Original news and analysis on international IP policy
A network neutrality policy proposed recently by industry giants Google and Verizon not only sparked controversy here in the United States, but the news is making waves internationally as well.
Many of the 11 negotiating partners of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) for years have underlined that the new anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy agreement will not change their national laws, with the United States and the European Union especially firm on this point. Yet the Washington, DC-based Intellectual Property Owners' Association (IPO) in a recent letter, here,
to the US Trade Representative stated concern that ACTA “potentially change(s) United States law by transforming what are the commonly occurring non-counterfeit-types of civil action infringements into activity that is to be punished under federal criminal law.”
An agreement on international intellectual property rights enforcement now under negotiation in Lucerne, Switzerland runs the risk of ushering in a new and undemocratic precedent for international policymaking that could have long-term damaging effects on critical public policy issues, non-negotiating government representatives and civil society advocates said this week.
While World Trade Organization members met with their usual stasis last week on a mandated register for geographical indications, industry proponents of GIs continued lobbying to raise the awareness of delegates of countries not historically concerned with this form of intellectual property protection.
The past year’s expert working group process at the World Health Organization on solutions for financing of research and development into diseases afflicting poor nations was flawed and led to an unsatisfactory result, representatives of non-governmental organisations said this week. But innovation and access can both be provided, and the issue of IP protection can be de-linked from the way innovation is done, speakers at a side event to this week’s World Health Assembly said. Meanwhile, NGOs and industry also offered their views on WHO counterfeiting efforts this week.
Intellectual property rights and access to medicines were on the agenda at the first day of a biotechnology industry group’s annual convention yesterday. The group held a panel on IP rights and also released a policy statement on access to medicine in developing countries. The director of the US Patent and Trademark Office commented positively on the initiative.
The second edition of the Consumers International IP Watchlist has been published, with the conclusion that consumers are bearing collateral damage to the enforcement push by entertainment and media lobby groups encouraging stringent national legislations. Copyright laws and enforcement are changing, but mostly for the benefit of right holders, said the advocate group which encourages copyright exceptions.
Two shareholders in a Pennsylvania company with patents key to third generation (3G) mobile communications want the US Department of Justice to investigate European mobile phone manufacturers Nokia and Ericsson and others for failing to pay royalties for use of the technology. Antitrust scrutiny is needed to prevent the same thing from happening as the next generation of mobile phones rolls out, Richard Monahan and Kent Greene say.
The truth about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is different depending on which side you are on.
In the aftermath of the recent protracted fights over healthcare, the United States has seen a wave of intellectual property-related policy activity