ACTA's expedition to Luxembourg

Reuters reports that the widely-unloved Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, the antithesis (per Bill Patry, into whose mouth I am putting words but I hope not entirely the wrong ones) of evidence-based IP policy-making, has been referred to the Court of Justice by the Commission, to see whether it breaches citizens' fundamental rights including that of free speech. Reuters describe it as a treaty on copyright theft, which sloppy language ought to be grounds for rejecting it without further ado - except that I doubt the agreement actually uses that horrible, in accurate and unnecessary neoligism. Why, if commentators can't use the correct words, couldn't we have an international agreement on copyright bogarting?

Patents or copyright?

Hat tip to Sandrine Hilaire, avocat, of Strasbourg, "capital of Europe" according to her firm's website, who shared this on Facebook: a somewhat depressing story in which the patents seem to have become the end, not the means, but also depressing for the inability of the journalist to tell his copyright from his patents - despite having both in the headline. "Un sérieux bémol" as she says, giving me my French word of the day (a couple of days ago it was "chienlit", which perfectly describes a big-city Marathon). Literally, un bémol is a flat sign in musical notation, which seems an excellent metaphor for a journalist's failure to distinguish one legal right from another.