Intellectual property rights and sustainable development: a survey of major issues

Includes bibliography

Multinational drug corporations, intellectual property rights and the Canadian state : a historical and critical analysis

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.

Rezension zu: Inge Govaere and Hanns Ulrich (eds.): Intellectual Property, Public Policy and International Trade

The contemporary intellectual property rights (IPR) system is not a simple, smoothly working block of rules but is complex and full of ambiguities, and as many argue, imperfections. Some deficits relate on the one hand to the inherent centrality of authorship, originality and mercantilism to the ‘Western’ IP model, which leaves numerous non-Western, collaborative or folkloric modes of production outside the scope of protection. On the other hand, some imperfections stem from the way IPR are granted, whereby creators acquire a temporary monopoly over their works and thus exclude the public from having access to them. In this sense, it is often uncertain whether the existent IPR model appropriately reflects the precarious balance between private and public interests, and whether the best incentives to promote creativity and innovation - the initially stated objectives of intellectual property protection - are offered. The matter becomes still more complicated when one considers that the IPR system is not domestically contained but is globalised and strongly affected by rules at the regional and international levels. The question of whether the balance between private interests and public values is sustained within the international legal framework, epitomised by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), is precisely the topic of the book reviewed here. Review of Intellectual Property, Public Policy, and International Trade, edited by Inge Govaere and Hanns Ullrich, P.I.E. Peter Lang, 2007.

Protection of Farmers’ Rights in India-Challenges for Law in the Context of Plant Breeders’ Rights

School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology

Innovation and Development in the Age of Climate Change Adaptation: Open or Closed?

Change Adaptation: Open or Closed? Paper read at the Second African International Economic Law Network Conference, 7-8 March 2013, Wits School of Law, Johannesburg, South Africa. In a time of rapid convergence of technologies, goods, services, hardware, software, the traditional classifications that informed past treaties fail to remove legal uncertainty, or advance welfare and innovation. As a result, we turn our attention to the role and needs of the public domain at the interface of existing intellectual property rights and new modes of creation, production and distribution of goods and services. The concept of open culture would have it that knowledge should be spread freely and its growth should come from further developing existing works on the basis of sharing and collaboration without the shackles of intellectual property. Intellectual property clauses find their way into regional, multilateral, bilateral and free trade agreements more often than not, and can cause public discontent and incite unrest. Many of these intellectual property clauses raise the bar on protection beyond the clauses found in the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). In this paper we address the question of the protection and development of the public domain in service of open innovation in accord with Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in light of the Objectives (Article 7) and Principles (Article 8) set forth in TRIPS. Once areas of divergence and reinforcement between the intellectual property regime and human rights have been discussed, we will enter into options that allow for innovation and prosperity in the global south. We then conclude by discussing possible policy developments.

La pertinence de l’obligation de divulguer l’origine des ressources génétiques et des savoirs traditionnels dans les demandes de brevets

Le développement fulgurant noté dans le domaine des biotechnologies peut être attribué, sinon essentiellement du moins partiellement, à l’utilisation des ressources génétiques (RG) et des savoirs traditionnels (ST) acquis sur ces ressources. Ces ressources et ces savoirs sont, notamment, utilisés dans le cadre d’inventions biotechnologiques qui peuvent s’avérer concluantes et faire l’objet de demande de protection par brevet. Ce développement ne s’est tout de même pas réalisé sans heurts majeurs, il l’a été au prix de tumultueuses oppositions. En effet, la découverte progressive de la valeur commerciale et scientifique de telles ressources et de tels savoirs a fait naître des intérêts et attisé des rivalités qui ont fini par opposer fournisseurs et utilisateurs de ces matériels. Force est de constater que parmi leurs divergences, celle qui se rapporte au partage des avantages fait l’objet de discussions des plus âpres qui soient dans le domaine. Une solution qui a été, aussi, envisagée a porté sur les régimes d’accès et de partage des avantages. Ce partage des avantages, les pays fournisseurs espèrent le réaliser par le biais de l’obligation de divulguer l’origine des RG et des ST dans les demandes de brevets. L’application d’une telle exigence connaît des limites en ce sens qu’elle est d’application territoriale. C’est sur la base d’un tel constat que les pays fournisseurs envisagent d’en faire une obligation reconnue et applicable à un niveau international. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous essaierons de démontrer que l’obligation de divulguer l’origine des RG et des ST dans les demandes de brevets, telle qu’elle est actuellement appliquée, ne constitue pas un moyen pertinent qui permettrait d’en arriver à un partage juste et équitable des avantages.

Libres propos sur la législation OAPI relative aux obtentions végétales

Les innovations en matière variétale et de biotechnologie végétale sont présentées comme un moyen efficace et approprié susceptible de favoriser l'amélioration de la production alimentaire et des conditions de travail et de vie des agriculteurs ainsi que celles des collectivités coutumières dans les pays membres de l'Organisation africaine de la propriété intellectuelle (OAPI). Sur le plan juridique, il se pose le problème de la protection juridique de ces innovations ou obtentions végétales. Le législateur OAPI de 1977 n'avait pas envisagé de protection pour les obtentions végétales. À la différence de certains États industrialisés qui organisaient un régime de protection sui generis ou par le système des brevets, il n'évoquait les variétés végétales et les procédés d'obtention des végétaux que pour les exclure du domaine brevetable. L'accord sur les aspects des droits de propriété intellectuelle qui touchent au commerce (ADPIC) de l'organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) est venu modifier la donne en imposant que les obtentions végétales puissent être protégées par les brevets, par un système sui generis ou par une combinaison des deux moyens. Le législateur OAPI de 1999 a voulu intégrer ces nouvelles exigences internationales en révisant l'Accord de Bangui. Ce faisant, l'exclusion de la brevetabilité des variétés végétales a été maintenue. Il ne restait plus au législateur qu'une seule option, l'adoption d'un régime de protection sui generis. Son choix s'est matérialisé par l'adoption de l'annexe X de l'Accord de Bangui de 1999 consacrée à « la protection des obtentions végétales ». Cette annexe est calquée sur la version de 1991 de la Convention Internationale pour la protection des obtentions végétales, mise en place par les pays européens. Il s'agit là d'un choix discutable. En effet, l'annexe X introduit dans l'espace OAPI une législation désincarnée, parce que à la fois incomplète et inadaptée à l'environnement socio-économique des pays membres de l'OAPI.

América Latina y el Caribe: la propiedad intelectual después de los tratados de libre comercio

Incluye Bibliografía

Patentes e licenciamentos compulsórios de medicamentos: o marco regulatório internacional e a ação dos países em desenvolvimento

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Coalitions, Power and Institutional Change in Global Patent Politics. IES WORKING PAPER 2/2013

With the 1995 Agreement on Trade - related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), a centralised rule - system for the international governance of patents was put in place under the general framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Since then, the number of patent – related institutions has increased monotonically on the multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral levels. I will explain this case of institutional change by focusing on the norm – setting activities of both industrialised and developing countries, arguing that both groups constitute internally highly cohesive coalitions in global patent politics, while institutional change occurs when both coalitions engage in those negotiating settings in which they enjoy a comparative advantage over the other coalition. Specifically, I make the point that industrialised countries’ norm – setting activities take place on the plurilateral and bilateral level, where economic factors can be effectively translated into political outcomes while simultaneously avoiding unacceptably high legitimacy costs; whereas developing countries, on the other hand, use various multilateral United Nations (UN) forums where their claims possess a high degree of legitimacy, but cannot translate into effective political outcomes. The paper concludes with some remarks on how this case yields new insights into ongoing debates in institutionalist International Relations (IR), as pertaining to present discussions on “regime complexity”.

The abuse of intellectual property rights and regulations in China: a law and economic analysis

From the institutional point of view, the legal system of IPR (intellectual property right, hereafter, IPR) is one of incentive institutions of innovation and it plays very important role in the development of economy. According to the law, the owner of the IPR enjoy a kind of exclusive right to use his IP(intellectual property, hereafter, IP), in other words, he enjoys a kind of legal monopoly position in the market. How to well protect the IPR and at the same time to regulate the abuse of IPR is very interested topic in this knowledge-orientated market and it is the basic research question in this dissertation. In this paper, by way of comparing study and by way of law and economic analyses, and based on the Austrian Economics School’s theories, the writer claims that there is no any contradiction between the IPR and competition law. However, in this new economy (high-technology industries), there is really probability of the owner of IPR to abuse his dominant position. And with the characteristics of the new economy, such as, the high rates of innovation, “instant scalability”, network externality and lock-in effects, the IPR “will vest the dominant undertakings with the power not just to monopolize the market but to shift such power from one market to another, to create strong barriers to enter and, in so doing, granting the perpetuation of such dominance for quite a long time.”1 Therefore, in order to keep the order of market, to vitalize the competition and innovation, and to benefit the customer, in EU and US, it is common ways to apply the competition law to regulate the IPR abuse. In Austrian Economic School perspective, especially the Schumpeterian theories, the innovation/competition/monopoly and entrepreneurship are inter-correlated, therefore, we should apply the dynamic antitrust model based on the AES theories to analysis the relationship between the IPR and competition law. China is still a developing country with relative not so high ability of innovation. Therefore, at present, to protect the IPR and to make good use of the incentive mechanism of IPR legal system is the first important task for Chinese government to do. However, according to the investigation reports,2 based on their IPR advantage and capital advantage, some multinational companies really obtained the dominant or monopoly market position in some aspects of some industries, and there are some IPR abuses conducted by such multinational companies. And then, the Chinese government should be paying close attention to regulate any IPR abuse. However, how to effectively regulate the IPR abuse by way of competition law in Chinese situation, from the law and economic theories’ perspective, from the legislation perspective, and from the judicial practice perspective, there is a long way for China to go!

Global Trade Governance and ASEAN: Studies of Trade-Related Aspects of Labor, Environment and Culture in Southeast Asia

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-08