Jersey and Bitcoin

Jersey.

Jersey is a self-governing parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy, with its own financial, legal and judicial systems,^[11] and the power of self-determination.^[12]The island of Jersey is the largest of the Channel Islands. Although the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey are often referred to collectively as the Channel Islands, the "Channel Islands" are not a constitutional or political unit. Jersey has a separate relationship to the British Crown from the other Crown dependencies of Guernsey and the Isle of Man.^[13] It is not part of the United Kingdom,^[14] and has an international identity separate from that of the UK,^[15] but the United Kingdom is constitutionally responsible for the defence of Jersey.^[16] The Commission have confirmed in a written reply to the European Parliament in 2003 that Jersey is within the Union as a European Territory for whose external relationships the United Kingdom is responsible. Jersey is not fully part of the European Union but has a special relationship with it, notably being treated as within the European Community for the purposes of free trade in goods.^[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey



The Jurisdiction of Jersey is planning to introduce a regulatory framework for bitcoin.
When actual details are available I will post links and excerpts.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-jersey-34616053 BBC calls it a 'light touch' system.

http://fintech.je/ - the conference where the announcement was made.

http://www.hedgeweek.com/2015/10/21/232913/jersey-planning-regulate-virtual-currency

Speaking at the conference Senator Ozouf said: “Virtual currency systems can be significant building blocks of a modern digital economy and the introduction of an appropriate and proportionate regulatory regime in this area is intended to encourage confidence and innovation in the sector. “And the exciting thing about combining new technology and a free market is that the evolution of this area is uncertain and no-one can predict exactly how these new forms of financial technology will develop. “What governments can do, however, is create the best environment in which this financial innovation can flourish. The release of this policy today, is a stepping stone along that path for Jersey.”

Comments

As I regularly point out regulation is often a necessary construction to enable innovation.

TPP and policy

Is is still unclear what the new TPP will include but there are a few hints.

1. Biologics
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/pacific-nation-ministers-negotiators-lock-in-tpp-trade-deal/6829368

The US allows pharmaceutical companies an exclusive period of 12 years to use clinical data behind the approval for a new biological drug, and was pushing for that in the TPP.But Mr Robb said Australia would not move further than five years, despite the US pushing for a compromise eight-year period. In the end, US trade representative Michael Froman said the deal would offer at least five years' protection for biologic drugs, plus some time for other measures. He said the goal was to have a comparable outcome for such drugs across the 12 TPP countries. Ruth Lopert, from George Washington University in the US, told the ABC that the medicines involved were often those derived from living organisms and were amongst the most expensive on the market. "Many [of these] drugs are used for the treatment of various cancers, for multiple sclerosis, for many conditions, and because they're derived from living organisms they tend to be more complex to develop and they tend to carry much higher price tags," she said. "So there is a lot of money at stake in any potential delay to getting these biologics onto the PBS.[pharmaceutical benefits scheme] "

2. Data
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-and-the-tpp-whats-at-stake-for-canadas-innovation-sector/article26711535/

The final agreement could also bar countries from requiring that data be stored on local servers. Many data localization initiatives evolved in response to heightened surveillance efforts by the United States in the post-9/11 era, Mr. Parsons says. But leaks from Edward Snowden revealed that the National Security Agency was able to access information stored outside U.S. borders through agreements with its counterpart agencies in allied countries. “I remain somewhat dubious that data localization – from a practical sense, not a legal sense – actually provided a significantly higher degree of privacy.”
In any case, two Canadian provinces – British Columbia and Nova Scotia – have legislation that mandates certain types of government information be stored locally, he says, adding that those requirements could be challenged under the terms of the TPP.

European Court and Data (again)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/european-unions-top-court-strikes-down-us-eu-data-transfer/6832206

A deal that allows thousands of companies to transfer data from Europe to the United States has been ruled invalid, in a landmark decision that follows revelations of mass US government snooping. Many companies, particularly tech firms, have said the Safe Harbour agreement helps them get round cumbersome checks to transfer data between offices on both sides of the Atlantic, including payroll and human resources information and also lucrative data used for online advertising. But a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) could sound the death knell for the system, set up by the European Commission 15 years ago and used by more than 4,000 firms including IBM, Google and Ericsson.

OECD on digital security

The OECD's document is surprisingly vague and unclear for what is becoming a serious threat to economies, companies, governments and individuals around the world. When the U.S. government can hacked repeatedly this is a serious issue. This document does not seem to have the sense or urgency expected, however.

Australia Patent Law - New decision

From.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-07/palombi-human-genes-are-not-inventions/6834610


For a period of time Australian and U.S. patent law interpretation were in disagreement but not in the way you might expect. The Australian Federal Court allowed the patenting of genes of economic potential that had been isolated but not manipulated while the 2013 judgement in the USA disallowed patenting of such genes.

Now the Australian High Court has overturned that decision and brought the Australian situation in line with the current U.S. position.

When proper regard is paid to their emphasis on genetic information, the subject matter of the claims lies at the boundaries of the concept of "manner of manufacture". That it does lie at the boundaries is further evidenced by the odd consequence that if the claims are properly the subject of a patent, the patent could be infringed without the infringer being aware of that fact. That consequence coupled with the very large, indeed unquantified size of the relevant class of isolated nucleic acids, all of which bear the requisite information, raises the risk of a chilling effect upon legitimate innovative activity outside the formal boundaries of the monopoly and risks creating a penumbral de facto monopoly impeding the activities of legitimate improvers and inventors.

Read more here.
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2015/hca-35-2015-10-07.pdf