Category Inside Views

Pondo termo ao acesso não autorizado aos recursos genéticos (quer dizer, biopirataria): acesso aberto limitado

O “acesso aos recursos genéticos” e a “participação justa e equitativa dos benefícios provenientes de sua utilização” vêm aturdindo delegados e delegações das 13 Conferências das Partes da Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre Diversidade Biológica, que entrou em vigor no ano de 1993. A expressão entre aspas conhecida pela sigla em inglês “ABS” é o terceiro objetivo do Convênio e se encontra entrelaçada pelos dois primeiros objetivos que são a conservação e o uso sustentável. Apesar de 25 anos de esforços e de uma bioeconomia de quase um trilhão de dólares, são muito poucos os contratos celebrados. Desses poucos, os benefícios monetários são tão baixos que as partes contratantes relutam em revelá-los. A “Lei brasileira de ABS” de 2015, que entrou em vigor no dia 6 de novembro de 2017 permite, por exemplo, a obtenção de royalties sobre vendas líquidas tão baixos que isso implica a celebração de contratos pela bagatela de uma décima parte de um por cento. Citando as palavras de um jurista erudito, os Usuários pagam “uma miséria pela biodiversidade”.

US Section 301, China, And Technology Transfer: Law And Its Limitations Revisited (Again)

Frederick Abbott writes: On 20 May 2018, US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin announced that the US and China were “putting the trade war on hold” while the two countries seek to “execute the framework” of a broad agreement intended to reduce the US trade deficit in goods with China. According to the joint statement issued on 19 May 2018, “Both sides attach paramount importance to intellectual property protections, and agreed to strengthen cooperation. China will advance relevant amendments to its laws and regulations in this area, including the Patent Law.”

Terminando con el acceso no autorizado a los recursos genéticos (biopiratería): Apertura delimitada

El “acceso a los recursos genéticos” y “la participación justa y equitativa de los beneficios que provienen de su utilización” han atribulado las trece Conferencias de las Partes del Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Diversidad Biológica(CDB), que entró en vigor en 1993. La expresión entre comillas se conoce por sus siglas en inglés como “ABS”. Es el tercer objetivo del Convenio, entrelazado con los primeros dos, que son la conservación y el uso sostenible. A pesar de 25 años de esfuerzos y una bioeconomía de casi un trillón de dólares, pocos son los contratos de acceso que han sido celebrados. De esos pocos, los beneficios monetarios son tan bajos que las partes contratantes (y otros actores) son reacias a divulgarlos, bajo la excusa de “confidencialidad por sensibilidades comerciales”. La ley brasileña de ABS de 2015, que entró en vigor el 6 de noviembre de 2017 por ejemplo, permite que las regalías de las ventas netas sean tan bajas como la décima parte de uno por ciento. En palabras de un erudito jurista, los Usuarios pagan “una miseria por la biodiversidad”.

In Defense Of Fair Use

Copyright law, to be sustainable, calls for a balance. Under copyright law, creators receive exclusive rights to allow or prevent others from making copies of their works for a limited time as an incentive to create. Users receive benefits from the results of the creator’s labor, perhaps through watching, reading or listening to those results. Users may also benefit pursuant to a license to use the works in other ways. Eventually the works fall into the public domain, allowing further reuse by everyone. Recent litigation involving a graffiti artist and a purveyor of sportswear shows how sometimes a flexible mechanism for balancing the copyright entitlements of creators and users makes sense, writes Roy Kaufman.

Draft Broadcast Treaty Takes Restrictive Approach To Limitations And Exceptions

Sean Flynn writes: At this week’s meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, there was renewed attention to the limitations and exceptions provisions of a proposed treaty for broadcast organizations. Unfortunately, the result of that attention was to make the current draft more restrictive for the adoption of exceptions than prior drafts, and more restrictive than are present copyright treaties or the than the Rome Convention the broadcast treaty seeks to update.

O Paradoxo Das Patentes No Brasil E Suas Implicações Para O Acesso A Medicamentos

O sistema de patentes foi supostamente projetado para permitir a recuperação do investimento em pesquisa e desenvolvimento (P&D) de um novo produto, através da venda sob exclusividade por um período de tempo. Vários estudos relacionaram preços altos de medicamentos à situação de monopólio estabelecida pelo sistema de patentes e outros direitos de monopólio (como a exclusividade de dados). É bastante estabelecido que a existência de uma patente pode levar a preços altos devido à condição de mercado em que um produtor pode operar com exclusividade. Vários estudos relacionaram preços elevados de medicamentos à situação de monopólio estabelecida pelo sistema de patentes e outros direitos de monopólio (como a exclusividade de dados). Na ausência de concorrência, um produtor pode cobrar praticamente qualquer preço pelo seu produto. A concorrência, portanto, pode promover uma redução significativa de preços e aumentar o acesso.

US Patent System Remains 1st In The World, Despite Errors In Chamber Rankings

Over the past few months, US officials ranging from PTO Director Andrei Iancu to a number of Congressional members, most recently Rep. Kelly (Illinois-2), have cited to the Chamber of Commerce’s ranking of intellectual property systems, which has dropped the US patent system from 1st in the world to 12th. They cite the rankings as evidence that the US patent system is in urgent need of review.

Unfortunately, the rankings are based on misinterpretations and falsehoods. These are worth noting ahead of a House Judiciary hearing Tuesday with Iancu testifying.

The Patent Paradox In Brazil And Its Implications For Access To Medicines

Brazil is frequently pointed to as one of the countries in which fewer pharmaceutical patents are granted. The fact that there is a low number of patents granted could lead to the conclusion that medicines can be bought under competition and that the prices would be low. However, many medicines in Brazil are bought exclusively from one producer and usually at high prices. The situation of few granted patents, but many purchases under exclusivity due to absence of competition (which can lead to higher prices), is what we are calling the ‘patent paradox in Brazil’. In the absence of granted patents, what are the factors that lead to the situation of no competition and high prices in Brazil? This is the question that we, at the accessibsa: Innovation & Access to Medicines in India, Brazil & South Africa, aim to answer with a study currently being conducted at the Department of Medicines Policy and Pharmaceutical Services (NAF) of the Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health – ENSP/Fiocruz.

Brazilian Superior Court Of Justice Stops Patent Term Extension Attempts

Pedro Marcos Nunes Barbosa writes: In April 2018, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled on a controversial patent term extension scheme, for the third time since Brazil adopted TRIPS compliant legislation in 1996. The first ruling on this topic, upheld by the STJ, was decided, unanimously, in the year 2009 (docket REsp 960.728, Justice Andrighi). In that case, a famous agrochemical multinational company sought an exotic interpretation of the impacts brought by the minimum deadline granted to a patent, since the WTO’s annex treaty imposed the uniform extension of 20 years. In other words, although the agrochemical company had obtained its exclusivity right in a pre-TRIPS context (where Brazilian Law guaranteed a 15 years property right), but unsatisfied, after the Agreement was implemented, the plaintiff requested a judicial pass for a five year extra period of competition absence.

EU-US Comparison & Guide On Copyright Link Liability – An Update

Ed Klaris and Alexia Bedat write: An update to our article reviewing US and European law/recent developments in link liability in both the copyright and defamation contexts and providing a checklist of questions an attorney (or editor) ought to ask before deciding, prepublication, whether a proposed link may lead to liability in the US and/or the EU. Updates include the recent Goldman v. Breitbart decision in which a Federal Judge concluded that embedding a Tweet can be copyright infringement.