In the United States, a trial opposes Oracle, applicant, Google, defendant. Indeed, Google has developed its computer system Android from elements of Java. Oracle holds a series of patents on Java and considers that, in doing so; Google infringed it's right to intellectual property. The financial stake of the trial is considerable. The issue of principle also, since it is a question of whether mathematical algorithm of departure was patentable, or at the very least protected by copyright law. Third rank of attack, as presented to the jury, Oracle argued that, even if one were to consider that it was not "owner", Google infringed the general rule of "fair use", leading to the beginning of the general field of the responsibility. In the first instance, the judgment of 9 June 2012 dismissed all, believing that technique debated was not quite original but a technique allowing two computer languages pre-existing dialogue, which is not copyrightable, and that a third party may use. This case is exemplary of the innovation place, as the case law to be inserted into the markets and industries. Oracle will appeal.
In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors
ENGLISH
Thematic Report (Media): The French Competition Authority orders the separation of TPS / Canalsatellite and VIVENDI / Canal + following infringement of the terms of their prior merger clearance
On September 20, 2011, the Autorité de la Concurrence (French Competition Authority) examined whether VIVENDI, Universal, and Canal + had respected the remedies they had made in order to obtain merger clearance during their acquisition of TPS and Canalsatellite. This clearance had been granted by the Minister of the Economy on August 30, 2006, on the condition that remedies be made by the acquirers. In 2009, the Competition Authority unilaterally decided to review whether these remedies were kept. Its decision of 2011 ruled that certain remedies were not kept and ordered the breakup of the new entity and the payment of a fine. In doing so, the Competition Authority behaves as though it were a regulator.
ITALIAN
Relazione tematica (Mass-media): L’autorità francese garante della concorrenza ha ordinato la separazione di TPS/Canalsatellite e VIVENDI/Canal + per violazione degli impegni presi nella precedente autorizzazione di fusione
Il 20 settembre 2011 la “Autorité de la Concurrence” (l’autorità francese garante della concorrenza) ha verificato se VIVENDI, Universal e Canal + avevano rispettato gli impegni presi per ottenere la precedente autorizzazione di fusione durante l’acquisto di TPS e Canalsatellite. Questa autorizzazione era stata concesso dal Ministro dell’Economia durante il mese di Agosto 2006, sulla base degli impegni presi dalle società. Nel 2009, l’autorità garante della concorrenza ha unilateralmente deciso di verificare se questi impegni erano stati rispettati. Nella sua decisione del 2011, l’autorità ha deciso che alcuni di questi impegni non erano stati rispettati ed ha ordinato lo scioglimento della nuova entità ed il pagamento di una multa. Così facendo, l’autorità garante della concorrenza si comporta come un’autorità di regolazione.
►Full Reference: Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institut de Recherche Juridique de la Sorbonne (André Tunc - IRJS) of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, La Vigilance, pointe avancée de l'Obligation de Compliance (Vigilance, advanced point of the Compliance Obligation), Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, December 5, 2023, 12 place du Panthéon, salle 6.
To register for a physical presence: anouk.leguillou@mafr.fr (as places are limited, you will be asked to confirm 48 hours in advance). To register for an online presence, via Zoom: Click HERE
🧮 The event will take place at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, 12 place du Panthéon 75005, in Salle 6, on 5 December 2023.
____
► Présentation of the theme : The Vigilance Obligation is difficult to define because of the multiplicity of texts and cases in which it can be understood. This is particularly true of the Vigilance mechanism, which illustrates, and even emphasises, the Vigilance Obligation. Through international texts, French law and European texts that have been adopted or are in the process of being adopted, the constraints of vigilance, but also the structures and actions that companies have put in place and the actions that stakeholders have taken, Vigilance has highlighted aspects of the Compliance Obligation, and even modified it.
The revelatory effect thus produced and the movement thus unleashed, whose roots run deep and whose systemic effects are very significant, justify a greater focus on mechanisms that are interconnected, whereas they are sometimes perceived in silos, which makes it difficult to understand the whole picture. In the same way, because Vigilance is the advanced point of the Compliance Obligation, we can better distinguish and articulate what is sector-specific, in particular in banking and finance or in digital matters, and articulate them with what Vigilance has, like Compliance, of a more general nature. What's more, the intensity of Vigilance varies according to its ambitions and the position of the company subject to it, which is reflected in the variations in legal qualification, ranging from a duty to a criminally sanctioned obligation.
The different legal systems reflect these developments in their legislation, case law and the practice of companies and stakeholders in specific ways, because these different techniques express standards of behaviour and accountability, which are directly reflected in evidential requirements, concepts of responsibility and institutional translations through possible regulatory bodies.
As a result, the symposium is divided into three parts. After a general introduction on the systemic relationships between Vigilance and Compliance, the first part will focus on the variation in Vigilance Intensities, the advanced point of Compliance, the second part will look at the Tensions that Vigilance generates or exacerbates, and the third part will look at the Modalities that Vigilance uses in Compliance systems.
____
The proceedings of this colloquium will form the basis of one chapter in the books:
Rapport thématique (Télécommunications, Internet) : La première Chambre Civile de la Cour de cassation française, par une décision du 19 novembre 2009, affirme que l'obligation du fournisseur d'accès d'offrir les services à l'abonné est une obligation de résultat.
Dans un contrat entre un usager et le fournisseur d’accès Free, une clause avait prévu l’accès au service audiovisuel, sous réserve de l’éligibilité de sa ligne téléphonique à un tel service. La Cour de cassation estime qu’en dehors d’un cas de force majeure, une telle clause ne peut dispenser le fournisseur d’offrir un tel accès car il s’agit pour lui d’une obligation de résultat. Cette solution, originale en droit traditionnel des contrats illustre le rôle central que la notion d’accès, et de droit d’accès, joue en matière de régulation
GERMAN
Thematischer Bericht (Telekommunikation, Internet): Die erste Zivilkammer der Cour de Cassation (Französischer Kassationshof) hat in einer Entscheidung vom 19. Dezember 2009 behauptet, dass der Internetdienstanbieter dazu verpflichtet ist, seine Kunden Dienste zur Verfügung zu stellen. Dieses gilt als Pflicht.
Ein Vertrag zwischen Free (ein französischer Internetdienstanbieter) und einer seinen Kunden enthielte einer Klausel, die behauptete, dass der Zugang zum Fernsehdienst der Kundenslinie unterworfen war. Der Gerichtshof hat dieser Klausel als ungültig erklärt.
SPANISH
La Primera Cámara Civil de la “Cour de Cassation” (la corte francés de casación) afirma una decisión el 19 de diciembre del 2009 que dicta que la obligación de un proveedor de servicio de Internet de proveer servicios a sus clientes es una responsabilidad objetiva.
Un contrato entre Free (un proveedor francés de servicios de Internet) y uno de sus abonados contenía una clausula que estipulaba que el acceso a servicios audiovisuales dependía sobre la elegibilidad de la línea telefónica para estos servicios. La Corte de casación que excepto en casos de “force majeur” (fuerzas mayores) dicha clausula no excluye los proveedores de servicios de su responsabilidad objetiva de proveer dichos servicios.
The cycle of conferences Les outils de la Compliance(The Compliance tools) began in November 2019 and runs until June 2020. It is organized by The Journal of Regulation & Compliance and all of its partner universities. It includes a conference more particularly devoted to the theme of "La prégnance géographique dans le choix et l'usage des outils de la Compliance" ("Geographic significance in the choice and use of Compliance tools").
Compliance is a global phenomenon. In this, it illustrates the problematic of a Global Law. However, it should not be inferred that Compliance is applied in the same way everywhere in the world. Like any legal institution, it is integrated into a preexisting legal framework, shaped by culture and history.
The aim of the conference is to explore geographic significance in Compliance Tools, that is to say the potentially different way in which these tools are chosen and used depending on the geographic area concerned. The three geographic areas studied will mainly be Europe, the United States and Africa. Opportunity will thus be given to highlight the convergences and divergences in the implementation of Compliance Tools in a geographic vision of the institution.
Under the scientific direction of Jean-Baptiste Racine, professor at the University Côté d'Azur (Law & Political Sciences School of Nice), GREDEG-CREDECO, CNRS UMR 7321
A simple question: be regulator, is it a profession?
As soon as one asks the question, it should be down. Indeed, the time has passed when the regulator was a natural person. Today, in most cases, the regulator takes the form of a Regulatory Authority, that is to say an entity with or without legal personality, incorporated in the State or professional.
Individuals appear as a member of the Authority, even if it is true that the President of the Regulatory Authority often has a very importan role!footnote-17.
The choice of Commissioners is crucial to the independence and effectiveness of the regulatory authority. It is appropriate that the person has "authority" over the area, must be respected and participates effectively in the collective action of the College.
Let us try to recall the two sets of criteria to determine how one thinks the "good regulator" before taking such case the appointment of Mr. Yann Padova as a new member of the College of the Commission de Régulation de l'Énergie (French Energy Regulatory Commission).
Michel Riguidel is Professor Emeritus at the Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications, which has been renamed Telecom ParisTech, where he teaches digital security and new-generation networks. (...)
In 2009, a European Observatory of counterfeiting and piracy was established. In May 2012, the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights took its place, by the effect of a European Union regulation on 19 April 2012. This Observatory has the purpose to improve the understanding of the value of the rights of intellectual property, to measure their effectiveness and to promote the approximation of the laws of the Member States in this area. To do this, it organises meetings between administrations and the private sector and collects information about the laws and applicable case-law. States have to inform him.
