observed in the location of our principal place of business) after such proceeding is concluded; or (ii) during a pending court proceeding or arbitration commenced regarding your conduct unless the party to whom the registration is being transferred agrees, in writing, to be bound by the decision of the court or arbitrator. We reserve the right to cancel any transfer of registration to another person that is made in violation of this subparagraph.

b. Changing Organisations. To the extent that it is technically possible to do so, you must not transfer or delegate your registration to another organisation during a pending administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Paragraph 4 or for a period of 15 business days (as observed in the location of our principal place of business) after such proceeding is concluded. You may transfer administration of your registration to another person during a pending court action or arbitration, provided that your conduct continues to be subject to the proceedings commenced against you in accordance with the terms of this Policy. In the event that you transfer a registration to us during the pendency of a court action or arbitration, the dispute remains subject to the dispute resolution policy of the organisation from which the registration was transferred.

9. Policy Modifications. We reserve the right to modify this Policy at any time with the permission of WIPO. We will post our revised Policy at at least 30 calendar days before it becomes effective. Unless this Policy has already been invoked by the submission of a complaint to WIPO, in which event the version of the Policy in effect at the time it was invoked will apply to you until the dispute is over, all such changes will be binding upon you with respect to any dispute, whether the dispute arose before, on or after the effective date of our change. In the event that you object to a change in this Policy, your sole remedy is to cancel your registration with us. The revised Policy will apply to you until you cancel your registration.

From: Web Dispute Resolution Policy, Revised Discussion Draft, Planning Committee, WIPO, 11 October 2009.

Intellectual property webinar

The Lighthouse Business Innovation Centre hosted a web based online seminar (webinar) on "IP Growth Cycle of Early-Stage Companies", 11 November 2008. This was free and a useful event, although it did not cover open access/open source. I wanted to ask about that but the event suddenly ended twenty mintues early, before I had a chance to. The "webniar" format pfoved useful, apart from the abrupt end. But then an IP seminar whi9ch doesn't address open source in the first 30 mintues is of little value.

After I signed up for the event online I was sent a message with a web address for joining. I tried clicking on the link straight away but just got a response saying the site would not be available until the scheduled time. This was frustrating as when it can to that time I found I had to download and install software. This took several minutes so I was late joining the event.

The event used Citrix 's GoToMeeting. This was used with audio broadcast to the participants and synchronised Powerpoint type slides. There was no video used. One problem was that there was no image of the speaker and so less sense of who they were (a still image would have done). Also there was only one voice talking all the time, which gets tedious. It would help to have a different person talking.

The system provides a text back channel for asking questions and for when there are problems with the audio. This arrangement works well, as you do not need to interrupt the speaker. Also there is a "raise your hand" function to get attention.

The audio worked well (I was using the ANU's high bandwidth Internet link so problems would not be expected). It is also possible to use a telephone conference with the Internet used for the slides and text chat.

Other Internet based products provide similar facilities. Also one integrated e-meeting product may not be the best approach. With the synchronised slides you can't go back a slide or skip forward to see how may are left: you are stuck looking at the slide the presenter wants you to. Also you can't read or search the actual text of the presentation (particularly important if you a re blind), as all you have is an image of the slide, not the slide itself. So it might be more useful to simply provide the slides and have people follow along themselves. A separate text chat and audio system can be used, perhaps with the text saying what slide the speaker is talking about occasionally.

Using multiple tools would also make the abrupt end which occurred with the IP webinar less likely. What happened with the Citrix software was suddenly I had a message saying the event had ended and then the application disappeared, along with the slides and text chat. This would be useful for those wanting tight control for a presentation. But for most events it would better iof the slides did not suddenly disappear and the text chat could keep going after the audio ended.

Intellectual property online seminar

The Lighthouse Business Innovation Centre is hosting a web based online seminar (webinar) on "IP Growth Cycle of Early-Stage Companies", 11 November 9:30am Canberra time. Registration online is free:

Licensing of intellectual property (IP) can allow early-stage companies to acquire the rights to commercialise new technology, accelerating their R&D program and their go-to-market plans. In addition, many companies view licensing of their technology as a viable path to market. In each of these cases, the decisions and structuring of license agreements can greatly impact a company’s financing options, its organisational structure, as well as its exit strategy.

This webinar will discuss the stages that companies often go through, from the decision to acquire seed IP, to the decision to commercialise IP through licensing, to what can happen during M&A discussions. Case studies from several companies that highlight the issues and lessons learned will be used to make this webinar a practical, real-world look at the issues as well as the opportunity to monetise technology through licensing.

YOUR FACILITATOR

Martin Suter - Vice-President of Business Development, BelAir Networks.

Bringing to BelAir Networks an impressive track record of wins over a 20 year span, Martin is a results-driven, intellectually agile, strategic business development and technology licensing executive with extensive experience in developing corporate strategy, building asymmetrical strategic relationships and negotiating complex transactions. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise.

Prior to Cohda, Martin was Vice President, Business Development at MeshNetworks, Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola.

Prior to MeshNetworks, Martin was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, SUN Microsystems, and Teradata.

Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and SUN.

Martin’s blog can be found at www.iplicensing.net ...

eeLearn for Open Access educational material

I am trying to turn some of my university lectures into proper e-leaning modules. Apart from the andragogical issues, there is licensing. I don't mind the material being used by a university as part of a legitimate education, but I don't want it commercially exploited.

The AEShareNet Free for Education licence sounded promising. But it doesn't define what "educational purposes" are. Also it seems to specifically exclude exclude open access documents: "... but not supplied to the public". None of the other licences seem relevant.

The best seems to be the Noncommercial Creative Commons licence, I was already using. CC are working on licence terms specifically for education, but haven't got them yet.

CC are working on several education related projects in their "ccLearn" project. One interesting project is Open Database of Educational Projects and Organizations (ODEPO). This is attempting to build a directory of who is doing what in eLearning. There is also a "Universal Education Search" for education content.

But ccLearn have more to learn about "universal" projects. As an example one of their projects is to be released in "the Spring of 2008", but when it that? I am in the southern hemisphere, so is this my spring, or that of San Francisco, where CC is based?

IBM Disaster Management Patent

IBM have applied for a patent on "System and method for optimizing the selection, verification, and deployment of expert resources in a time of chaos ". Essentially this is a generic description of how to allocate people to tasks. It really has nothing to do with disasters or with computer implementation (the same thing is applied to organizing a children's birthday party). It is unfortunate that organizations which otherwise try to present themselves as having corporate social responsibility and technological expertise would risk their reputations with such patents.

A computer implemented method, apparatus, and computer usable program code for finding skills and resources for a chaotic event. Skills data for the chaotic event are organized. A determination is made whether the skills and the resources are available in response to a receiving an identification of the skills and the resources that are required to manage the chaotic event. The skills and the resources are optimized based on requirements and constraints, potential skills, and enabling resources to determine optimized skills and optimized resources. The availability of the optimized skills and the optimized resources are verified. The optimized skills and the optimized resources are reoptimized in response to a determination that the optimized skills and the optimized resources are unavailable. ...

From: System and method for optimizing the selection, verification, and deployment of expert resources in a time of chaos, United States Patent Application, 20080077463 , Friedlander; Robert R. ; et al., International Business Machines Corporation, March 27, 2008

Linnaeus the blogger?

Professor Sverker Sörlin, of the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, talked about Carolus Linnaeus on Sunday at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra. Linnaeus proposed a biological classification system, still used today. Some of the ways used to classify data on the web have similarities.

Professor Sörlin showed an excerpt from Linné - An Ordered Mind a docudrama by Otto Fagerstedt, made to commenorate the 300th anniversary of Linnaeus' birth (a preview is available from Swedish TV). He suggested the ABC might like to broadcast the series, but perhaps it would suit SBS TV better.

Professor Sörlin was not completely positive about Linnaeus, suggesting he exploited his students by sending them on dangerous expeditions around the world (half the students did not return) with little or no pay and then taking credit for their research results. The question as to how much of their intellectual property students own, is still an issue in universities today. He commented that Linnaeus was as much interested in finding plants and other resources which Sweden could exploit, as in scientific knowledge. He suggested that Linnaeus' accounts of his journeys were somewhat exaggerated (like the average travel blog today). He also pointed out how Linnaeus artfully promoted expeditions to government and business. In a way Linnaeus was a prototype for the modern university Professor, who is more business person than academic.

One interesting point for Australia is that Dr. Daniel Solander, one of Linnaeus' estranged students, accompanied Joseph Banks on Cook's Endeavour voyage around the world.

On display outside the Museum was a biofuel Saab car, designed to run on alcohol.

ps: At the Web Standards Group Meeting in Canberra 26 July, 2007 on Social computing for government and business, one of the audience commented that creating taxonomies of information was not something newly invited for the web, but had been done by Linnaeus, 300 years before.

See also:

• Linnaeus 300 Web Site
• Books by and about Linnaeus including his Linnaeus' Philosophia Botanica
• Week in Stockholm (travelogue)