Intellectual Property Watch

Intellectual Property Watch

  • Articles: 409

Impact Of The TPP On The Pharma Industry

The final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership confirms beyond doubt the apprehensions expressed by civil society, academia and the generic industry about new barriers to access to medicines. The TPP has done away with several flexibilities provided under the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration on Public Health. Though the text mentions “nothing in this [IPR] Chapter limits a Party’s rights and obligations under Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement,” the TPP Investment Chapter overrides these flexibilities, says D G Shah.

Flexibility In The TPP Statutory Damages Provision

Jonathan Band writes: During the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, many concerns were voiced about how TPP would mandate adoption of US-style statutory damages. Under the US Copyright Act, a court can award damages of up to $30,000 per work infringed, which can be ratcheted up to $150,000 per work infringed in cases of willful infringement. Scholars have found that statutory damages in the US have discouraged investment in innovative technologies while incentivizing the emergence of copyright trolls. So how bad is the statutory damages provision in the final TPP agreement?

TPP Article 14.17 & Free Software: No Harm, No Foul

[Software Freedom Law Center, Link (CC-BY-SA)] The first official public release of the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement (known universally as the TPP) on November 5, 2015 generated much heated speculation. The ideal of “open agreements, openly arrived at” remains regrettably unattainable in international affairs. “Fast track” trade negotiating authority in the US means that parties excluded from the negotiating process have a short time in which to mobilize for or against the treaty as a whole in light of their specific concerns. The premium on speed of response to a very lengthy and complex legal document—and the presence of intense public attention—guarantees that hasty judgment and occasional self-promotion will always outrun professional analysis; this is one of the inherent defects of secret legislation.

A User-Focused Commentary On The TPP ISP Safe Harbors

Annemarie Bridy writes: Section J of the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s IP chapter, on ISP safe harbors, looks a lot like Section 512 of the DMCA [US Digital Millennium Copyright Act], but the two frameworks differ in some important respects that could negatively impact the global environment for user speech online. This post offers a comparison of Section J and Section 512 with a focus on the rights of users and the status of user expression in the TPP’s intermediary safe harbor provisions.

Is The Internet Of Things (IoT) Really New Or Simply Recycled?

There is a lot of hype around the Internet of Things (IoT) yet many, if not most, are confused by what IoT really is and what it means for their IP and their business. In fact, some people claim that the IoT is simply a matter of applying existing technology to new applications. Many companies new to the IoT market may have strong and expansive portfolio positions for assertion. This makes it difficult at best to discern whether or not IoT inventions are really new or just recycled technology. If you are a new player in the IoT market, you most likely will be filing patent applications for new innovations; however, since IoT is being built on established technology, you need to be aware that there are hundreds of technology companies that may already own the seminal foundation patents.

Infojustice.org: Google Books And Feist-y Fair Use

From infojustice.org: Judge Pierre Leval’s opinion [on 16 October] in the Google Books case offers another fascinating glimpse into the richness of his thinking about the concept of fair use. Although the outcome in Google Books (Google wins, duh) was obvious to anyone whose paycheck didn’t depend on their believing otherwise, the discussion that gets us there sheds light on a host of hot fair use topics in ways that courts and copyright wonks will be citing and unpacking for years to come.

EPO Still In Turmoil As Supervisory Body Backs Dismissal Of High-Level Staff

The European Patent Organisation has been in turmoil for years facing serious staff dissent and complaints aimed at EPO President Benoît Battistelli of France. The EPO's effort appears to have intensified in recent months, and on Friday the EPO Administrative Council, the agency's supervisory body, announced an action to back Battistelli and endorsed a request for the dismissal of a high-level staff member. The action sent critics to new levels of criticism.

Argentina: Bill To Expand Copyright On Photographs To Life-Plus-70 Years Introduced In Argentine Congress

Maximiliano Marzetti writes: Bill No. 2517-D-2015, presented by Liliana Mazure, Gloria Bidegain, Susana Canela, Gastón Harispe, Héctor Recalde and Eduardo Seminara, was introduced to the Argentine Congress to reform the Argentine Copyright Act (Law No. 11.723) in order to extend copyright over photographic works to life plus 70 years post mortem auctoris. The current period of protection for photographs in Argentina is 20 years since publication (article 34). In case the bill is passed it will have retroactive effect, i.e. photographs that today are in the public domain will revert to private property.

Interview With KIPO’s New Commissioner, Choi Donggyou

It has been five months since Choi Donggyou assumed the role of KIPO Commissioner. During the 55th WIPO General Assemblies in Geneva this week, he took time to sit down with Intellectual Property Watch and in a mutually prepared Q&A gave his perspective on a wide array of issues, including the IP policies and projects he plans to focus on throughout his term, his intentions for maintaining close collaborative ties with WIPO, and his thoughts on last May's IP5 Heads of Office meeting in Suzhou, China.