<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;switzerland&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:17:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>WIPO Scared Of The Pirate Party; Won't Give It Observer Status Due To Objections Despite Meeting Criteria</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121003/17515420586/wipo-scared-pirate-party-wont-give-it-observer-status-due-to-objections-despite-meeting-criteria.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121003/17515420586/wipo-scared-pirate-party-wont-give-it-observer-status-due-to-objections-despite-meeting-criteria.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There was a report a few weeks back noting that WIPO had been <a href="http://wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/govbody/en/a_50/a_50_2.pdf">in favor</a> (pdf) of allowing the Pirate Party International to be designated as an accredited "observer" to WIPO meetings (which would allow them to participate as an non-governmental organization, but without voting powers).  However, it appears that the official decision on this <a href="http://www.keionline.org/node/1561" target="_blank">has now been delayed</a> because of objections from Swiss, French and US (who else?) officials:
<blockquote><i>
This morning, under agenda item 6, the WIPO General Assemblies decided to defer a decision until 2013 on the application for accreditation by Pirate Parties International. I was told that the US, Switzerland the France raised objections in the informal consultations, and that some other European countries wanted to raise objections, but found it awkward given the recent success of domestic Pirate Parties in national elections. The USA said it asked for a hold on the decision until WIPO could decide if it wanted to accept political parties as WIPO observers. One delegate said European countries were concerned that the Pirate Parties would take "political action" back home when they disagreed with positions taken by the official delegates at the WIPO meetings.
</i></blockquote>
While it is a legitimate question as to whether or not political parties should count as NGOs, the whole thing still feels pretty questionable.  As Jamie Love notes, it just makes WIPO look like it's afraid of the Pirate Party.
<blockquote><i>
KEI's view is that the decision to block the Pirate Parties International application made WIPO look even more captured by right holders than it actually is. To the extent that intellectual property rights issues become seen as political rather than simply technical matters, it may be possible to have broader, deeper and more useful debates on the purpose and performance of the intellectual property rights system. Why? Because many of the technical staff at the government levels are caught up in a system where responsiveness to right-holder interests is key to promotions or job retention, and the robust revolving door with industry creates incentives to be anti-consumer. 
</i></blockquote>
In other words, another blown opportunity to try to move things forward, rather than staring longingly at the past.
<br /><br />
Meanwhile, others are pointing out that the Pirate Parties International appears to meet all the criteria, and thus it is <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/10/04/delay-of-pirate-parties-wipo-observer-status-raises-questions/?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ip-watch+%28Intellectual+Property+Watch%29" target="_blank">completely ridiculous</a> to delay their observer status:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;If the NGO&#8217;s application falls within a plain wording of the rules and regulations defining what NGOs may be accredited, then the application should be granted,&#8221; he said. &#8220;From our perspective, what harm can there be for the secretariat of a political party to be an observer at WIPO? If anything, it seems to us this will lead to a better understanding by that secretariat of the international dimension of IP public policy, which is no bad thing.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
The whole thing seems like a typical negative reaction to the party simply because of its name, without any recognition of what it actually stands for, driven by pressure from the US.  WIPO looking like a US stooge yet again?  Not a huge surprise.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121003/17515420586/wipo-scared-pirate-party-wont-give-it-observer-status-due-to-objections-despite-meeting-criteria.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121003/17515420586/wipo-scared-pirate-party-wont-give-it-observer-status-due-to-objections-despite-meeting-criteria.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121003/17515420586/wipo-scared-pirate-party-wont-give-it-observer-status-due-to-objections-despite-meeting-criteria.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-of-course</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121003/17515420586</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:34:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple Accused Of 'Violating The Rights' Of Iconic Swiss Railway Clock</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/22491220490/apple-accused-violating-rights-iconic-swiss-railway-clock.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/22491220490/apple-accused-violating-rights-iconic-swiss-railway-clock.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apple is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120912/14350920362/feeling-threatened-online-grocery-store-apple-challenges-polish-site-apl.shtml">notoriously aggressive</a> when it comes to going after others for supposedly violating its trademarks -- often taking it to extreme levels.  So it seems noteworthy, as many of you sent in, that the Swiss Railway Service (SBB) is claiming that Apple's clock app in iOS 6 <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57517054-37/apple-accused-of-ripping-off-famous-swiss-clock-design/" target="_blank">happens to infringe on a clock design they hold the rights to</a>.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/nLj3S"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/nLj3S.png" width=400 /></a>
</center>
On the left is Apple's app.  On the right, is SBB's iconic version.  While the article above quoted someone from SBB saying that he's "happy" that Apple used the design, that doesn't mean that they're okay with it.  <a href="http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/20/swiss-federal-railways-says-apple-copied-its-iconic-railway-clock/" target="_blank">They're not</a>:
<blockquote><i>
SBB is the sole owner of the trademark and copyright of the railway clock. The railway company will now get in touch with Apple. The aim is a legal, as well as a financial solution. It is not right that one [Apple] simply copies the design.
</i></blockquote>
Apple has a bit of a history of playing fast and loose with the artwork it uses.  Remember the story of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100208/0424568083.shtml">iPad background image</a>?  And there are plenty of reasons to suggest that Apple <i>should</i> be able to do this.  But, considering how aggressive it is in enforcing its own trademarks, you'd think that it would be a lot more careful before doing things like this.  Of course, you have to also wonder... if Apple weren't so aggressive with its own trademarks, would SBB be so insistent on a "legal" and "financial" solution?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/22491220490/apple-accused-violating-rights-iconic-swiss-railway-clock.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/22491220490/apple-accused-violating-rights-iconic-swiss-railway-clock.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/22491220490/apple-accused-violating-rights-iconic-swiss-railway-clock.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>live-by-the-sword...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120923/22491220490</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:28:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120921/15010920465/switzerland-questions-crazy-hollywood-claims-about-file-sharing-ends-up-congressional-watchlist.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120921/15010920465/switzerland-questions-crazy-hollywood-claims-about-file-sharing-ends-up-congressional-watchlist.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last December, we wrote about a report put out by the Swiss executive branch noting that, based on their research, it appeared that unauthorized file sharing <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/12492616979/swiss-government-says-file-sharing-isnt-big-deal-artist-are-fine-industry-should-adapt.shtml">was not a big deal</a>, showing that consumers were still spending just as much on entertainment, and that much of it was going directly to artists, rather than to middlemen.  In other words, it was a market shift, not a big law enforcement problem.  At the time, we wondered if Switzerland had just bought itself a place on the USTR's "Special 301 list" that the administration uses each year to shame countries that Hollywood doesn't like.
<br /><br />
That list doesn't come out for a bit, but there's another, similar list, put out by the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus (yeah) that <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/new-anti-piracy-watchlist-zooms-in-on-file-sharing-tolerant-countries-120921/?utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">has added Switzerland to its "bad countries" list</a> along with China, Russia and Ukraine.  Italy also joined Switzerland as a "first-timer" on the list -- despite rulings that required ISPs to block access to various file sharing sites.  The issue in Italy?  I'd guess that a story we had earlier this year has something to do with it.  After some political fighting, the government there basically decided to just <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/04252118780/italian-govt-gives-up-trying-to-regulate-copyright-online.shtml">stop regulating</a> copyright issues online.  There's also an upcoming fight about new copyright proposals coming in Italy, and this seems like a preemptive strike for some of Hollywood's favorite Congressional Reps and Senators to pressure Italy into approving bad laws that Hollywood likes.
<br /><br />
Meanwhile, both Spain and Canada -- who passed legislation very much at the behest of American interests -- were removed from the evil part of the list and switched to "in transition."  The message is not particularly subtle: do not, at any cost, question Hollywood's planned copyright laws, or the US government will shame you as a haven for pirates, no matter how bogus that claim really is.  Hopefully governments in Switzerland and Italy resist such obvious lobbying on behalf of special interests and pay attention to reality in those markets.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120921/15010920465/switzerland-questions-crazy-hollywood-claims-about-file-sharing-ends-up-congressional-watchlist.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120921/15010920465/switzerland-questions-crazy-hollywood-claims-about-file-sharing-ends-up-congressional-watchlist.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120921/15010920465/switzerland-questions-crazy-hollywood-claims-about-file-sharing-ends-up-congressional-watchlist.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>funny-how-that-works</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120921/15010920465</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 12:36:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth Predicts That Countries Who Limit Patents Will Have More Innovation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/04090818778/ubuntus-mark-shuttleworth-predicts-that-countries-who-limit-patents-will-have-more-innovation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/04090818778/ubuntus-mark-shuttleworth-predicts-that-countries-who-limit-patents-will-have-more-innovation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The BBC has an interesting article about <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17916879" target="_blank">Mark Shuttleworth and Ubuntu</a>, and some of the innovations Canonical is working on.  There's some good stuff in there, but what caught my attention was the bit at the end about patents:
<blockquote><i>
"We know that we are sort of dancing naked through a minefield and there are much bigger institutions driving tanks through," Mr Shuttleworth says.
<br /><br />
"It's basically impossible to ship any kind of working software without potentially trampling on some patent somewhere in the world, and it's completely impossible to do anything to prevent that.
<br /><br />
"The patents system is being used to slow down a lot of healthy competition and that's a real problem. I think that the countries that have essentially figured that out and put hard limits on what you can patent will in fact do better."
</i></blockquote>
Of course, this is the exact opposite of what the patent system is supposed to do -- but pretty much everyone who's actually innovating these days seems to recognize the same thing.  What amazes me is that we haven't seen more of what Mark hints at towards the very end: countries providing explicit safe havens around patents.  We have examples of this in the past -- perhaps most famously, the Netherlands and Switzerland in the latter half of the 19th century.  The Netherlands dumped patents entirely, while the Swiss limited what was patentable massively (to the point that very little was considered patentable at all).  And both countries saw economic growth as a result -- where industry <i>and innovation</i> flocked to both countries because they weren't being held back by patent disputes.
<br /><br />
It does seem that perhaps some folks in the Netherlands remember this.  There's an ongoing effort called <a href="http://appsterdamlegalfoundation.org/" target="_blank">the Appsterdam Foundation</a> (in Amsterdam, of course), where part of the goal is to help protect app makers from crazy patent lawsuits.  But I'm waiting for even more recognition from countries that this is a real growth opportunity.  Assuming that countries have the nerves to withstand having the US taunt them each year with placement on the Special 301 list, there's a real opportunity for a developed nation to have innovation show up in droves by massively limiting patents.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/04090818778/ubuntus-mark-shuttleworth-predicts-that-countries-who-limit-patents-will-have-more-innovation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/04090818778/ubuntus-mark-shuttleworth-predicts-that-countries-who-limit-patents-will-have-more-innovation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/04090818778/ubuntus-mark-shuttleworth-predicts-that-countries-who-limit-patents-will-have-more-innovation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-of-course</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120504/04090818778</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 00:29:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Now It's Switzerland's Turn To Call ACTA Into Question</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120509/05525418846/now-its-switzerlands-turn-to-call-acta-into-question.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120509/05525418846/now-its-switzerlands-turn-to-call-acta-into-question.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>When discussing ACTA, there's a natural tendency to concentrate on the bigger players -- the US or the EU -- but it's important to remember that there are many other countries involved.  One of those is Switzerland, which has just joined the doubters' club by holding off from signing ACTA.  Here's why (<a href="http://www.news.admin.ch/message/index.html?lang=fr&#038;msg-id=44484">French original</a>):

<i><blockquote>Since the conclusion of the negotiations, the criticisms regarding ACTA have multiplied in various countries.  The [Swiss] Federal Council takes these fears seriously since they concern fundamental liberties and important points of law.</blockquote></i>

As a result, Switzerland will not be signing ACTA for the moment.  Instead:

<i><blockquote>The Council will re-examine the question when new elements on which it can base its decision are available.  These elements could include the deliberations of the five EU countries that have delayed signing ACTA, the results of the referral to the European Court of Justice by the European Commission, or the continuation of the EU's ratification procedure.</blockquote></i>

Clearly, the Swiss Federation is taking a wait-and-see attitude, and doesn't want to rush into ACTA when others are taking their time.  In itself, this latest move by Switzerland doesn't change much, but it does add to the growing doubts about whether ACTA will ever come into force.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120509/05525418846/now-its-switzerlands-turn-to-call-acta-into-question.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120509/05525418846/now-its-switzerlands-turn-to-call-acta-into-question.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120509/05525418846/now-its-switzerlands-turn-to-call-acta-into-question.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-another-one</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120509/05525418846</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:07:32 PST</pubDate>
<title>Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/12492616979/swiss-government-says-file-sharing-isnt-big-deal-artist-are-fine-industry-should-adapt.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/12492616979/swiss-government-says-file-sharing-isnt-big-deal-artist-are-fine-industry-should-adapt.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well this is interesting.  Switzerland, which has been a party to the ACTA negotiations, but last we checked <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/00562116128/eu-mexico-switzerland-will-not-sign-acta-this-weekend-despite-signing-ceremony.shtml">had not  signed</a> on yet, has put out a report from its executive branch, basically <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/swiss-government-file-sharing-no-big-deal-some-downloading-still-ok.ars" target="_blank">completely downplaying the issue of file sharing</a>.  The report notes, accurately, that consumers are still spending just as much on entertainment, and lots of it are going to artists.  The only real problem seems to be a for a few big foreign gatekeepers who are getting cut out of the new revenue streams... and as far as the Swiss government is concerned, those companies should just learn to adapt.  It specifically says that concerns about file sharing having a "negative impact on the Swiss cultural creativity are unfounded."
<br /><br />
The report also rejects ideas like a three strikes plan or any sort of internet filtering.  Three strikes is rejected for interfering with free speech rights, while filtering goes against privacy rules and might also degrade overall internet performance.  Perhaps most interesting, the report rejects an idea for compulsory licensing -- something that has been gaining some support, but is a really bad idea.  The Swiss report notes that existing media levies are incredibly unpopular with voters who know that the money isn't really going to artists, and separately they fear that it would get in the way of "international treaty obligations."  I wonder if ACTA is a part of what they mean there.
<br /><br />
Either way, you have to wonder if this stance means that Switzerland just bought itself a place on the US government's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110502/14001914122/white-house-publishes-obnoxious-special-301-report-whines-about-any-country-with-more-enlightened-view-ip.shtml">ridiculous Special 301 Report</a>, which is basically the US government putting countries on a "naughty list," for infringement if enough rightsholders complain.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/12492616979/swiss-government-says-file-sharing-isnt-big-deal-artist-are-fine-industry-should-adapt.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/12492616979/swiss-government-says-file-sharing-isnt-big-deal-artist-are-fine-industry-should-adapt.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/12492616979/swiss-government-says-file-sharing-isnt-big-deal-artist-are-fine-industry-should-adapt.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>welcome-to-section-301</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111205/12492616979</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:44:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>EU, Mexico &#038; Switzerland Will Not Sign ACTA This Weekend, Despite The 'Signing Ceremony'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/00562116128/eu-mexico-switzerland-will-not-sign-acta-this-weekend-despite-signing-ceremony.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/00562116128/eu-mexico-switzerland-will-not-sign-acta-this-weekend-despite-signing-ceremony.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With Japan announcing a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/10504716112/us-eu-canada-japan-australia-others-to-sign-acta-this-weekend-despite-legal-concerns.shtml">signing ceremony</a> this Saturday for those who negotiated ACTA, it seemed reasonable to think that most of those listed as planning to attend would be signing.  Of course, we wondered about the US, the EU and Mexico -- as there have been legal questions and challenges raised to ACTA in all three cases, with Mexico's Congress specifically telling the President it will not ratify the treaty.  The EU had also been investigating whether or not ACTA was in line with EU law, and that process has not been completed, so we thought it was premature for the EU to sign onto ACTA.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, the EU Commission agrees... and has now said <a href="http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2011/september/eu-will-not-join-countries-in-signing-acta-this-weekend/" target="_blank">that it will <b>not</b> be signing ACTA this weekend</a>, and also saying that Mexico and Switzerland have also said they won't sign... yet:
<blockquote><i>
"The EU has not yet completed its internal procedures authorising the signature, therefore it will not be signing ACTA at this event," the Commission spokesperson said in a statement. "Neither will Mexico and Switzerland, since they did not conclude their domestic proceedings."
<br /><br />
"For the EU, the domestic process for signature is that the Council [of Ministers] adopts a decision authorising a EU representative to sign ACTA. Since this required the translation of the treaty in all the EU languages, such decision has not yet been adopted. It may still require a couple of months for the EU to be able to sign ACTA. After the signature, the European Parliament will have to vote its consent of ACTA,"
</i></blockquote>
Of course, this is not a complete rejection of ACTA, but it is a reprieve.  It also sounds as though all the other countries listed will be signing, including the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Korea, Morocco and Singapore.  That's a pretty bold move by the Obama administration, considering the evidence that signing ACTA in this manner without Senate approval is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100325/1848528722.shtml">unconstitutional</a>.  I guess actually expecting the president to follow the Constitution is only important when you're not in office.  Once you get there, all bets are off...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/00562116128/eu-mexico-switzerland-will-not-sign-acta-this-weekend-despite-signing-ceremony.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/00562116128/eu-mexico-switzerland-will-not-sign-acta-this-weekend-despite-signing-ceremony.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/00562116128/eu-mexico-switzerland-will-not-sign-acta-this-weekend-despite-signing-ceremony.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-brief-reprieve</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110929/00562116128</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Aug 2011 01:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Swiss Justice Minister Decides That ISPs Should Have To Retain Data Despite No Legal Basis</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/04071415343/swiss-justice-minister-decides-that-isps-should-have-to-retain-data-despite-no-legal-basis.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/04071415343/swiss-justice-minister-decides-that-isps-should-have-to-retain-data-despite-no-legal-basis.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There are big debates in both the US and Europe about the reasonableness and legality of requiring massive data retention by ISPs.  However in Switzerland, the Justice Minister, Simonetta Sommaruga, has decided to dispense with all of that and has just told ISPs <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&#038;prev=_t&#038;hl=en&#038;ie=UTF-8&#038;layout=2&#038;eotf=1&#038;sl=auto&#038;tl=en&#038;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tdg.ch%2Factu%2Fsuisse%2Fsimonetta-sommaruga-veut-durcir-surveillance-internet-2011-07-28" target="_blank">they have to start retaining all sorts of data</a> even if there's no direct reason for it (link is a Google translation from the <a href="http://www.tdg.ch/actu/suisse/simonetta-sommaruga-veut-durcir-surveillance-internet-2011-07-28" target="_blank">original French</a>).  Apparently various companies are now protesting this, but it takes a special sort of out of touch politician to simply declare such a thing without realizing the widespread legal debates in other countries about the legality and usefulness of this very thing...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/04071415343/swiss-justice-minister-decides-that-isps-should-have-to-retain-data-despite-no-legal-basis.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/04071415343/swiss-justice-minister-decides-that-isps-should-have-to-retain-data-despite-no-legal-basis.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110801/04071415343/swiss-justice-minister-decides-that-isps-should-have-to-retain-data-despite-no-legal-basis.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-that's-one-way-to-do-things</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110801/04071415343</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 8 Jul 2011 14:00:32 PDT</pubDate>
<title>More Fraud Investigations Over Recording Industry Execs; Swiss IFPI Boss Resigns</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/02423415007/more-fraud-investigations-over-recording-industry-execs-swiss-ifpi-boss-resigns.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/02423415007/more-fraud-investigations-over-recording-industry-execs-swiss-ifpi-boss-resigns.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Following the news of corruption charges in Spain over <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110701/14534214935/head-spanish-music-collection-society-facing-corruption-charges.shtml">SGAE execs</a>, comes the news that the head of the IFPI in Switzerland <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/ifpi-boss-quit-following-tax-fraud-allegations-110707/" target="_blank">has been forced to resign</a> over some sort of scheme to avoid paying taxes.  The details are a bit convoluted, but, basically, it sounds like he was able to route some IFPI things through a separate company he ran, in order to get a more favorable tax position.  The IFPI is trying to throw the guy under the bus, but the report suggests other IFPI honchos knew all about the scheme.  I find it amusing, by the way, that our regular commenters, who (falsely) call me a criminal, haven't had anything to say about these music industry folks and their scams.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/02423415007/more-fraud-investigations-over-recording-industry-execs-swiss-ifpi-boss-resigns.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/02423415007/more-fraud-investigations-over-recording-industry-execs-swiss-ifpi-boss-resigns.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/02423415007/more-fraud-investigations-over-recording-industry-execs-swiss-ifpi-boss-resigns.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-look-at-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110708/02423415007</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 Sep 2010 10:25:32 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Swiss Supreme Court Says Tracking Online File Sharers Violates Privacy Laws</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100908/09355010938.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100908/09355010938.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A couple years ago, we wrote about how Swiss officials had told Logistep to <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080129/021823106.shtml">stop snooping on suspected file sharers</a> as it violated their privacy.  However, a year later, a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/2356245136.shtml">court ruled otherwise</a>.  However, things have changed once again, as <a href="http://twitter.com/mgeist/statuses/23928316390" target="_blank">Michael Geist</a> points us to the news that <a href="http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D9I3Q6500" target="_blank">the Swiss Supreme Court has said that Logistep's snooping violates privacy rules</a>.  Apparently, Switzerland has strict digital privacy laws, which counts IP addresses as private information.  I'm not sure if I agree with that idea (IP addresses are, somewhat by definition, public info -- though I could see how connecting that info to users is a privacy violation).  However, it's certainly going to make tracking file sharers (or, hell, anyone online) a lot trickier.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100908/09355010938.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100908/09355010938.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100908/09355010938.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-industry-isn't-going-to-like-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100908/09355010938</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:43:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Questions For ACTA Negotiators</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/2221079975.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/2221079975.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Sean Flynn from the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University, sent over the list of questions that he and a group of others concerned about ACTA are planning to ask the ACTA negotiators today in a meeting in Switzerland, where the latest round of ACTA negotiations are under way.  The meeting is set to take place at 7pm Swiss time, which should be about 10am this morning California time.  I have no idea how many of these questions will get asked or answered -- or if it will make any difference, but I figured that some of you might be interested in reading the questions:
<ol>
<li>Will negotiators commit to continue releasing the text of the Agreement following completion of this week's negotiating round and subsequently until the completion (or abandonment) of negotiations?</li>
<li>Are negotiators reviewing the text of the Agreement to ensure it is fully consistent with the WTO TRIPS Agreement? Will the WTO or other independent legal experts be asked to review the text of the Agreement to ensure it is legally consistent with WTO rules? Will you provide clear and objective information regarding the evidence base upon which ACTA is purportedly justified, as far as international law, access to medicines and Internet are concerned? </li>
<li>Criminal sanctions are being negotiated, which imply the usage of police &#038; judiciary systems, as proven by the presence among the negotiators of the EU Presidency. How can you justify any legitimacy for criminal sanctions (which highly impact fundamental freedoms) being negotiated outside of any democratic frame, in the secrecy of what is much more than a "trade agreement"? 
</li><li>What is the prevailing definition of a 'counterfeit' amongst negotiators?  With respect to pharmaceuticals, is it the official position of negotiators that medicines which are suspected of patent infringement are counterfeit?  If not, will you commit to ensure that the entirety of ACTA excludes patents from the scope of the agreement as the inclusion of patents is unrelated to the issue of counterfeit, and poses significant risks for access to medicines in developing countries? </li>
<li>Should customs authorities be authorized to seize medicines in 'transit countries', even when the medicines do not infringe any laws in the producing or importing countries?  Will you commit to ensure that any inclusion of ex officio action and/or in-transit seizures is optional and not mandatory for countries? If permitted, do negotiators maintain that customs officials in exporting, transit or importing countries are capable of determining whether medicines infringe patents or whether a pharmaceutical product is 'confusingly similar'?  Should there be any anti-abuse provisions included? </li>
<li>Could negotiators list out the relevant anti-abuse provisions in ACTA to ensure that rights holders do not use the Agreement to expand intellectual property protection for products, including medicines?  ACTA currently contains no pro-consumer provisions and minimal protections for an alleged infringer, alongside maximum privileges and incentives for a right-holder to allege infringement (including extraordinarily limited liability for abuse of recourse measures).  The enforcement provisions are universally mandatory while the protections are optional.  There are virtually no references to exceptions and limitations, or to TRIPS flexibilities and safeguards.  Do negotiators feel that sufficient balance has been achieved under the Agreement?</li>
<li>Are negotiators aware that the Agreement could create third party liability for suppliers of active pharmaceutical ingredients whose materials may be used in mislabeled products without their knowledge?  What are the reasons for holding suppliers of active pharmaceutical ingredients unknowingly liable for mislabeled products? </li>
<li>ACTA can become a very strict text should certain proposals be followed, not leaving much room to maneuver for its application. Are contracting parties foreseeing to include in the agreement exceptions to preserve the public interest or flexibilities allowing for adaptation to different national realities? Will you remove institutional measures in which ACTA Member countries attempt to export heightened TRIPS-plus IP protections to other countries, and in particular developing countries </li>
<li>How do you guarantee that policies required to benefit from liability safe harbour for Internet service/access providers won't have the effect to force them to restrict fundamental freedoms -- such as freedom of expression and communication, privacy, and the right to a fair trial -- turning them, via contractual policies, into private copyright police/justice? </li>
<li>There have been no open hearings or other engagements with civil society since the text was released. Will you commit for the establishment of consistent mechanisms for the ongoing engagement of civil society? More generally, how are you going to fix the process to encourage greater public deliberation on the record, with access to text, and in a meaningful setting? And how are you going to fix all of the specific concerns raised in the previous questions and in all the critics upon ACTA made until now? </li>
</ol>
This is a pretty good list of questions if you're trying to understand just what is wrong with ACTA so far.  Separately, Sean also included the presentation that he's giving in Switzerland about concerns over how ACTA will impact generic (legal) drugs in transit:
<center>
<object id="doc_83213" name="doc_83213" height="300" width="450" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline:none;" >                <param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf">                 </param><param name="wmode" value="opaque">                 </param><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff">                 </param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">                 </param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always">                 </param><param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=33645973&#038;access_key=key-2ahxr660ivhimf1n3mmw&#038;page=1&#038;viewMode=slideshow">                 <embed id="doc_83213" name="doc_83213" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=33645973&#038;access_key=key-2ahxr660ivhimf1n3mmw&#038;page=1&#038;viewMode=slideshow" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="300" width="450" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff"></embed>             </param></object>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/2221079975.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/2221079975.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/2221079975.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wonder-if-they'll-answer-any-of-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100627/2221079975</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:59:15 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Switzerland So Neutral It Won't Even Let In Violent Video Games</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100321/2135338649.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100321/2135338649.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ An anonymous reader sends in word that Switzerland appears to be following in the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/0226188430.shtml">footsteps of Venezuela</a> by getting close to <a href="http://www.mcvuk.com/news/38103/Switzerland-passes-violent-games-ban" target="_blank">banning all violent video games</a> in the country (yes, even for adults).  It's not quite there yet -- as the Swiss National Council has basically just given itself the right to put in place such a ban, but is still debating the actual extent of the ban.  However, it appears that many expect all video games rated at a mature or adult level will likely be banned.  I'm curious why none of the countries that ban such video games are also willing to ban R-rated movies as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100321/2135338649.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100321/2135338649.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100321/2135338649.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>overdoing-it-a-bit</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100321/2135338649</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:54:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Switzerland Continues To Fight Google Street View; Takes Google To Court</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1254366925.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1254366925.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few months ago, when Google launched its "Street View" tool in Switzerland, the government got upset and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090824/1254455979.shtml">told Google to take the site down</a> because it violated people's privacy.  This was despite the fact that Google had been discussing the project with the government and put in place multiple privacy safeguards, including blurring faces and license plates.  Apparently, it wasn't enough.  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=mrlemurboy">Mr. LemurBoy</a> alerts us to the news that Switzerland is now <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/11/13/tech-google-street-view-switzerland.html" target="_blank">taking Google to court over Street View</a>, claiming that it doesn't blur people <i>enough</i>, and that sometimes the cameras can see over fences or walls.  Of course, anyone walking down the street can see the same things  as well, and if they're tall enough, they can see over walls.  Is Switzerland going to take tall people to court as well?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1254366925.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1254366925.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1254366925.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>swiss-neutrality</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091113/1254366925</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:26:54 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Switzerland Tells Google To Take Down Street View</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090824/1254455979.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090824/1254455979.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Following a bunch of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090513/0909444866.shtml">other countries</a>, it looks like Switzerland is the latest to freak out over Google Street View and <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/google/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219401229" target="_new">to ban it</a>, just a week after it was introduced.   Google is apparently surprised by this move, noting that it had been talking to the Swiss gov't and had a bunch of privacy safeguards in place, which seemed to be working.  Of course, you have to ask, are there surveillance cameras in Switzerland?  If so, why is that okay when Google's Street View is not?  Surveillance cameras are real-time.  Street View is not.  Surveillance cameras do not blur faces/license plates.  Street View does.  Why is one allowed and the other not?  Of course, given how many local gov'ts have freaked out about Street View, it does make you wonder why Google would launch it these days without first having assurances from the gov't that it would be okay.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090824/1254455979.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090824/1254455979.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090824/1254455979.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-dare-you-provide-a-useful-service</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090824/1254455979</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:55:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Switzerland Decides That It's Ok For Private Firm To Violate Your Privacy If It's Searching For 'Pirates'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/2356245136.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/2356245136.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, Swiss officials told Logistep -- one of a few companies that tries to scan file sharing networks for IPs used by suspected copyright infringers -- that its efforts were <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080129/021823106.shtml">an illegal violation of privacy rights</a>.  However, a new court ruling has <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/war-on-piracy-more-important-than-right-to-privacy-090604/" target="_new">overturned that original ruling</a>, and has said that Logistep is perfectly legal.  The court appears to have said that preventing piracy somehow trumps privacy rights -- which seems kind of odd.  I'm actually not a huge fan of claims (or lawsuits) that such services violate privacy.  I'm not entirely clear how your basic IP address is "private."  It's "public" by default, in that your computer uses it publicly to identify itself, so I'm not clear how that's automatically seen as "private" info.  However, it seems odd to claim that simply tracking unauthorized usage trumps privacy rights.  If that's the case, you have no privacy rights at all, because officials could just claim that they're violating your privacy to prevent any crime you might be committing.  So, while I think it's a bit silly to declare IP addresses private, <i>if they are considered private</i> then I have a hard time seeing why Logistep should be allowed to do what it does.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/2356245136.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/2356245136.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/2356245136.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>unfortunate</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090604/2356245136</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:18:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Swiss Officials Tell Anti-Piracy Company Its Tactics Are Illegal</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080129/021823106.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080129/021823106.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There have been some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070626/010102.shtml">claims</a> that the recording industry's investigative techniques may be illegal.  While court cases alleging these techniques are illegal are still pending in the US, in Europe there seems to be a lot more support for the idea.  In the Netherlands, for example, a court ruled that having ISPs hand over IP addresses to the recording industry would be a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050712/1518254.shtml">violation of privacy laws</a>.  Given last week's discussion on whether or not <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080121/19520029.shtml">IP addresses</a> should be considered private, this seems relevant.
<br /><br />
However, over in Switzerland, the story is even more complicated, as Swiss officials have <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/01/25/Antipiracy-group-tactics-violate-Swiss-law_1.html" target="_new">specifically told an "anti-piracy" company to stop some of its tactics</a>.  Specifically, in order to get around laws that say you can only obtain IP addresses from ISPs in a criminal, rather than civil lawsuit, the company gets Swiss officials to file criminal charges, gets the IP address, files a civil suit with it, and then drops the criminal case.  Whether or not you think getting IP addresses is a violation of privacy, it seems clear that this company has gone well beyond the spirit of the law in getting them and using them in civil suits.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080129/021823106.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080129/021823106.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080129/021823106.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sneaky,-sneaky</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080129/021823106</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>