In the serie of conferences organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) on the topic of the Europe of Compliance, Jean-Jacques Daigre presented the general theme of this conference which took place on May 30, 2018 on the Compliance as an opportunity need to be seized by European companies.
The American Supreme Court accepted on November 29th, 2010, to hear Microsoft’s claims in an appeal of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit in Washington of December 12th, 2009, arguing that the burden of proof is too high for companies accused of infringement and whose defense is that the patent is not valid.
FRENCH Fiche thématique (Innovation) : L’organisation de la charge de la preuve dans les cas de propriété intellectuelle actuellement en instance devant la Cour Suprême américaine.
La Cour Suprême américaine a accepté le 29 novembre 2010 de recevoir la plainte de Microsoft en appel d’une décision de la Cour américaine d’appel du circuit fédéral de Washington du 12 Décembre 2009. Selon Microsoft, le standard de preuve pour une entreprise accuse de contrefaçon soutenant que le brevet violé n’est pas valide est trop élevée.
GERMAN Thematischer Bericht (Innovation): Die Zuteilung des Beweislasts in Patentverletzungsfälle steht vor dem amerikanischen Obergericht.
Das Amerikanische Obergericht hat am 29. November 2010 Microsofts Klage in einer Anfechtung einer Entscheidung des amerikanischen Bundesberufungsgerichtes in Washington vom 12. Dezember 2009 angenommen. Microsoft behauptet, dass der Beweislast für Unternehmen, die wegen Patentverletzung angeklagt wurden, und die die Ungültigkeit des Patents beweisen wollen, zu schwer ist.
SPANISH Informe Temático (Innovación): La organización de la carga de la prueba de casos de propiedad intelectual actualmente pendientes ante la Corte Suprema de los EEUU La Corte Suprema de los EEU aceptó el 22 de noviembre del 2010 escuchar reclamos de Microsoft en una apelación de la decisión de la Corte americana de Apelaciones del Circuito Federal en la capital de Washington el 12 de diciembre del 2009, argumentando que la carga de prueba era demasiada alta para compañías acusadas de violación y cuyas defensa es que el patente es inválido.
ITALIAN
Relazione tematica (Innovazione): L’onere della prova in material di proprietà intellettuale dinanzi alla Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti
Il 9 novembre 2010, la Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti d’America ha accettato di pronunciarsi su una decisione della Corte d’appello federale di Washington resa il 12 novembre 2009 contro Microsoft. Quest’ultima sostiene che l’onere della prova che spetta alle compagnie accusate di violazione dei diritti in materia di proprietà intellettuale é eccessivo nel caso in cui il convenuto tenti di dimostrare che il brevetto non sia valido.
PORTUGUESE Informe Temático (Inovação): A distribuição do ônus da prova nos casos de propriedade intelectual atualmente pendentes perante a Corte Suprema nos Estados Unidos da América
A Corte Suprema dos Estados Unidos da América decidiu, no dia 22 de novembro de 2010, conhecer das alegações de Microsoft no recurso contra a decisão do Tribunal americano de Apelação do Distrito federal de Washington de 12 de dezembro de 2009. Em seu recurso, Microsoft alega que seria muito elevado o ônus da prova para companhias que, acusadas de contrabando, argumentam que a patente violada não seria válida.
The press release is short. Here is what it says: "Le Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel exprime sa vive inquiétude à la suite de la décision du Conseil suprême de la radio et de la télévision (RTÜK), le régulateur des médias en Turquie, de retirer leurs droits d'émission à de nombreuses radios et télévisions. Le Conseil appelle son partenaire de longue date au sein de la Plateforme européenne des instances de régulation (EPRA) et du Réseau des institutions de régulation méditerranéennes (RIRM) à ne pas mettre en cause la liberté de communication et le pluralisme des médias, garanties fondamentales d'une société démocratique." (courtesy translation: "The Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisual expresses its deep concerns following the decision of the Supreme Council for Radio and Television (RTÜK), the Turkish Media Regulator, to withdraw the broadcasting rights of numerous radios and televisions. The Conseil calls upon its long-time partner within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Mediterranean Regulation Authorities Network (RIRM) not to jeopardize the freedom of communication and media pluralism, which are fundamental guarantees in a democratic society").
The press release is entitled "Le CSA s'inquiète du retrait par le régulateur turc des droits d'émission de radios et de télévision" (courtesy translation: "The CSA worries about the decision of the Turkish Regulator to withdraw broadcasting rights to radios and televisions").
____
Isn't this surprising?
One would understand that the members of a Regulatory Authority, just as many people, would worry about what has been happening lately in Turkey. One can also share the view that these events might cause them to fear for the sake of public liberties and democracy in the country.
Should a Regulatory Authority express its "worry" though?
Shouldn't it be the Government's role instead, within the framework of its 'diplomatic relations' with the state and with the use of an appropriate vocabulary, to express any 'worry'?
First of all, this is a salient example of the ambiguity of the Audiovisual Regulator. Indeed, while it itself insists on the fact that it acts as an economic regulator of a sector whose development and innovation falls under its watch and monitoring (which namely justifies the fact that he reviews candidacies to the presidency of public televisions channels), the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel had initially been created to preserve public liberties.
As such, people who still embrace the distinction that was previously assumed between public liberties regulation and economic regulation still consider the CSA - along with the CNIL - as the prototype of the former type of regulatory body.
Here the CSA expresses its "deep concern" and sends a request not to "jeopardize liberties", which is the polite version of an injunction, to a foreign regulatory authority upon which it has no authority whatsoever.
One can understand that the Regulator develops soft law about operators on which he has actual authority. But what about here? Shouldn't the adage Nemo plus juris apply?
How is the Regulator competent to issue 'releases' in which he formulates desiderata towards a foreign body whose behavior is unappealing to him? Shouldn't the Quai d'Orsay (French Ministry for Foreign Affairs) be in charge?
The Regulator took a political stance here, while it is known that a Regulatory Authority can only be legitimate when it stands as a technical authority; emphasizing on the political features of its job actually jeopardizes this legitimacy, all the more when international politics are involved (which is the case here).
However, the Regulator does preempt criticism in its press release:
It starts indeed by stating that it only expresses this sort of 'feeling' because of the old ties that exists between the French and the Turkish Regulators: it essentially considers that friends can be true to one another, express a few criticism and expect changes. Friendship in the digital media and in politics would allow for many things.
Besides, the CSA recalls the solidarity that prevails between the two regulators. Because they are "long-time partner within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Mediterranean Regulation Authorities Network (RIRM)", the French Regulator is enabled to express the Turkish Regulators its view on how it is jeopardizing democracy and how it should consequently stop.
Maybe the many ties that exists between the Regulators now enable them to give more or less stringent advice to one another, whereas diplomatic embassies now play an increasing economic role: how blur do the lines get!
In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors
ENGLISH
On July 28, 2011, the European Court of Justice rejected an appeal by an Italian digital terrestrial broadcaster against a ruling of the European General Court, which had also rejected an appeal against the European Commission’s condemnation of Italy for having subsidized the purchase or rental by consumers of equipment for the reception of digital terrestrial television broadcast signals, since this was an indirect provision of state aid to the broadcasters.
FRENCH
Le 28 juillet2011,la Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne a rejetéun appel interjeté parun radiodiffuseuritaliennenumérique terrestrecontre une décisionde la Cour européennede première instance, qui avaitégalement rejetéun recours contrela condamnationprononcée par la Commission européennede l’Italiepour avoirsubventionné l’achatou la locationpar leconsommateurs d’équipementspour la réception detélévision numérique terrestredes signaux de télédiffusion, puisque cefutuneprestation indirecte, constitutived’aides d’Etat au bénéfice des radiodiffuseurs.
SPANISH
El 28 de juliode 2011, elTribunal Europeode Justiciarechazó una apelación deunemisor italianodigital terrestrecontra una resolucióndel Parlamento Europeo ydel Tribunal General,que había rechazadotambiénun recurso de apelacióncontra la condenade la Comisión Europeade Italia por habersubvencionado lacompra o el alquilerdelos consumidoresde los equipospara la recepción deseñales digitales terrestresde televisión, ya que estaera una disposiciónindirecta delas ayudas estatalesa las emisoras.
DEUTSCH
Am28. Juli 2011hatder Gerichtshofder EuropäischenUnioneine Beschwerdevon einem italienischendigitalen terrestrischenSenderzurückgewiesengegen eine Entscheidungdes EuropäischenGerichts Erster Instanz, die auchabgelehnthatteEinspruch gegen der Überzeugung,inder Europäischen KommissionItalien nachdemKauf oder Leasingvon derConsumer-Gerätenzum digitalen terrestrischenFernsehsignaleempfangensubventionierthaben, da es einindirekter Nutzenwar,um eine staatliche Beihilfefür Broadcaster.
ITALIAN
Il 28 luglio 2011, la Corte di Giustizia Europea ha respinto un appello di emittente italiana di digitale terrestre promosso contro una decisione della Corte generale europea. Anche tale Corte aveva respinto l’appello promosso contro la decisione della condanna dello Stato italiano per aver sovvenzionato l’acquisto o l’affitto da parte dei consumatori di un decoder, in quanto costituirebbe un aiuto statale indiretto alle emittenti.
Three terms almost unknown to legal systems. Or at least considered as peculiar to Anglo-American legal systems: Regulation, Supervision, Compliance. So many expressions that would constitute Trojan horses by which the Common Law and american mechanisms would seize the other legal traditions to better bend European companies, especially banks, appropriating institutions, imposing strange methods.
Three words by which the invasion is carried out. Through the violence of repression and penalties of compliance, by the mildness of codes of conduct and corporate social responsibility. By laws as new as strange such as in France the law known as "Sapin 2" or the law instituting a "duty of vigilance" to companies whose failure would be to have successfully deployed internationally their activities.
One can have this defensive conception of Compliance, generating a "Compliance Law", produced by internalization in global economic operators of the Regulation Law, which are then subject to Supervision by Regulators, even though these firms are not regulated, as the Compliance does extend beyond supervised sectors (banks and insurance companies).
We can (and maybe must) have a more welcoming, and therefore more offensive, concept of Compliance. This can be the crucible of a relationship of supra-national Trust between these operators and regulators, the former being able to contribute as the latter to serving goals that all exceed them and whose fight against corruption and money laundering are only examples.
In this way, the issue is the construction of the European Compliance Law.
Provisions of the financial reform bill (Dodd Bill) currently being examined by the United States Congress would empower the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to implement limits on speculation on energy futures and derivatives, as well as to impose a much stricter declaratory and supervision regime for over-the-counter trades in futures and derivatives in general.
FRENCH
Fiche thématique (Energie, Finance) : Une disposition du projet de loi sur la réforme financière (Dodd Bill) qui est en train d’être examiné par le Congrès des Etats-Unis donnerait de façon explicite le pouvoir au {Commodities Futures Trading Commission} (CFTC — autorité de tutelle américaine des bourses de commerce) d’imposer des limites sur la spéculation sur les options énergétiques.
Des dispositions du projet de loi sur la réforme financière (Dodd Bill) qui est en train d’être examine par le Congrès américain donnerait au {Commodities Futures Trading Commission} le pouvoir d’imposer des limites sur la spéculation sur les options et dérivés énergétiques, ainsi que d’imposer un régime de déclaration et de surveillance beaucoup plus exigeant sur les échanges de gré-à-gré de tous les contrats d’options et dérivés.
GERMAN
Thematischer Bericht (Energie, Finanz): Der Gesetzvorschlag bezüglich auf die Finanzreform (Dodd Bill), der gerade vor dem Congress steht, enthält eine Verfügung, die die Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC - die amerikanische Aufischtsbehörde für Futures- und Optionsmärkte) mit der Fähigkeit bevollmächtigen würde, die Spekulation auf energetischen Futures zu beschränken.
Im Gesetzvorschlag über die Finanzreform (Dodd Bill), der gerade vom Congress steht, würde der Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC - die amerikanische Aufsichtsbehörde für Futures- und Optionsmärkte) dazu ermächtigen, die Spekulation auf energetischen Futures und Derivaten einzuschränken, sowie eine strengere Erklärung- und Aufsichtsregulierung für das Schaltergeschäft von Futures und Derivaten durchzuführen.
GREEK
Θεματική Έκθεση (Ενέργεια, Χρηματοδότηση): Διατάξεις του σχεδίου νόμου για την οικονομική μεταρρύθμιση (Dodd Bill), το οποίο εξετάζεται αυτή τη στιγμή από το Κογκρέσο των ΗΠΑ, θα ενίσχυαν την Επιτροπή Προθεσμιακών Συναλλαγών σε Εμπορεύματα (CFTC) ως προς την επιβολή ορίων στην κερδοσκοπία όσον αφορά στις θέσεις των προθεσμιακών προϊόντων ενέργειας
Διατάξεις του σχεδίου νόμου για την οικονομική μεταρρύθμιση (Dodd Bill), τοοποίο εξετάζεται αυτή τη στιγμή από το Κογκρέσο των ΗΠΑ θα ενδυνάμωναν την Επιτροπή Προθεσμιακών Συναλλαγών σε Εμπορεύματα ως προς την επιβολή ορίων όσον αφορά στην κερδοσκοπία για την προθεσμιακή αγορά προϊόντων ενέργειας στις θέσεις των προθεσμιακών πράξεων ενέργειας και παραγώγων. Επίσης, θα επέβαλλε ένα πολύ αυστηρότερο καθεστώς αναγνώρισης και εποπτείας για εξωχρηματιστηριακές συναλλαγές προθεσμιακών πράξεων και παραγώγων γενικότερα.
POLISH
Tematyczny Raport (Energia, Finanse): Projekt ustawy o reformie finansowej (Dodd Bill), obecnie badany przez amerykański Kongres, dałby wyraźną władzę Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC – amerykańska komisjanadzorcza giełd handlowych) do stosowania ograniczeń dotyczących spekulacji opcjami energetycznymi.
Projekt ustawy o reformie finansowej aktualnie badany przez amerykański Kongres dałby Commodities Futures Trading Commission wyraźną władzę nakazującą stosowanie ograniczeń dotyczących spekulacji opcjami i ubocznymi produktami energetycznymi,jak również dałby władzę narzucającą bardziej zaostrzony system deklarowania i nadzoru nad wolną wymianą opcji i produktów ubocznych.
SPANISH
Una disposición del proyecto de ley (Dodd Bill), actualmente siendo examinado por el Congreso de los Estados Unidos, empoderaría la Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC – la Comisión americana de tutelaje de las bolsas de comercio) de imponer límites futuros sobre especulación sobre los futuros de energía
Dispocisiones de la reforma financiera (Dodd Bill), que está siendo examinada por el Congreso americano, empoderaría la Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC – la Comisión americana de tutelaje de las bolsas de comercio) de imponer límites sobre la especulación de opciones y derivados de energía y de imponer un régimen declarativo y de supervisión mucho más estrictos para el comercio extrabursátil en futuros y derivados en general.
