Understanding the Impact of the Property Tax Appeal Process on Assessment Uniformity: Procedures, Structures, and Outcomes

Property taxes serve as a vital revenue source for local governments. The revenues derived from the property tax function as the primary funding source for a variety of critical local public service systems. Property tax appeal systems serve as quasi-administrative-judicial mechanisms intended to assure the public that property tax assessments are correct, fair, and equitable. Despite these important functions, there is a paucity of empirical research related to property tax appeal systems. This study contributes to property tax literature by identifying who participates in the property tax appeal process and examining their motivations for participation. In addition, the study sought to determine whether patterns of use and success in appeal systems affected the distribution of the tax burden. Data were collected by means of a survey distributed to single-family property owners from two Florida counties. In addition, state and county documents were analyzed to determine appeal patterns and examine the impact on assessment uniformity, over a three-year period. The survey data provided contextual evidence that single-family property owners are not as troubled by property taxes as they are by the conduct of local government officials. The analyses of the decision to appeal indicated that more expensive properties and properties excluded from initial uniformity analyses were more likely to be appealed, while properties with homestead exemptions were less likely to be appealed. The value change analyses indicated that appeals are clustered in certain geographical areas; however, these areas do not always experience a greater percentage of the value changes. Interestingly, professional representation did not increase the probability of obtaining a reduction in value. Other relationships between the variables were discovered, but often with weak predictive ability. Findings from the assessment uniformity analyses were also interesting. The results indicated that the appeals mechanisms in both counties improved assessment uniformity. On average, appealed properties exhibited greater horizontal and vertical inequities, as compared to non-appealed properties, prior to the appeals process. After, the appeal process was completed; the indicators of horizontal and vertical equity were largely improved. However, there were some indications of regressivity in the final year of the study.

What next for unions in Central and Eastern Europe? Invisibility, departure and the transformation of industrial relations

This article examines union revitalization in Central and Eastern Europe, focusing on two countries: Hungary and Latvia. Trade unions have not only had to cope with a declining membership base, but have also had to respond to austerity programmes and government cuts in public sector employment. We argue that the inability of unions to provide a strong voice for alternative policies to the current neoliberal orthodoxy has been driven by a declining membership base, but also by weakened social dialogue mechanisms, limited industrial representation and an ageing membership profile, exacerbated by net outward migration in recent years. However, we find that unions in Latvia and Hungary have responded differently to these issues.

State of the art of industrial wood protection in Portugal

This work intended to give a perspective of industrial wood protection in Portugal. A survey was made of the companies treating wood mainly for use classes 3 and 4 such as autoclave treatments with biocides and wood modification procedures. Currently there are 23 companies with 33 production plants with an autoclave installed for wood preservation by impregnation. There are also two companies producing modified wood by thermal treatment. Most of the plants are located in the central and northern regions of Portugal. The leading preservation chemicals used in Portugal are Tanalith E and Celcure brands. The main wood species used in all companies is Pinus pinaster from local producers. The products commercialized by the treating companies are diverse: pre-fabricated houses, garden furniture and playgrounds, decks, poles, stakes, and sawn wood. Modified wood producers sell mostly decks and cladding. Considerable changes are expected in the next few years due to the requirements of European Directives and the typical constraints of the Portuguese market.

Federative dynamics in the EU under the influence of EU citizenship rights in times of crisis

The federative debate has been tied to the history of the EU integration from the start. Even though the EU is a polity in formation, the comparison with the state model has limited usefulness in assessing the evolution of federative dynamics in the EU. In the context of the EU, federalism should not be regarded as a static arrangement, but rather as a process that has been unfolding despite or because of EU integration setbacks. By the same token, EU citizenship is necessarily distinct from national citizenship. Our purpose in this article is to understand the federative dynamics of the EU in relation to the emergence of a “community of rights”. We also aim to establish if, and how, the on-going crisis has triggered a change in the EU federative process as a result of the weakening/strengthening of citizenship rights.

Privacy v IP Litigation : preliminary third party discovery on the Internet

The enforcement of Intellectual Property rights poses one of the greatest current threats to the privacy of individuals online. Recent trends have shown that the balance between privacy and intellectual property enforcement has been shifted in favour of intellectual property owners. This article discusses the ways in which the scope of preliminary discovery and Anton Piller orders have been overly expanded in actions where large amounts of electronic information is available, especially against online intermediaries (service providers and content hosts). The victim in these cases is usually the end user whose privacy has been infringed without a right of reply and sometimes without notice. This article proposes some ways in which the delicate balance can be restored, and considers some safeguards for user privacy. These safeguards include restructuring the threshold tests for discovery, limiting the scope of information disclosed, distinguishing identity discovery from information discovery, and distinguishing information preservation from preliminary discovery.

Enabling access to research data in developing countries : designing a policy and practice framework for Malaysia’s Public Research Universities

Members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are obliged to implement the Agreement on Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) which establishes minimum standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Almost two decades after TRIPS was adopted at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, it is widely accepted that intellectual property systems in developing and least-developed countries must be consistent with, and serve, their development needs and objectives. In adopting the Development Agenda in 2007, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) emphasised the importance to developing and least-developed countries of being able to obtain access to knowledge and technology and to participate in collaborations and exchanges with research and scientific institutions in other countries. Access to knowledge, information and technology is crucial if creativity and innovation is to be fostered in developing and least-developed countries. It is particularly important that developing and least-developed countries give effect to their TRIPS obligations by implementing intellectual property systems and adopting intellectual property management practices that enable them to benefit from knowledge flows and support their engagement in international research and science collaborations. However, developing and least-developed countries did not participate in the deliberations leading to the adoption in 2004 by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries of the Ministerial Declaration on Access to Research Data from Public Funding, nor have they formulated policies on access to publicly funded research outputs such as those developed by the National Institutes of Health in the United States, the United Kingdom Research Councils or the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. These issues are considered from the viewpoint of Malaysia, a developing country whose economy has grown strongly in recent years. Lacking an established policy covering access to the outputs of publicly funded research, data sharing and licensing practices continue to be fragmented. Obtaining access to research data requires arrangements to be negotiated with individual data owners and custodians. Given the potential for restrictions on access to impact negatively on scientific progress and development in Malaysia, measures are required to ensure that access to knowledge and research results is facilitated. This paper proposes a policy framework for Malaysia‘s public research universities that recognises intellectual property rights while enabling the open access to research data that is essential for innovation and development. It also considers how intellectual property rights in research data can be managed in order to give effect to the policy‘s open access objectives.

The Lazarus effect: The (RED) campaign, and creative capitalism

"4,400 people die every day of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Treatment exists. In about 60 days, a patient can go from here to here. We call this transformation the Lazarus Effect. It is the result of two pills a day taken by a HIV/AIDS patient for about 60 days. Learn more about how you can help give people the chance of life and joinred.com."The Lazarus Effect video, the (RED) Campaign.This Chapter explores how a number of non-government organizations, charities, and philanthropists have promoted ’grants' as a means of stimulating investment in research and development into neglected diseases. Each section considers the nature of the campaign; the use of intellectual property rights, such as trade marks; and the criticisms made of such endeavors. Section 2 looks at the (RED) Campaign, which is designed to boost corporate funding and consumer support for the Global Fund. Section 3 examines the role of the Gates Foundation in funding research and development in respect of infectious diseases. It explores the championing by Bill Gates of ’creative capitalism'. Section 4 considers the part of the Clinton Foundation in the debate over access to essential medicines. The Chapter concludes that, despite their qualities, such marketing initiatives fail to address the underlying inequalities and injustices of international patent law.

Trick or treaty?: The Australian debate over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

The secretive 2011 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – known in short by the catchy acronym ACTA – is a controversial trade pact designed to provide for stronger enforcement of intellectual property rights. The preamble to the treaty reads like pulp fiction – it raises moral panics about piracy, counterfeiting, organised crime, and border security. The agreement contains provisions on civil remedies and criminal offences; copyright law and trademark law; the regulation of the digital environment; and border measures. Memorably, Susan Sell called the international treaty a TRIPS Double-Plus Agreement, because its obligations far exceed those of the World Trade Organization's TRIPS Agreement 1994, and TRIPS-Plus Agreements, such as the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004. ACTA lacks the language of other international intellectual property agreements, which emphasise the need to balance the protection of intellectual property owners with the wider public interest in access to medicines, human development, and transfer of knowledge and technology. In Australia, there was much controversy both about the form and the substance of ACTA. While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was a partisan supporter of the agreement, a wide range of stakeholders were openly critical. After holding hearings and taking note of the position of the European Parliament and the controversy in the United States, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the Australian Parliament recommended the deferral of ratification of ACTA. This was striking as representatives of all the main parties agreed on the recommendation. The committee was concerned about the lack of transparency, due process, public participation, and substantive analysis of the treaty. There were also reservations about the ambiguity of the treaty text, and its potential implications for the digital economy, innovation and competition, plain packaging of tobacco products, and access to essential medicines. The treaty has provoked much soul-searching as to whether the Trick or Treaty reforms on the international treaty-making process in Australia have been compromised or undermined. Although ACTA stalled in the Australian Parliament, the debate over it is yet to conclude. There have been concerns in Australia and elsewhere that ACTA will be revived as a ‘zombie agreement’. Indeed, in March 2013, the Canadian government introduced a bill to ensure compliance with ACTA. Will it be also resurrected in Australia? Has it already been revived? There are three possibilities. First, the Australian government passed enhanced remedies with respect to piracy, counterfeiting and border measures in a separate piece of legislation – the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth). Second, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade remains supportive of ACTA. It is possible, after further analysis, that the next Australian Parliament – to be elected in September 2013 – will ratify the treaty. Third, Australia is involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. The government has argued that ACTA should be a template for the Intellectual Property Chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The United States Trade Representative would prefer a regime even stronger than ACTA. This chapter provides a portrait of the Australian debate over ACTA. It is the account of an interested participant in the policy proceedings. This chapter will first consider the deliberations and recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on ACTA. Second, there was a concern that ACTA had failed to provide appropriate safeguards with respect to civil liberties, human rights, consumer protection and privacy laws. Third, there was a concern about the lack of balance in the treaty’s copyright measures; the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations and remedies. Fourth, there was a worry that the provisions on trademark law, intermediary liability and counterfeiting could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy and innovation in the digital economy. Fifth, there was significant debate about the impact of ACTA on pharmaceutical drugs, access to essential medicines and health-care. Sixth, there was concern over the lobbying by tobacco industries for ACTA – particularly given Australia’s leadership on tobacco control and the plain packaging of tobacco products. Seventh, there were concerns about the operation of border measures in ACTA. Eighth, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was concerned about the jurisdiction of the ACTA Committee, and the treaty’s protean nature. Finally, the chapter raises fundamental issues about the relationship between the executive and the Australian Parliament with respect to treaty-making. There is a need to reconsider the efficacy of the Trick or Treaty reforms passed by the Australian Parliament in the 1990s.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Now the real international fight begins for the Trans-Pacific Partnership

In Atlanta, the trade ministers of a dozen countries across the Pacific Rim announced that they had successfully reached a concluded agreement upon the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The debate over the TPP will now play out in legislatures across the Pacific Rim, where sentiment towards the deal is much more mixed. The ministers insisted: “After more than five years of intensive negotiations, we have come to an agreement that will support jobs, drive sustainable growth, foster inclusive development, and promote innovation across the Asia-Pacific region … The agreement achieves the goal we set forth of an ambitious, comprehensive, high standard and balanced agreement that will benefit our nation’s citizens … We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.” But there has been fierce criticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because of both its secrecy and its substance. Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz has warned that the agreement is not about free trade, but about the protection of corporate monopolies. The intellectual property chapter provides for longer and stronger protection of intellectual property rights. The investment chapter provides foreign investors with the power to challenge governments under an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. The environment chapter is weak and toothless, and seems to be little more than an exercise in greenwashing. The health annex — and many other parts of the agreement — strengthen the power of pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology developers. The text on state-owned enterprises raises concerns about public ownership of postal services, broadcasters and national broadband services.

Dictadura, consenso o laissez faire en la transmisión eléctrica

Resumen: La dificultad con las redes radica en que, al ser de uso colectivo, generan conflictos sobre sus derechos de propiedad y obligaciones de pago. Por eso, existe una controversia sobre el más eficiente modo para su provisión, que se extiende desde el laissez faire hasta la dictadura. En el camino, se puede detener en algún tipo de consenso, basado en el diseño de mecanismos, adecuado para hacer revelar sus preferencias a los participantes. El proceso implica un intercambio de derechos entre los agentes para arribar a la asignación definitiva. Si, mediante una subasta, se obliga a los participantes a realizar ofertas de intercambio de derechos, los costos de transacción se reducen y la fluidez no puede sino ser mayor. Y ante una mayor fluidez en el intercambio, siempre será posible alcanzar una asignación más eficiente de esos derechos de propiedad. Para mostrar la conveniencia de esta alternativa, en este trabajo se presenta un modelo simplificado de diseño de mecanismos en donde se analiza la eficiencia asignativa de la regla propuesta.

Propriedade intelectual e preservação do meio ambiente no sistema multilateral de comércio

As discussões sobre as relações entre o Acordo TRIPS e a Convenção sobre a Diversidade Biológica (CDB) encontram-se na agenda internacional desde a realização da IV Conferência Ministerial da Organização Mundial do Comércio, ocorrida em novembro de 2001, em Doha no Catar. Apesar da considerável atenção que o tema tem recebido nos fóruns internacionais, o debate sobre o tratamento adequado da questão persiste sem solução. A presente tese apresenta uma abrangente análise das conexões que existem entre a proteção dos direitos de propriedade intelectual e a conservação da diversidade biológica. Além disso, a partir de uma análise de conceitos de propriedade intelectual como patentes, indicações geográficas, transferência de tecnologia e propriedade comunitária de conhecimentos tradicionais, destacam-se elementos necessários para o uso sustentável e conservação dos recursos biológicos.

El ADPIC y la corrupción de la industria farmacéutica: el acceso a los medicamentos en los países del Norte y del Sur

Resumen (Castellano): El acceso a los medicamentos ha sido en las últimas décadas un tema a debatir tanto en los países del Sur como en los países del Norte. Los precios impuestos por la industria farmacéutica para enfermedades tan graves como el VIH-SIDA han sido excesivos y consecuentemente inalcanzables para los países más pobres. Sin embargo, actualmente los países más ricos del Norte están sufriendo estas mismas consecuencias a causa del nuevo tratamiento contra la hepatitis C, cuyos precios astronómicos han excluido a numerosos enfermos del acceso al mismo. El derecho humano a la salud está siendo vulnerado, y las principales responsables son las empresas farmacéuticas, las cuales han corrompido los sistemas de salud. La fijación de precios monopólicos, tras el fortalecimiento de las patentes farmacéuticas con la firma del Acuerdo sobre Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC), ha constituido un obstáculo para la realización del mismo, agrandado por las disposiciones ADPIC-plus incluidas en los tratados de libre comercio . No obstante, la consolidación de la industria de medicamentos genéricos ha logrado competir contra ellas, suministrando medicamentos asequibles y promoviendo los intereses de los más necesitados.

A concessão de patentes de medicamentos fitoterápicos no Brasil: uma análise do período 1997-2004

Este trabalho aborda o problema do consumo desenfreado de produtos naturais no Brasil, especificamente de medicamentos fitoterápicos, com suas consequências, discutindo à luz do Direito de Propriedade Industrial e o Direito Sanitário. Procura relacionar o papel e a responsabilidade do INPI e a ANVISA, órgãos diretamente envolvidos na legislação mencionada, para a melhoria da qualidade de produtos fitoterápicos registrados e lançados no mercado brasileiro. Mostra a necessidade de uma reavaliação dos critérios de concessão de patentes para a área analisada por parte do INPI, bem como uma maior aproximação da ANVISA junto à este órgão, de modo que harmonizem estratégias para que a população tenha acesso a medicamentos fitoterápicos seguros e eficazes. Explicita as estratégias d indústria nacional do setor em alavancar suas vendas no mercado, através de projetos de lei que não traduzem com a realidade preconizada pela OMS, para o uso da Medicina Tradicional/Complementar, contrariando a legislação brasileira para o possível registro dos produtos patenteados. Conclui-se que interesses econômicos, ligados à acirrada concorrência no mercado de fitoterápicos e suplementos nutricionais, induzem à concessão de patentes para tais produtos, em detrimento das diretrizes existentes na Lei de Propriedade Industrial brasileira, em critérios de avaliação.

A Cooperative Management Solution to a Fishery Commons

A common property resource with open access, such as a fishery, will be used to excess when faced with sufficient demand. This will lead to an excessive amount of effort on the part of the fishery, resulting in a depletion of the stock. This paper discusses the development of a property rights regime for the Atlantic calico scallop, Argopecten gibbus, fishery of Florida. The management solution of the Calico Scallop Conservation Association (CSCA) provides an example of the assignment of property rights to a common property resource without resorting to governmental intervention. In this particular fishery, self-regulation limited early harvesting which would be uneconomic; there may be other fisheries in which self-regulation could be economically efficient and biologically appropriate. While this solution may not be applicable to all common property resources, for those cases which may be similar; the example of the CSCA provides valuable information that may be helpful in establishing a more efficient use of the resource. Some types of government facilitation may also be useful.