Original news and analysis on international IP policy
The new National Academies report on patents and standards is a landmark effort to shed light on the tensions between patents and standards in information and communications technology. Brian Kahin critiques the report and examines underlying problems that the report sidesteps.
Following the public outcry over the EU’s demands for stringent intellectual property rules that would dramatically raise medicines prices in India, you would expect the EU to think twice about making similar demands in future trade agreements, particularly with low- and middle-income countries. Yet, this is precisely what is going on now in the negotiations for a free trade agreement between the EU and Thailand, writes Tessel Mellema.
Margot Kaminski writes in Concurring Opinions: Yesterday, Wikileaks leaked the draft IP chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). The US Trade Representative has shown the draft text to its closed advisory committees, but not to anybody else. Content industries and pharmaceutical industries sit on the IP advisory committee. Internet industries, smaller innovators, generics companies, and public interest groups do not. This is no accident. When Congress established the trade negotiating system, it exempted the Trade Representative from requirements of an open government law that was enacted to prevent agency capture.
Though the WHO is among the recipients of EU contributions, support should be scaled up now that the WHO fears program cuts because of a persistent funding crisis. Revenues from a Financial Transaction Tax would be a resource for the EU to partly allocate for WHO needs, writes Daniele Dionisio.
In recent years, the Caribbean has been placed under a considerable amount of pressure to comply with the international regimen on intellectual property rights writes Abiola Inniss.
Rene Summer writes: The debate about copyright enforcement – whether rights holders’ unshakable conviction in the effectiveness of graduated responses is rational – has reached a watershed. This is not to say that there aren’t any ongoing, well-funded lobby campaigns around the world aimed at convincing policy makers to revert to the practice of some form of graduated response. Nor am I saying that there aren’t any other important considerations, such as the rights of citizens and intermediaries, to be weighted in when debating copyright enforcement, lessening the case for such practices. Rather, what I am saying is that arguing for graduated responses can no longer be done on efficiency grounds without at the same time being intellectually dishonest.
The USTR's disapproval of the ITC order excluding Apple products from the US raises difficult issues about the relationship between public decision-making and private solutions -- and invites strategic policymaking by other governments.
Andrew Updegrove discusses the handing down by Justice James Robart of a 207-page opinion in a closely-watched dispute between Motorola and Microsoft, involving several patents that Google later acquired (along with the rights under the lawsuit) when it purchased Motorola Mobility. In that opinion, Robart sought to determine what, under all relevant circumstances, Google could fairly and reasonably charge Microsoft to infringe upon the essential claims in question when (for example) it builds and sells an Xbox.
The authors write: "The US Patent and Trademark Office recently introduced a discounted “micro entity” rate on official fees for qualifying universities. Unfortunately, recent changes in the USPTO’s rules on applicants and powers of attorney hinders a qualifying university from benefiting from the micro entity discount. Here, we explain how the rules on micro entity status, applicants, and powers of attorney conflict with each other and offer suggestions for taking advantage of the micro entity discount without running afoul of the rule changes."
Prof. Owen Dean writes: Warner/Chappel Music, a music publishing company in the United States of America, claims and exerts copyright in the ubiquitous song “Happy Birthday to You”. It requires that royalty payments should be made to it each and every time this song is sung or used in public. This is a startling proposition as most people probably assume that the song is in the public domain and is free for use by all. An American documentary film maker agrees and is objecting to having to pay royalties to include the song in a film. It has consequently commenced legal proceedings before the US court seeking a declaration that the song is out of copyright and in the public domain. These court proceeding are currently attracting attention world-wide due to their somewhat bizarre nature. Meanwhile, under a bill in South Africa, celebrants of birthdays who do not obtain the necessary licence for singing “Happy Birthday” may in future bring the full wrath of the law down upon themselves through their unlawful conduct. Moreover, this situation could prevail in perpetuity.