Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1996/Bloomberg.letter.on.the..html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
Bloomberg letter on the WIPO treaty
``` [I won't beat this WIPO treaty into the ground any more. All I can say is that something is badly wrong when I'm getting vehement letters of protest from such a broad spectrum of players, from scientists to phone companies, while the responsible officials blandly deny that anything controversial is happening. I'm particularly annoyed at the New York Times article the other day that basically upheld the official position that we're just looking at a straightforward matter of copyright versus no-copyright. This is the article that featured Gary Larson's plea to his fans to stop posting his cartoons on the net without permission, as if such a simple case were all that was at stake. Thank heavens for the Internet's ability to circumvent this kind of propaganda, at least a little bit.]
---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu
---
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:11:21 -0500
From: Terry Kuny
From: James Love
----------------------------Original message---------------------------- The following letter by Michael R. Bloomberg, on behalf of Bloomberg L.P., expresses opposition to the WIPO database treaty. Bloomberg is a major publisher of financial and business information, and one of the few U.S. news organizations which has taken an official corporate position on the WIPO database treaty. (for a list of other comments on the treaty, see http://www.public-domain.org/database/database.html)
Among the more interesting points by Mr. Bloomberg:
The letter follows:
---
Bloomberg L.P. 499 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel (212) 318-2000 Fax (212) 980-4585
November 22, 1996
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Carmen Guzman Lowrey Associate Commissioner for Governmental and International Affairs United States Patent and Trademark Office Crystal Park Two 2121 Crystal Drive Arlington, Virginia 20231
Re: Comments of Bloomberg L.P. on the Proposed Treaty for the Sui Generis Protection of Databases
Dear Ms. Lowrey
This letter is submitted by Bloomberg L.P. ("Bloomberg") in response to the October 10, 1996 Request for Comments on the Chairman's Text of the Proposed Treaty for the Sui Generis Protection of Databases, which is currently scheduled for consideration at a Diplomatic Conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") in Geneva December 20-20, 1996 (the "December Conference").
Bloomberg appreciates this opportunity to express its views on a matter of great importance to the United States and all the people of the world . Being in the business of data collection and dissemination makes Bloomberg particularly sensitive to the law as it relates to information and ideas.
I. THE INTEREST OF BLOOMBERG
Bloomberg collects news and information concerning business, finance, current events, entertainment, sports, human interest stories, securities and securities markets from a wide variety of sources and supplies this information to customers in various ways, including over the BLOOMBERG network, by television and radio broadcast, through books and magazines, through seminars and conferences, and through electronic data transfer. In so doing, Bloomberg acts both as a creator/supplier of databases and as a consumer/user of databases maintained by others.
Bloomberg supports WIPO's efforts to focus attention on the issue of database protection but does not favor the call for immedieate adoption of the proposed database protection treaty.
II. US SUPPORT FOR ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED TREATY WOULD BE PREMATURE BEFORE THERE IS ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO DEBATE AND FORM A CONCENSUS ON THE UNDERLYING ISSUES.
The November 14, 1996 issue of BNA's Patent, Trademark, & Copyright Journal reports there was considerable debate about the value and consequences of database protection at the November 12, 1996 public briefing on the three proposed treaties to be considered at the December Conference. The contentiousness of this issue is not surprising, given the novelty of the concept of database protection to concerned parties in the US.
Bloomberg respectfully submits that the newness of the database proposal and the evident uncertainty about the form an substance of the rights and obligations it would create counsel that the database proposal should be discussed, but not voted upon, at the December Conference.
At the November 12 briefing, Chairman Liedes reportedly noted that experts in Europe have been considering sui generis database protection for a number of years and that the European model had its origin in domestic laws of the Nordic countries. These issues have received dramatically less, if any, attention in the US, where such distinctive factors as the Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution require particular and careful public evaluation.
III. THERE IS NO APPARENT REASON TO RUSH TO A VOTE ON THE DATABASE PROPOSAL.
Bloomberg is unaware of any commercial or technological threat requiring the current rush to adopt the proposed treaty.
The treaty's proponents apparently argue that the European community's "Database Directive" contemplates national legislation in the EC that would discriminate against database proprietors in countries without comparable domestic legislation. This would not seem to threaten existing rights of US database proprietors and, in any event, only adoption of domestic US legislation would address this issue. Although such legislation was recently introduced into the House, no comparable bill has been introduced in the Senate and the subject seems to have attracted little public attention, suggesting there is no urgency to enactment of such legislation.
The treaty's proponents also point to the threat of international piracy. However, Bloomberg is aware of no commercially significant piracy of US-owned databases that would be meaningfully reduced by early adoption of the proposed treaty.
Bloomberg finds the existing combination of copyright law, contractual limitations, administrative practices and technological security to be adequate at present to protect its commercial interests. Bloomberg believes these existing protections also are likely to suffice during the time needed for careful evaluation and public debate of the need for sui generis database protection.
IV. PRECIPITOUS ACTION COULD UPSET THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF DATABASE PROPRIETORS AND BROADER SOCIETAL INTERESTS IN THE FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION.
Bloomberg perceives a real danger that the legislation contemplated by the proposed treaty would unreasonably curtail access to basic factual data. Such concerns clearly have been expressed by the scientific and academic communities. Scientific, political and cultural progress all depend on access to information, increasingly on a global scale. Given the complete absence of evidence that the flow of such information is inhibited by the absence of the proposed treaty, care should be taken to ensure the proposal will help rather than hinder the advancement of science and other important societal interests.
Around the world, intellectual property protection generally embodies the notion of a limited monopoly on creative expression or novel inventions in order to create an economic incentive to create useful works that will eventually be dedicated to the public. Sound public policy should ensure that the monopoly conferred is no greater than is necessary to create the desired incentives. However, Bloomberg is unaware of any evidence that existing economic incentives have proven inadequate.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Bloomberg respectfully submits that the US should support discussion of the proposed database treaty at the December Conference but oppose any effort to bring the treaty to a vote and, if a vote is nonetheless taken, the US should oppose adoption of the treaty at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
BLOOMBERG L.P.
Michael R. Bloomberg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ James Love / love@tap.org / P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax 202/234-5176 Center for Study of Responsive Law Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.tap.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.