931 resultados para Surplus government property, American
Resumo:
Each issue covers separate country.
Resumo:
Forty-three papers which appeared originally in the Baltimore chronicle, signed, A claimant.
Resumo:
Presentations sponsored by the Patent and Trademark Depository Library Association (PTDLA) at the American Library Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, June 25, 2006 Speaker #1: Nan Myers Associate Professor; Government Documents, Patents and Trademarks Librarian Wichita State University, Wichita, KS Title: Intellectual Property Roundup: Copyright, Trademarks, Trade Secrets, and Patents Abstract: This presentation provides a capsule overview of the distinctive coverage of the four types of intellectual property – What they are, why they are important, how to get them, what they cost, how long they last. Emphasis will be on what questions patrons ask most, along with the answers! Includes coverage of the mission of Patent & Trademark Depository Libraries (PTDLs) and other sources of business information outside of libraries, such as Small Business Development Centers. Speaker #2: Jan Comfort Government Information Reference Librarian Clemson University, Clemson, SC Title: Patents as a Source of Competitive Intelligence Information Abstract: Large corporations often have R&D departments, or large numbers of staff whose jobs are to monitor the activities of their competitors. This presentation will review strategies that small business owners can employ to do their own competitive intelligence analysis. The focus will be on features of the patent database that is available free of charge on the USPTO website, as well as commercial databases available at many public and academic libraries across the country. Speaker #3: Virginia Baldwin Professor; Engineering Librarian University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE Title: Mining Online Patent Data for Business Information Abstract: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website and websites of international databases contains information about granted patents and patent applications and the technologies they represent. Statistical information about patents, their technologies, geographical information, and patenting entities are compiled and available as reports on the USPTO website. Other valuable information from these websites can be obtained using data mining techniques. This presentation will provide the keys to opening these resources and obtaining valuable data. Speaker #4: Donna Hopkins Engineering Librarian Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY Title: Searching the USPTO Trademark Database for Wordmarks and Logos Abstract: This presentation provides an overview of wordmark searching in www.uspto.gov, followed by a review of the techniques of searching for non-word US trademarks using codes from the Design Search Code Manual. These codes are used in an electronic search, either on the uspto website or on CASSIS DVDs. The search is sometimes supplemented by consulting the Official Gazette. A specific example of using a section of the codes for searching is included. Similar searches on the Madrid Express database of WIPO, using the Vienna Classification, will also be briefly described.
Resumo:
This report is the primary output of Project 4: Copyright and Intellectual Property, the aim of which was to produce a report considering how greater access to and use of government information could be achieved within the scope of the current copyright law. In our submission for Project 4, we undertook to address: •the policy rationales underlying copyright and how they apply in the context of materials owned, held and used by government; • the recommendations of the Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) in its 2005 report on Crown copyright; • the legislative and regulatory barriers to information sharing in key domains, including where legal impediments such as copyright have been relied upon (whether rightly or wrongly) to justify a refusal to provide access to government data; • copyright licensing models appropriate to government materials and examples of licensing initiatives in Australia and other relevant jurisdictions; and • issues specific to the galleries, libraries, archives and museums (“GLAM”) sector, including management of copyright in legacy materials and “orphan” works. In addressing these areas, we analysed the submissions received in response to the Government 2.0 Taskforce Issues Paper, consulted with members of the Task Force as well as several key stakeholders and considered the comments posted on the Task Force’s blog. This Project Report sets out our findings on the above issues. It puts forward recommendations for consideration by the Government 2.0 Task Force on steps that can be taken to ensure that copyright and intellectual property promote access to and use of government information.
Resumo:
A recent controversy in the United States over drug pricing by Turing Pharmaceuticals AG has raised larger issues in respect of intellectual property, access to medicines, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In August 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals AG – a private biopharmaceutical company with offices in New York, the United States, and Zug, Switzerland - acquired the exclusive marketing rights to Daraprim in the United States from Impax Laboratories Incorporated. Martin Shkreli, Turing’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, maintained: “The acquisition of Daraprim and our toxoplasmosis research program are significant steps along Turing’s path of bringing novel medications to patients with serious disorders, some of whom often go undiagnosed and untreated.” He emphasised: “We intend to invest in the development of new drug candidates that we hope will yield an even better clinical profile, and also plan to launch an educational effort to help raise awareness and improve diagnosis for patients with toxoplasmosis.” In September 2015, there was much public controversy over the decision of Martin Shkreli to raise the price of a 62 year old drug, Daraprim, from $US13.50 to $US750 a pill. The drug is particularly useful in respect to the treatment and prevention of malaria, and in the treatment of infections in individuals with HIV/AIDS. Daraprim is listed on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) List of Essential Medicines. In the face of much criticism, Martin Shkreli has said that he will reduce the price of Daraprim. He observed: “We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit.” He maintained: “We think these changes will be welcomed.” However, he has been vague and ambiguous about the nature of the commitment. Notably, the lobby group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA), disassociated itself from the claims of Turing Pharmaceuticals. The group said: “PhRMA members have a long history of drug discovery and innovation that has led to increased longevity and improved lives for millions of patients.” The group noted: “Turing Pharmaceutical is not a member of PhRMA and we do not embrace either their recent actions or the conduct of their CEO.” The biotechnology peak body Biotechnology Industry Organization also sought to distance itself from Turing Pharmaceuticals. A hot topic: United States political debate about access to affordable medicines This controversy over Daraprim is unusual – given the age of drug concerned. Daraprim is not subject to patent protection. Nonetheless, there remains a monopoly in respect of the marketplace. Drug pricing is not an isolated problem. There have been many concerns about drug pricing – particularly in respect of essential medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This recent controversy is part of a larger debate about access to affordable medicines. The dispute raises larger issues about healthcare, consumer rights, competition policy, and trade. The Daraprim controversy has provided impetus for law reform in the US. US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton commented: “Price gouging like this in this specialty drug market is outrageous.” In response to her comments, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell sharply. Hillary Clinton has announced a prescription drug reform plan to protect consumers and promote innovation – while putting an end to profiteering. On her campaign site, she has emphasised that “affordable healthcare is a basic human right.” Her rival progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, was also concerned about the price hike. He wrote a letter to Martin Shkreli, complaining about the price increase for the drug Daraprim. Sanders said: “The enormous, overnight price increase for Daraprim is just the latest in a long list of skyrocketing price increases for certain critical medications.” He has pushed for reforms to intellectual property to make medicines affordable. The TPP and intellectual property The Daraprim controversy and political debate raises further issues about the design of the TPP. The dispute highlights the dangers of extending the rights of pharmaceutical drug companies under intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, and drug administration. Recently, the civil society group Knowledge Ecology International published a leaked draft of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. Knowledge Ecology International Director, James Love, was concerned the text revealed that the US “continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies.” He was concerned that “the proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation.” James Love feared: “In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices.” He maintained: “The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.” Love called for a different approach to intellectual property and trade: “Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical research and development (R&D) as a public good, an area where the US has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies.” In addition, there has been much concern about the Investment Chapter of the TPP. The investor-state dispute settlement regime would enable foreign investors to challenge government policy making, which affected their investments. In the context of healthcare, there is a worry that pharmaceutical drug companies will deploy their investor rights to challenge public health measures – such as, for instance, initiatives to curb drug pricing and profiteering. Such concerns are not merely theoretical. Eli Lilly has brought an investor action against the Canadian Government over the rejection of its drug patents under the investor-state dispute settlement regime of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Health Annex to the TPP also raises worries that pharmaceutical drug companies will able to object to regulatory procedures in respect of healthcare. It is disappointing that the TPP – in the leaks that we have seen – has only limited recognition of the importance of access to essential medicines. There is a need to ensure that there are proper safeguards to provide access to essential medicines – particularly in respect of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and tuberculosis. Moreover, there must be protection against drug profiteering and price gouging in any trade agreement. There should be strong measures against the abuse of intellectual property rights. The dispute over Turing Pharmaceuticals AG and Daraprim is an important cautionary warning in respect of some of the dangers present in the secret negotiations in respect of the TPP. There is a need to preserve consumer rights, competition policy, and public health in trade negotiations over an agreement covering the Pacific Rim.
Resumo:
This study critically analyzes the historical role and influence of multinational drug cotpOrations and multinational corporations in general; the u.s. government and the Canadian state in negotiating the global recognition ofIntellectual Property Rights (IPR) under GATT/NAFTA. This process began in 1969 when the Liberal government, in response to high prices for brand-name drugs amended the Patent Act to introduce compulsory licensing by reducing monopoly protection from 20 to seven years. Although the financial position ofthe multinational drug industry was not affected, it campaigned vigorously to change the 1969 legislation. In 1987, the Patent Act was amended to extend protection to 10 years as a condition for free trade talks with the u.s. Nonetheless, the drug industry was not satisfied and accused Canada of providing a bad example to other nations. Therefore, it continued to campaign for global recognition ofIPR laws under GATT. Following the conclusion of the GATTI Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS) in 1991, the multinational drug industry and the American government, to the surprise of many, were still not satisfied and sought to implement harsher conditions under NAFTA. The Progressive Conservative government readily agreed without any objections or consideration for the social consequences. As a result, Bill C-91 was introduced. It abandoned compulsory licenses and was made retroactive from December 21, 1991. It is the contention of this thesis that the economic survival of multinational corporations on a global scale depends on the role and functions of the modem state. Similarly, the existence of the state depends on the ideological-political and socioeconomic assistance it gives to multinational corporations on a national and international scale. This dialectical relation of the state and multinational corporations is explored in our theoretical and historical analysis of their role in public policy.
Resumo:
Our differences are three. The first arises from the belief that "... a nonzero value for the optimally chosen policy instrument implies that the instrument is efficient for redistribution" (Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, p. 543, paragraph 3). Consider the two equations: (1) o* = f(P3) and (2) = -f(3) ++r h* (a, P3) representing the solution to the problem of maximizing weighted, Marshallian surplus using, simultaneously, a per-unit border intervention, 9, and a per-unit domestic intervention, wr. In the solution, parameter ot denotes the weight applied to producer surplus; parameter p denotes the weight applied to government revenues; consumer surplus is implicitly weighted one; and the country in question is small in the sense that it is unable to affect world price by any of its domestic adjustments (see the Appendix). Details of the forms of the functions f((P) and h(ot, p) are easily derived, but what matters in the context of Alston, Smith, and Vercammen's Comment is: Redistributivep referencest hatf avorp roducers are consistent with higher values "alpha," and whereas the optimal domestic intervention, 7r*, has both "alpha and beta effects," the optimal border intervention, r*, has only a "beta effect,"-it does not have a redistributional role. Garth Holloway is reader in agricultural economics and statistics, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, School of Agriculture, Policy, and Development, University of Reading. The author is very grateful to Xavier Irz, Bhavani Shankar, Chittur Srinivasan, Colin Thirtle, and Richard Tiffin for their comments and their wisdom; and to Mario Mazzochi, Marinos Tsigas, and Cal Turvey for their scholarship, including help in tracking down a fairly complete collection of the papers that cite Alston and Hurd. They are not responsible for any errors or omissions. Note, in equation (1), that the border intervention is positive whenever a distortion exists because 8 > 0 implies 3 - 1 + 8 > 1 and, thus, f((P) > 0 (see Appendix). Using Alston, Smith, and Vercammen's definition, the instrument is now "efficient," and therefore has a redistributive role. But now, suppose that the distortion is removed so that 3 - 1 + 8 = 1, 8 = 0, and consequently the border intervention is zero. According to Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, the instrument is now "inefficient" and has no redistributive role. The reader will note that this thought experiment has said nothing about supporting farm incomes, and so has nothing whatsoever to do with efficient redistribution. Of course, the definition is false. It follows that a domestic distortion arising from the "excess-burden argument" 3 = 1 + 8, 8 > 0 does not make an export subsidy "efficient." The export subsidy, having only a "beta effect," does not have a redistributional role. The second disagreement emerges from the comment that Holloway "... uses an idiosyncratic definition of the relevant objective function of the government (Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, p. 543, paragraph 2)." The objective function that generates equations (1) and (2) (see the Appendix) is the same as the objective function used by Gardner (1995) when he first questioned Alston, Carter, and Smith's claim that a "domestic distortion can make a border intervention efficient in transferring surplus from consumers and taxpayers to farmers." The objective function used by Gardner (1995) is the same objective function used in the contributions that precede it and thus defines the literature on the debate about borderversus- domestic intervention (Streeten; Yeh; Paarlberg 1984, 1985; Orden; Gardner 1985). The objective function in the latter literature is the same as the one implied in another literature that originates from Wallace and includes most notably Gardner (1983), but also Alston and Hurd. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 86(2) (May 2004): 549-552 Copyright 2004 American Agricultural Economics Association This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:58:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 550 May 2004 Amer. J. Agr. Econ. The objective function in Holloway is this same objective function-it is, of course, Marshallian surplus.1 The third disagreement concerns scholarship. The Comment does not seem to be cognizant of several important papers, especially Bhagwati and Ramaswami, and Bhagwati, both of which precede Corden (1974, 1997); but also Lipsey and Lancaster, and Moschini and Sckokai; one important aspect of Alston and Hurd; and one extremely important result in Holloway. This oversight has some unfortunate repercussions. First, it misdirects to the wrong origins of intellectual property. Second, it misleads about the appropriateness of some welfare calculations. Third, it prevents Alston, Smith, and Vercammen from linking a finding in Holloway (pp. 242-43) with an old theorem (Lipsey and Lancaster) that settles the controversy (Alston, Carter, and Smith 1993, 1995; Gardner 1995; and, presently, Alston, Smith, and Vercammen) about the efficiency of border intervention in the presence of domestic distortions.
Resumo:
In advanced capitalist societies, intellectual property laws protecting such subject matter as copyright and patents are justified by a combination of theories, which include the provision of economic incentives to foster creativity and innovation and the prevention of unfair competition. IP academics and policy makers have differing views about the appropriate balance between these objectives and public interest considerations such as health, education and the protection of the environment. These different views entered the policy debate in Asian developing countries in connection with an unprecedented introduction and expansion of IP laws over the last 25 years. This paper will use case studies of law reform from Asia, in particular Southeast Asia, to show that the policy considerations of governments in reforming their laws were often quite different from the standard rationale mentioned above. As much of the IP was, at least initially, held by foreigners and introduced to attract foreign investment, national development considerations were joined with the more commonly quoted objectives to promote the rights, creativity and innovation of individuals. Such national development objectives at times coincided and at other times collided with official explanations and received wisdom about the effects of stronger IP rights.
Especially in the early postcolonial period, copyright laws and other IP laws were frequently restricted or simply not implemented, if they conflicted with development policies in areas such as education or public health. Such policies were slowly changing in the wake of WTO-TRIPS and other international agreements. Nevertheless, the implementation and enforcement of the IP laws has been uneven. Specialised institutions such as courts and IP administering agencies compete with other branches of government and administration for limited funding and a rich repertoire of informal dispute settlement procedures has kept the number of court cases relatively low. In some countries, censorship laws have influenced freedom of expression and led to quite idiosyncratic interpretations of intellectual property laws. Governments often also retain a role in the assessment of licensing and technology transfer contracts. And while there are many programs to foster individual creativity, in most cases R & D activities are still largely taking place in government institutions and this has influenced the thinking about intellectual property rights and creativity in the context of employment.
The paper uses a few case studies to examine the implementation of IP laws in selected Asian developing countries to point to the quite different institutional setting for IP law reform in comparison to European or American models. It reaches some tentative conclusions as to the likely effects on creativity and innovation under these different circumstances.
Resumo:
Deep in the South Pacific region about 2,300 miles southwest of the Hawaiian islands1 lies a United States territory that many Americans have never heard of nor known anything about. However, some famous Americans such as Troy Polamalu of the Pittsburgh Steelers, semi retired professional wrestler Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard have genealogical roots there. More importantly, many of the Territory’s sons and daughters have served and lost their lives for the United States flag and the cause of freedom around the world. This place is called American Samoa, a collection of seven islands that if glued together would have a total landmass of approximately 76 square miles, just a tad bigger than the capital city of the United States. According to the United States Census Bureau, there were 55,519 residents of American Samoa in 2010.1 The majority of them are ethnic Samoans, a Polynesian sect that traces its history back to early migrants from Southeast Asia who settled the islands around 1500 B.C.2 3 The climate is warm all year long and the forests along the mountains are ripe with vegetation. The main island is Tutuila with its beautiful and coveted landlocked harbor that was used as a coaling station by the United States naval ships during World War II. In fact, it was the Pago Pago Harbor that diminished the impact of the 2009 Tsunami that devastated the Samoan islands by channeling the waters of the Pacific Ocean towards the end of the harbor instead of flooding many other villages surrounding the Pago Pago Bay area. Lives and property were destroyed near the end of the Harbor but it could have been worse for the entire Bay area. Locally grown foods include coconut, taro, banana, guava, sugar cane, papaya, yam, pineapple, and breadfruit. It is completely surrounded by the Pacific Ocean from which the locals obtain a variety of seafood. There is a popular saying in Samoa that goes, “In Samoa, it is impossible to starve 1 American Samoa Department of Commerce, 2012 Statistical Yearbook, http://www.doc.as/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/2012-Statistical-Yearbook-1.pdf 2 U.S. Census Bureau News, U.S. Census Bureau Releases 2010 Census Population Counts for American Samoa, http://www.census.gov/2010census/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn177.html (Aug. 24, 2011). 3 3 J. Robert Shaffer, American Samoa: 100 Years Under the United States Flag (Honolulu, Hawaii: Island Heritage Publishing, 2000), 34. 4 because people live off of the land’s and the ocean’s abundant resources.” To the west of American Samoa lies a larger group of four islands that make up the Sovereign State of Samoa, which became independent from New Zealand in 1962. Samoa and American Samoa share the same language, culture, and religion but are divided by government and political systems. The focus of this study will be on American Samoa, which became a United States territory in 1900 when the principal chiefs of Tutuila (the largest island in American Samoa) ceded the islands to the United States.
Resumo:
Includes bibliography
Resumo:
Incluye Bibliografía
Resumo:
Includes bibliography
