<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">David, <br>
<br>
I will put this on the NCSG table for discussion. It came to NPOC
late in the game (early December) as a result of dialogue with the
IP constituency. They are equally concerned about it. I am
crafting a version of the final statement for NPOC to okay and to
be sent to the relevant elected and appointed individuals in the
EC/EP. There are no formal windows for submissions, and -as I
said- no transparency in how the final decision will be made. I
will share the content of that statement (as a draft) while NPOC
is debating the acceptability of the wording. That will be done in
the next several days. For now I will make a posting to NCSG using
what was circulated earlier in NPOC. <br>
<br>
Sam <br>
<br>
<i>On 26/12/2014 9:48 PM, David Cake wrote:</i><i><br>
</i></div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:C5D05571-F392-41C8-B650-522A33CF540D@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<i>Thank you for bringing this up, Sam. That does indeed seem like
an example of sloppily worded overreach, and obviously at a
first glance: ignores multiple meanings of terms; ignores the
trademark law doctrine of categories of use (ie would let Apple
computers object to people marketing fruit); and ignores free
expression concerns entirely. All sadly very familiar in poorly
drafted regulations designed to appease large trademark
holders. </i>
<div><i><br>
</i></div>
<div><i>I think it likely that this would receive support from all
of the NCSG.</i></div>
<div><i><br>
</i></div>
<div><i>David</i></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>