<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<STYLE type=text/css>DIV {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16640" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>>> Refer to article 17, paragraph 2 of that charter. Here it is
in full:<BR>>> <BR>>> "2. Intellectual property shall be
protected."<BR><BR>> I do agree: this is fully rejectable.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>This provision was taken
from the first protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights (art. 1), but
the text has been changed in a confusing and dangerous way. Note that the
protection of property in art. 14 of the German constitution (GG) is also
supposed to encompass intellectual property. The Lisbon treaty may be
controversial, the ECHR and the GG are not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>For a proper understnding
(and political response) a sharp distinction must be made:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>1. Property rights ONCE
LEGALLY ASSIGNED should not be taken away from people by the government without
a careful procedure and only with a careful disappropriation
procedure. This is the true human right. By now, it is fairly obvious, but
it has not always been. In Europe it is the result of the French Revolution. In
China, its was established only a few years ago. BTW this aspect of property
also helps authors to refrain from commercial exploitation (copyleft!). If a
government decides by default assumption that all authors want to be
financially compensated, e.g. by a levy, they actually violate this human
right! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>2. The risk however is that
one will interpret this provision in the sense that any information is entitled
an exclusive right ( "intellectual property right"). This is what PP
should oppose against. Traditionally lawyers agree that freedom of
information is the rule, and exclusive rights are the exception, if and when
established explicitly by law: copyright, patents, trademark law, etc. There is
a tendency however to accept an alleged need for unwritten intellectual property
rights, such as know how, e.g. because it is an important asset for
firms.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>But an interpretation of
the Lisbon treaty in this sense is wrong, if not outright
dishonest.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>reinier </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>