Strong Copyright vs Open Source, Open Access, Open Data: the role of Free Trade Agreements
Roberto Caso and Paolo Guarda
University of Trento – Faculty of Law – LawTech Group - Italy
This presentation aims to map the impact of copyrigt law on the circulation of information and technological development within some selected examples of free trade agreements in force or under negotiation.
Excessively restrictive rules – the Western “high livel of protection” approach”- in this context may threaten policies to foster innovation and technological development.
Open models (as Open Source software, Open Access to scientific publications, Open Research Data etc.), indeed, foster trade in high tech products and services, by stimualting free flow of ideas and knowledge across borders, progress of knowledge, innovation and business development around the several countries involved. The open logic promote virtuous circles of production of new knowledge and business models more profiled on new technological scenarios.
Assuming that intellectual property policy should play a pivotal role in trade agreements, then the open logic rules should be a natural fit for inclusion amongst this kind of international regulation.
So we argue in favour of a more balanced approach to copyright law in FTAs context.
This document summarizes the regulatory framework for licensing and access to online music and audiovisual content across borders in the EU. It finds that the framework is complex and depends on the subject matter. For music, territorial exploitation is addressed by intermediaries like collective management organizations (CMOs). For audiovisual, exclusive territorial licenses are used. Both competition law and legislation aim to address territorial restrictions by CMOs. Recent regulations also aim to facilitate cross-border access and portability, though true cross-border access is not fully addressed. Overall, the interplay between ex ante regulation and ex post competition law aims to balance copyright protections with ensuring access across borders.
Leaving the European Safe Harbor... sailing towards algorithmic content regul...LawScienceTech
Talk on 19.3.2019 at the University of Oslo on the EU's push for algorithmic content regulation related to: copyright, all forms of illegal content, and terrorist content.
Platform regulation in the DSM... through liability exemptions?LawScienceTech
The document discusses platform regulation and intermediary liability in the EU. It notes that intermediaries are increasingly used for infringing activities and are best placed to address such activities. It outlines the liability exemptions for mere conduits, caching, and hosting under the E-Commerce Directive as well as notice-and-action requirements. Recent directives like the DSM Directive and proposals for new regulations may revisit the scope of intermediary liability and responsibilities as well as debate how to balance proactive and reactive enforcement measures by platforms.
Domain registries are considered intermediaries under the EU legal framework. As intermediaries, they benefit from liability exemptions for unlawful content hosted by third parties on domains they administer. However, recent proposals aim to clarify intermediaries' responsibilities and encourage proactive measures to address unlawful content. The presentation discusses domain registries' role and potential solutions for addressing unlawful content, including through cooperation with rightsholders and effective but proportionate technologies. It notes criticism of some proposals around potential overreach and chilling effects on freedom of expression.
This document summarizes key aspects of copyright protection under the TRIPS agreement. It discusses how TRIPS established minimum international standards for intellectual property protection, including copyright, in response to limitations of prior conventions like Berne. TRIPS incorporates substantive copyright provisions from Berne and goes beyond it with enforcement mechanisms. It requires national treatment, meaning foreign works get the same protections as domestic works. TRIPS also provides for most favored nation treatment to prevent discrimination among foreign copyright holders.
This document summarizes key aspects of copyright protection under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It discusses how TRIPS established international minimum standards for copyright protection and enforcement. It notes that TRIPS incorporated substantive provisions of the Berne Convention and requires national treatment and most favored nation status for copyrighted works. However, it also identifies some issues not addressed by TRIPS, such as the exclusion of moral rights and lack of definition for what constitutes copyright infringement.
This document discusses TRIPS-plus agreements, which are agreements that increase intellectual property protections beyond the minimum standards in the WTO's TRIPS agreement. It outlines major TRIPS-plus agreements like ACTA and various WIPO treaties. It notes that TRIPS-plus provisions can limit generic competition and compulsory licensing. Developing countries face pressure to adopt tougher IP laws through bilateral trade agreements with developed countries.
This document summarizes the regulatory framework for licensing and access to online music and audiovisual content across borders in the EU. It finds that the framework is complex and depends on the subject matter. For music, territorial exploitation is addressed by intermediaries like collective management organizations (CMOs). For audiovisual, exclusive territorial licenses are used. Both competition law and legislation aim to address territorial restrictions by CMOs. Recent regulations also aim to facilitate cross-border access and portability, though true cross-border access is not fully addressed. Overall, the interplay between ex ante regulation and ex post competition law aims to balance copyright protections with ensuring access across borders.
Leaving the European Safe Harbor... sailing towards algorithmic content regul...LawScienceTech
Talk on 19.3.2019 at the University of Oslo on the EU's push for algorithmic content regulation related to: copyright, all forms of illegal content, and terrorist content.
Platform regulation in the DSM... through liability exemptions?LawScienceTech
The document discusses platform regulation and intermediary liability in the EU. It notes that intermediaries are increasingly used for infringing activities and are best placed to address such activities. It outlines the liability exemptions for mere conduits, caching, and hosting under the E-Commerce Directive as well as notice-and-action requirements. Recent directives like the DSM Directive and proposals for new regulations may revisit the scope of intermediary liability and responsibilities as well as debate how to balance proactive and reactive enforcement measures by platforms.
Domain registries are considered intermediaries under the EU legal framework. As intermediaries, they benefit from liability exemptions for unlawful content hosted by third parties on domains they administer. However, recent proposals aim to clarify intermediaries' responsibilities and encourage proactive measures to address unlawful content. The presentation discusses domain registries' role and potential solutions for addressing unlawful content, including through cooperation with rightsholders and effective but proportionate technologies. It notes criticism of some proposals around potential overreach and chilling effects on freedom of expression.
This document summarizes key aspects of copyright protection under the TRIPS agreement. It discusses how TRIPS established minimum international standards for intellectual property protection, including copyright, in response to limitations of prior conventions like Berne. TRIPS incorporates substantive copyright provisions from Berne and goes beyond it with enforcement mechanisms. It requires national treatment, meaning foreign works get the same protections as domestic works. TRIPS also provides for most favored nation treatment to prevent discrimination among foreign copyright holders.
This document summarizes key aspects of copyright protection under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It discusses how TRIPS established international minimum standards for copyright protection and enforcement. It notes that TRIPS incorporated substantive provisions of the Berne Convention and requires national treatment and most favored nation status for copyrighted works. However, it also identifies some issues not addressed by TRIPS, such as the exclusion of moral rights and lack of definition for what constitutes copyright infringement.
This document discusses TRIPS-plus agreements, which are agreements that increase intellectual property protections beyond the minimum standards in the WTO's TRIPS agreement. It outlines major TRIPS-plus agreements like ACTA and various WIPO treaties. It notes that TRIPS-plus provisions can limit generic competition and compulsory licensing. Developing countries face pressure to adopt tougher IP laws through bilateral trade agreements with developed countries.
This document discusses licensing intellectual property rights and international agreements related to IP protection. It notes that licensing IP allows companies to expand globally without large capital investments. Key points covered include typical license provisions, definitions of intellectual property, international treaties like the Paris and Berne Conventions, protections for trademarks, patents, copyrights, and the TRIPS agreement under the WTO. Enforcement challenges and the gray market are also summarized.
Trade related intellectual property rights 1Bhaskar Amit
This document discusses Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and its implications for India. It provides background on India's intellectual property practices historically and how TRIPS agreements have changed things. TRIPS requires minimum standards of protection for various types of intellectual property including copyrights, trademarks, geographical indications, patents, and more. The document examines India's obligations in these areas and how its laws have been amended to comply with TRIPS, with some protections like copyright terms now exceeding TRIPS standards. It also notes criticisms of TRIPS for potentially increasing drug costs and threatening traditional knowledge, community resources, agriculture, and food security in India.
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)Dr. Prashant Vats
The TRIPS agreement is an international agreement administered by the WTO that introduced intellectual property law into the multilateral trading system. It requires WTO members to provide minimum standards of protection for copyrights, trademarks, patents, and other intellectual property. TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round between 1989-1990 and remains the most comprehensive agreement on IP. It has provisions for enforcement and allows for compulsory licensing of medicines under certain conditions. However, many nations have adopted even higher "TRIPS-plus" standards through bilateral agreements.
The document summarizes key points made by Carolina Rossini, International Intellectual Property Director at EFF, at a 2012 Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholder Forum regarding technological protection measures (TPMs) and access rights. Rossini argues that overbroad TPM laws, as seen from the US experience with the DMCA, can restrict lawful and socially beneficial uses of copyrighted works, chill scientific research, stifle technology innovation, and enable anti-competitive behavior. The TPP agreement should leave TPM policy choices to member countries and any provisions must balance copyright protections with other public interests.
Intellectual Property Rights Seminar ReportAjay Poshak
The TRIPS Agreement is the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property. It sets minimum standards of protection for copyright, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, trade secrets, and enforcement procedures. The TRIPS Agreement incorporates the key provisions of the Berne Convention and Paris Convention and adds additional obligations. It allows developing countries a longer period to phase in its obligations and includes special provisions for pharmaceutical patents in developing countries.
The TRIPS Agreement establishes minimum standards of protection for intellectual property rights that all WTO members must adhere to. It was negotiated during the Uruguay Round and incorporated into the WTO. The TRIPS Agreement covers copyright, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, trade secrets and more. It introduced intellectual property rules into the international trading system for the first time. Developing issues around TRIPS continue to be negotiated at the WTO.
The document discusses the TRIPS agreement which introduced intellectual property rules into the multilateral trading system. It establishes minimum standards of protection that countries must provide for copyrights, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, trade secrets, and enforcement. The agreement aims to balance long term benefits of intellectual property with possible short term costs to society through exceptions. It covers issues like adequate protection of IP rights, enforcement within countries, settling disputes, and transitional arrangements for implementing new standards.
This document summarizes an issue paper on the relationship between intellectual property and competition law, with a focus on issues relevant to developing countries. The paper explores how competition law concepts like refusal to deal, essential facilities, and acquisition of intellectual property rights can intersect with intellectual property rights in ways that may harm competition. It also discusses how compulsory licenses and government regulations can be used to address anti-competitive practices involving intellectual property. The paper aims to increase understanding of these issues and how developing countries can develop approaches to intellectual property and competition law that balance intellectual property incentives with promoting competition.
This document analyzes Article 13(1) of the EU Copyright Directive, which requires online platforms to implement content recognition technologies to detect copyrighted content. The article argues that content recognition technologies are technically flawed, impose high costs, and do not properly balance copyrights with other rights like privacy and freedom of expression. Additionally, the article notes that the EU Court of Justice has previously found member states must balance copyright with other fundamental rights when implementing EU directives. The article concludes that Article 13(1) risks upsetting this balance and treating online platforms as private copyright enforcers.
Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law A Cont.docxvrickens
Intellectual Property Rights and Competition
Law: A Context for Coordination and
Harmonization
Gwen Grecia-De Vera*
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1111
II. OVERVIEW OF THE PHILIPPINE COMPETITION ACT .................. 1113
III. THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE ..................................... 1120
IV. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION ........................ 1132
V. COORDINATION AND HARMONIZATION ................................. 1153
I. INTRODUCTION
The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines1 (IP Code) was enacted in
light of the State policy to protect and secure, for a specific statutory
duration, the exclusive rights of scientists, artists, and other gifted citizens of
their intellectual and industrial property under the 1987 Constitution.2 Since
its effectivity in 1998,3 the IP Code has provided the legislative and
* ’95 LL.B, University of the Philippines College of Law. The Author served as
the Philippine Competition Commission’s first Executive Director. She was the
former Dean of the Manuel Luiz Quezon University School of Law. She is currently
a Senior Lecturer at the University of the Philippines College of Law.
Cite as 62 ATENEO L.J. 1111 (2018).
1. An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing the
Intellectual Property Office, Providing for Powers and Functions, and for Other
Purposes [INTELL. PROP. CODE], Republic Act No. 8293 (1998).
2. PHIL. CONST. art. XIV, § 13.
3. The Intellectual Property Code (IP Code) took effect on 1 January 1998 and, by
its express provision, repealed the following laws: the Trademark Law, the
Patent Law, Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code, the Decree on
Intellectual Property, and the Decree on Compulsory Reprinting of Foreign
Textbooks. The IP Code was enacted to strengthen the intellectual and
industrial property system in the Philippines as mandated by the country’s
accession to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. See
INTELL. PROP. CODE, §§ 2 & 240 (as amended).
1112 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL [vol. 62:1111
institutional framework for the protection and enforcement of intellectual
property rights (IPR) across patents, trademarks, copyright, geographic
indications, and trade secrets.4 It reflects the core inducement for innovation
and artistic creation in the grant of exclusive rights to use and exploit an
invention or artistic work. However, the welfare effects of the IPR
protection under the IP Code remain unclear, such that under the Philippine
Development Plan 2017-2022 (PDP 2017-2022),5 the country’s performance
in the science, technology, and innovation (STI) sector remained dismal.
Against this backdrop, competition law and policy was sought to be
implemented with the enactment of Republic Act No. 10667, or the
Philippine Competition Act (PCA),6 in 2015. This is of particular interest,
because at the center of compe ...
An initial look behind the scenes at the functioning of WTO TRIPS and the impact of FTZs on international regulatory frameworks
This presentation was delivered at the Transparency in Free Trade Zones meeting, on September 29, 2017. For more information, please see http://www.oecd.org/governance/risk/
IPR-implications for India, WTO, WIPO, GATT, TRIPSSomashree Das
This document discusses intellectual property rights (IPR) implications for India, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It provides background on IPR, WIPO, GATT, WTO and their roles in international trade and protecting intellectual property rights. The document also outlines some of the key agreements and treaties under each organization regarding trade and intellectual property.
This document discusses key concepts relating to intellectual property including definitions of property, intellectual property, and different types of intellectual property. It outlines several theories justifying intellectual property protection and notes that intellectual property laws aim to reward creativity while competition laws aim to protect consumers. The document also describes several international treaties and agreements governing intellectual property, including the Paris Convention, Berne Convention, TRIPS Agreement, and Patent Law Treaty. It provides an overview of requirements for patentability such as novelty, inventive step, and industrial application.
The document discusses concerns about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). It raises issues with ACTA's lack of transparency in negotiations and potential substantive issues contained in key provisions. These include expanded statutory damages, injunction powers, and encouragement of "three strikes" policies. It warns that ACTA could undermine existing international IP organizations and shift negotiations away from multilateral forums. The document argues ACTA sets a precedent that could pressure developing countries and ignores limitations and flexibilities in existing IP treaties.
Lecture 8 ib 404 institutional framework for international businessMahir Jawad
The TRIPS Agreement aims to reduce distortions and impediments to international trade by establishing common international rules on intellectual property protection. It covers copyrights, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, and undisclosed/trade secret information. The TRIPS Agreement sets minimum standards for protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights and allows members to implement more extensive protection. It seeks to balance intellectual property protection with public policy interests like health and development.
Intellectual Property Rights Notes for B.Sc. & M.Sc. StudentsPradipta Banerjee
GATT, WTO, WIPO, TRIPS, BERNE convention, Madrid Protocol, Budapest Treaty, Copyright, Trademark and its types, Service mark, GI, Industrial design, Integrated circuits
The document discusses the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement administered by the World Trade Organization. TRIPS sets minimum standards for forms of intellectual property regulation between member countries. It introduced intellectual property law into international trade and remains the most comprehensive agreement on the topic. TRIPS requires copyright, geographical indications, designs, patents and other forms of intellectual property be protected. It also specifies enforcement procedures to balance rights and obligations in a way that promotes innovation and technology sharing.
Trips Introduction
Basic principles of TRIPS
Types of Intellectual Property Rights (addressed in the TRIPS agreement)
Overview of the TRIPS agreement
Public policy implications
Provisions relating to developing countries
This document discusses how intellectual property laws and digital rights management tools can be used to cause planned obsolescence of smart devices and limit ownership rights. It notes that centralized control of information through these tools can restrict individual liberty, autonomy, and innovation. The document examines topics like how IP intersects with issues of personal property, privacy, and competition. It analyzes court cases related to exhaustion of copyrights and legal protections for technological protection measures. The document argues for rethinking and reforming intellectual property laws and copyright to address problems caused by digital rights management and planned obsolescence.
Copyright on academic and scientific publications (papers, articles, essays, books etc.) is the
result of the interaction between formal rules (copyright law), social norms (norms of
science) and technology (printing press, digital technologies).
Prior to the digital age, academic copyright has had two main functions.
a) Priority. The acknowledgment of a paternity (or attribution) right on the scientific
publication has facilitated the certification of priority of the scientific discovery described in
the text.
b) Dissemination. The protection of economic rights (reproduction, distribution etc.) has
enabled the alliance between scientific authors and publishers finalized to distribute scientific
publications to the public. Usually, scientific authors transfer their economic rights to the
publisher because the latter has the economic and technological power to disseminate
scientific publications. Nevertheless, scientific authors are mostly interested in reputation and
not in the economic return derived from the commercialization of copyright.
According to Robert Merton's theory, the norms of science are Communism, Universalism,
Disinterestedness, and Organized Skepticism (CUDOS).
Scientists compete for priority but they put their ideas and information in the public domain.
The ultimate scope is to share ideas and information because the progress of science depends
on "communism" and "organized skepticism". In other terms, scientific publications are part
of the public and critical dialogue. In this perspective, formal law and social norms, normally
stating that the original ownership of copyright belongs to the authors and not to their
academic or scientific institutions, mirror freedom of speech and academic liberty.
The current scenario however seems completely different. In theory, Internet represents an
extraordinary opportunity to strengthen the scientific debate. But reality tells a very different
story. In the digital age, scientific publications are only "products". The changing nature of
scientific publications is the effect of the commodification of academic research. While the
interaction between commodification of academic research and university patents has been
deeply investigated and discussed, scholars have paid relatively little attention to the
commodification of academic copyright.
In the market of scientific publications, bibliometrics and digitization distort the two
functions (priority and dissemination) of academic copyright.
More Related Content
Similar to Strong Copyright vs Open Source, Open Access, Open Data: the role of Free Trade Agreements
This document discusses licensing intellectual property rights and international agreements related to IP protection. It notes that licensing IP allows companies to expand globally without large capital investments. Key points covered include typical license provisions, definitions of intellectual property, international treaties like the Paris and Berne Conventions, protections for trademarks, patents, copyrights, and the TRIPS agreement under the WTO. Enforcement challenges and the gray market are also summarized.
Trade related intellectual property rights 1Bhaskar Amit
This document discusses Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and its implications for India. It provides background on India's intellectual property practices historically and how TRIPS agreements have changed things. TRIPS requires minimum standards of protection for various types of intellectual property including copyrights, trademarks, geographical indications, patents, and more. The document examines India's obligations in these areas and how its laws have been amended to comply with TRIPS, with some protections like copyright terms now exceeding TRIPS standards. It also notes criticisms of TRIPS for potentially increasing drug costs and threatening traditional knowledge, community resources, agriculture, and food security in India.
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)Dr. Prashant Vats
The TRIPS agreement is an international agreement administered by the WTO that introduced intellectual property law into the multilateral trading system. It requires WTO members to provide minimum standards of protection for copyrights, trademarks, patents, and other intellectual property. TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round between 1989-1990 and remains the most comprehensive agreement on IP. It has provisions for enforcement and allows for compulsory licensing of medicines under certain conditions. However, many nations have adopted even higher "TRIPS-plus" standards through bilateral agreements.
The document summarizes key points made by Carolina Rossini, International Intellectual Property Director at EFF, at a 2012 Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholder Forum regarding technological protection measures (TPMs) and access rights. Rossini argues that overbroad TPM laws, as seen from the US experience with the DMCA, can restrict lawful and socially beneficial uses of copyrighted works, chill scientific research, stifle technology innovation, and enable anti-competitive behavior. The TPP agreement should leave TPM policy choices to member countries and any provisions must balance copyright protections with other public interests.
Intellectual Property Rights Seminar ReportAjay Poshak
The TRIPS Agreement is the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property. It sets minimum standards of protection for copyright, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, trade secrets, and enforcement procedures. The TRIPS Agreement incorporates the key provisions of the Berne Convention and Paris Convention and adds additional obligations. It allows developing countries a longer period to phase in its obligations and includes special provisions for pharmaceutical patents in developing countries.
The TRIPS Agreement establishes minimum standards of protection for intellectual property rights that all WTO members must adhere to. It was negotiated during the Uruguay Round and incorporated into the WTO. The TRIPS Agreement covers copyright, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, trade secrets and more. It introduced intellectual property rules into the international trading system for the first time. Developing issues around TRIPS continue to be negotiated at the WTO.
The document discusses the TRIPS agreement which introduced intellectual property rules into the multilateral trading system. It establishes minimum standards of protection that countries must provide for copyrights, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, trade secrets, and enforcement. The agreement aims to balance long term benefits of intellectual property with possible short term costs to society through exceptions. It covers issues like adequate protection of IP rights, enforcement within countries, settling disputes, and transitional arrangements for implementing new standards.
This document summarizes an issue paper on the relationship between intellectual property and competition law, with a focus on issues relevant to developing countries. The paper explores how competition law concepts like refusal to deal, essential facilities, and acquisition of intellectual property rights can intersect with intellectual property rights in ways that may harm competition. It also discusses how compulsory licenses and government regulations can be used to address anti-competitive practices involving intellectual property. The paper aims to increase understanding of these issues and how developing countries can develop approaches to intellectual property and competition law that balance intellectual property incentives with promoting competition.
This document analyzes Article 13(1) of the EU Copyright Directive, which requires online platforms to implement content recognition technologies to detect copyrighted content. The article argues that content recognition technologies are technically flawed, impose high costs, and do not properly balance copyrights with other rights like privacy and freedom of expression. Additionally, the article notes that the EU Court of Justice has previously found member states must balance copyright with other fundamental rights when implementing EU directives. The article concludes that Article 13(1) risks upsetting this balance and treating online platforms as private copyright enforcers.
Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law A Cont.docxvrickens
Intellectual Property Rights and Competition
Law: A Context for Coordination and
Harmonization
Gwen Grecia-De Vera*
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1111
II. OVERVIEW OF THE PHILIPPINE COMPETITION ACT .................. 1113
III. THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE ..................................... 1120
IV. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION ........................ 1132
V. COORDINATION AND HARMONIZATION ................................. 1153
I. INTRODUCTION
The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines1 (IP Code) was enacted in
light of the State policy to protect and secure, for a specific statutory
duration, the exclusive rights of scientists, artists, and other gifted citizens of
their intellectual and industrial property under the 1987 Constitution.2 Since
its effectivity in 1998,3 the IP Code has provided the legislative and
* ’95 LL.B, University of the Philippines College of Law. The Author served as
the Philippine Competition Commission’s first Executive Director. She was the
former Dean of the Manuel Luiz Quezon University School of Law. She is currently
a Senior Lecturer at the University of the Philippines College of Law.
Cite as 62 ATENEO L.J. 1111 (2018).
1. An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing the
Intellectual Property Office, Providing for Powers and Functions, and for Other
Purposes [INTELL. PROP. CODE], Republic Act No. 8293 (1998).
2. PHIL. CONST. art. XIV, § 13.
3. The Intellectual Property Code (IP Code) took effect on 1 January 1998 and, by
its express provision, repealed the following laws: the Trademark Law, the
Patent Law, Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code, the Decree on
Intellectual Property, and the Decree on Compulsory Reprinting of Foreign
Textbooks. The IP Code was enacted to strengthen the intellectual and
industrial property system in the Philippines as mandated by the country’s
accession to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. See
INTELL. PROP. CODE, §§ 2 & 240 (as amended).
1112 ATENEO LAW JOURNAL [vol. 62:1111
institutional framework for the protection and enforcement of intellectual
property rights (IPR) across patents, trademarks, copyright, geographic
indications, and trade secrets.4 It reflects the core inducement for innovation
and artistic creation in the grant of exclusive rights to use and exploit an
invention or artistic work. However, the welfare effects of the IPR
protection under the IP Code remain unclear, such that under the Philippine
Development Plan 2017-2022 (PDP 2017-2022),5 the country’s performance
in the science, technology, and innovation (STI) sector remained dismal.
Against this backdrop, competition law and policy was sought to be
implemented with the enactment of Republic Act No. 10667, or the
Philippine Competition Act (PCA),6 in 2015. This is of particular interest,
because at the center of compe ...
An initial look behind the scenes at the functioning of WTO TRIPS and the impact of FTZs on international regulatory frameworks
This presentation was delivered at the Transparency in Free Trade Zones meeting, on September 29, 2017. For more information, please see http://www.oecd.org/governance/risk/
IPR-implications for India, WTO, WIPO, GATT, TRIPSSomashree Das
This document discusses intellectual property rights (IPR) implications for India, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It provides background on IPR, WIPO, GATT, WTO and their roles in international trade and protecting intellectual property rights. The document also outlines some of the key agreements and treaties under each organization regarding trade and intellectual property.
This document discusses key concepts relating to intellectual property including definitions of property, intellectual property, and different types of intellectual property. It outlines several theories justifying intellectual property protection and notes that intellectual property laws aim to reward creativity while competition laws aim to protect consumers. The document also describes several international treaties and agreements governing intellectual property, including the Paris Convention, Berne Convention, TRIPS Agreement, and Patent Law Treaty. It provides an overview of requirements for patentability such as novelty, inventive step, and industrial application.
The document discusses concerns about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). It raises issues with ACTA's lack of transparency in negotiations and potential substantive issues contained in key provisions. These include expanded statutory damages, injunction powers, and encouragement of "three strikes" policies. It warns that ACTA could undermine existing international IP organizations and shift negotiations away from multilateral forums. The document argues ACTA sets a precedent that could pressure developing countries and ignores limitations and flexibilities in existing IP treaties.
Lecture 8 ib 404 institutional framework for international businessMahir Jawad
The TRIPS Agreement aims to reduce distortions and impediments to international trade by establishing common international rules on intellectual property protection. It covers copyrights, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, and undisclosed/trade secret information. The TRIPS Agreement sets minimum standards for protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights and allows members to implement more extensive protection. It seeks to balance intellectual property protection with public policy interests like health and development.
Intellectual Property Rights Notes for B.Sc. & M.Sc. StudentsPradipta Banerjee
GATT, WTO, WIPO, TRIPS, BERNE convention, Madrid Protocol, Budapest Treaty, Copyright, Trademark and its types, Service mark, GI, Industrial design, Integrated circuits
The document discusses the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement administered by the World Trade Organization. TRIPS sets minimum standards for forms of intellectual property regulation between member countries. It introduced intellectual property law into international trade and remains the most comprehensive agreement on the topic. TRIPS requires copyright, geographical indications, designs, patents and other forms of intellectual property be protected. It also specifies enforcement procedures to balance rights and obligations in a way that promotes innovation and technology sharing.
Trips Introduction
Basic principles of TRIPS
Types of Intellectual Property Rights (addressed in the TRIPS agreement)
Overview of the TRIPS agreement
Public policy implications
Provisions relating to developing countries
This document discusses how intellectual property laws and digital rights management tools can be used to cause planned obsolescence of smart devices and limit ownership rights. It notes that centralized control of information through these tools can restrict individual liberty, autonomy, and innovation. The document examines topics like how IP intersects with issues of personal property, privacy, and competition. It analyzes court cases related to exhaustion of copyrights and legal protections for technological protection measures. The document argues for rethinking and reforming intellectual property laws and copyright to address problems caused by digital rights management and planned obsolescence.
Copyright on academic and scientific publications (papers, articles, essays, books etc.) is the
result of the interaction between formal rules (copyright law), social norms (norms of
science) and technology (printing press, digital technologies).
Prior to the digital age, academic copyright has had two main functions.
a) Priority. The acknowledgment of a paternity (or attribution) right on the scientific
publication has facilitated the certification of priority of the scientific discovery described in
the text.
b) Dissemination. The protection of economic rights (reproduction, distribution etc.) has
enabled the alliance between scientific authors and publishers finalized to distribute scientific
publications to the public. Usually, scientific authors transfer their economic rights to the
publisher because the latter has the economic and technological power to disseminate
scientific publications. Nevertheless, scientific authors are mostly interested in reputation and
not in the economic return derived from the commercialization of copyright.
According to Robert Merton's theory, the norms of science are Communism, Universalism,
Disinterestedness, and Organized Skepticism (CUDOS).
Scientists compete for priority but they put their ideas and information in the public domain.
The ultimate scope is to share ideas and information because the progress of science depends
on "communism" and "organized skepticism". In other terms, scientific publications are part
of the public and critical dialogue. In this perspective, formal law and social norms, normally
stating that the original ownership of copyright belongs to the authors and not to their
academic or scientific institutions, mirror freedom of speech and academic liberty.
The current scenario however seems completely different. In theory, Internet represents an
extraordinary opportunity to strengthen the scientific debate. But reality tells a very different
story. In the digital age, scientific publications are only "products". The changing nature of
scientific publications is the effect of the commodification of academic research. While the
interaction between commodification of academic research and university patents has been
deeply investigated and discussed, scholars have paid relatively little attention to the
commodification of academic copyright.
In the market of scientific publications, bibliometrics and digitization distort the two
functions (priority and dissemination) of academic copyright.
Copyright on academic and scientific publications (papers, articles, essays, books etc.) is the
result of the interaction between formal rules (copyright law), social norms (norms of
science) and technology (printing press, digital technologies).
Prior to the digital age, academic copyright has had two main functions.
a) Priority. The acknowledgment of a paternity (or attribution) right on the scientific
publication has facilitated the certification of priority of the scientific discovery described in
the text.
b) Dissemination. The protection of economic rights (reproduction, distribution etc.) has
enabled the alliance between scientific authors and publishers finalized to distribute scientific
publications to the public. Usually, scientific authors transfer their economic rights to the
publisher because the latter has the economic and technological power to disseminate
scientific publications. Nevertheless, scientific authors are mostly interested in reputation and
not in the economic return derived from the commercialization of copyright.
According to Robert Merton's theory, the norms of science are Communism, Universalism,
Disinterestedness, and Organized Skepticism (CUDOS).
Scientists compete for priority but they put their ideas and information in the public domain.
The ultimate scope is to share ideas and information because the progress of science depends
on "communism" and "organized skepticism". In other terms, scientific publications are part
of the public and critical dialogue. In this perspective, formal law and social norms, normally
stating that the original ownership of copyright belongs to the authors and not to their
academic or scientific institutions, mirror freedom of speech and academic liberty.
The current scenario however seems completely different. In theory, Internet represents an
extraordinary opportunity to strengthen the scientific debate. But reality tells a very different
story. In the digital age, scientific publications are only "products". The changing nature of
scientific publications is the effect of the commodification of academic research. While the
interaction between commodification of academic research and university patents has been
deeply investigated and discussed, scholars have paid relatively little attention to the
commodification of academic copyright.
In the market of scientific publications, bibliometrics and digitization distort the two
functions (priority and dissemination) of academic copyright.
Veleno nella scienza: il lato oscuro del diritto d’autore accademicoRoberto Caso
Il diritto d’autore sulle pubblicazioni scientifiche è parte integrante, in questo momento storico, di un profondo mutamento della natura dell’università che è stato etichettato con varie espressioni: commercializzazione o mercificazione della ricerca, capitalismo accademico, aziendalizzazione o imprenditorializzazione. La gestione del diritto d’autore sulle pubblicazioni è un aspetto della mercificazione della ricerca accademica poco studiato. La maggior parte dell’attenzione degli studiosi si è concentrata negli ultimi decenni su altri aspetti della proprietà intellettuale in ambito accademico: in particolare, sui brevetti per invenzione. Eppure il diritto d’autore sulle pubblicazioni riguarda, a differenza dei brevetti universitari, tutte le aree scientifiche.
Roberto Caso, Una valutazione (della ricerca) dal volto umano: la missione impossibile di Andrea Bonaccorsi
In un libro recente – La valutazione possibile – Teoria e pratica nel mondo della ricerca, Il Mulino, 2015 – Andrea Bonaccorsi sostiene, con toni riflessivi e pacati, una tesi che si può condensare nella seguente proposizione: la valutazione è espressione delle norme mertoniane. “Per quanto mi riguarda – scrive Bonaccorsi (p.19) -, non ho difficoltà a partire dal principale modello normativo della scienza moderna dovuto a Robert K. Merton. Nella formulazione più nota, gli scienziati sono universalisti, comunitari, disinteressati e scettici”. Tuttavia, sebbene Bonaccorsi si impegni in una faticosa (e pur interessante) analisi interdisciplinare nel tentativo di elaborare originali argomenti a favore della propria tesi, offre una lettura distorta e parziale dell’opera mertoniana, tradendone clamorosamente il significato più profondo. L’opera, inoltre, trascura la dimensione giuridica del rapporto tra norme formali poste dallo stato nel processo valutativo e le norme informali della scienza. L’elaborazione di Bonaccorsi è certamente uno dei pochi tentativi della letteratura italiana di porre un articolato fondamento teorico alla valutazione, come ricorda lo stesso autore senza però interrogarsi a fondo sulla ragione di questa mancanza: essa, però, lascia occultati i reali problemi con i quali si confronta drammaticamente la ricerca italiana: il progressivo disinvestimento statale nella scienza, la produzione di un quadro normativo ipertrofico, contraddittorio e mutevole, la compressione dell’autonomia scientifico-accademica, la burocratizzazione della professione del docente e dello scienziato, e in definitiva l’annientamento dell’etica e delle norme mertoniane della scienza.
Community Networks: le regole della libertàRoberto Caso
Se si vuole incentivare lo sviluppo delle reti comunitarie occorre garantire un quadro normativo certo, stabile e rispettoso delle libertà dei cittadini
Le regole della responsabilità civile e del diritto d’autore hanno un peso fondamentale nello sviluppo delle reti comunitarie
L’enforcement a tutti i costi del diritto d’autore ha un impatto devastante sullo sviluppo della Rete e delle reti alternative (piuttosto andrebbe ripensato profondamente il diritto d’autore)
I risultati della ricerca scientifica tra divulgazione e diritti privativa: l...Roberto Caso
La relazione intende illustrare come alcune recenti politiche volte a favorire l’accesso aperto (Open Access) alla letteratura scientifica incrocino la normativa del diritto d’autore.
Dall’università-azienda all’università aperta: missione impossibile?Roberto Caso
Negli Stati Uniti dove è nata ed è stata messa in pratica l’idea di trasformare le università in aziende si è anche per tempo sviluppata un’ampia letteratura che denuncia i mali ingenerati dall’imprenditorializzazione dell’accademia e della ricerca scientifica. In Italia solo di recente sta emergendo una coscienza critica verso la “commodification” dell’università e della scienza.
La tendenza a concepire il sapere come merce da chiudere nelle maglie della proprietà intellettuale, lo svilimento della didattica, l’ansia della valutazione, l’ipertrofica burocratizzazione, la tensione competitiva per raggiungere la chimera dell’eccellenza hanno instillato goccia a goccia un veleno che corrompe diffusamente e profondamente lo spirito nobile dell’università da identificarsi nell’insegnamento dello spirito critico, nel progresso della conoscenza e nello sviluppo della società tutta. I sintomi dell’avvelenamento sono evidenti: il sistema delle pubblicazioni consegnato a un oligopolio di imprese che hanno come unica stella polare il profitto, la moltiplicazione delle frodi scientifiche (dalla falsificazione dei dati al plagio), lo sfruttamento dei precari della ricerca, l’indebolimento della ricerca fondamentale a favore della ricerca applicata. Può l’apertura dei risultati della ricerca scientifica e della didattica restituire all’università il suo spirito nobile? La risposta può essere positiva solo se il termine “apertura” viene concepito in senso ampio cioè non limitato al suo nucleo primigenio: la messa a disposizione gratuita e con diritti di riuso su Internet dei risultati della ricerca e dei materiali didattici. Apertura in senso ampio significa non solo condivisione e trasparenza, ma un radicale cambio di mentalità dei protagonisti del mondo universitario e una nuova strategia degli enti che finanziano e governano l’università. Il senso etico dell’apertura sta nella vocazione alla cooperazione, nella prevalenza dell’intelligenza collettiva su quella individuale, nel contrasto agli oligopoli del sapere, nel saper cogliere e sviluppare le potenzialità di una nuova forma di dialogo basata sulla Rete. Senza una visione ampia e coraggiosa anche l’apertura è destinata – come dimostrano inequivoci segnali - ad essere risucchiata dai potenti (e inesorabili) ingranaggi del mercato e degli oligopoli del sapere.
Per approfondimenti si rinvia a R. Caso, La scienza aperta contro la mercificazione della ricerca accademica?, The Trento Law and Technology Research Group. Research Papers Series; nr. 28. Trento: Università degli Studi di Trento. 2016:
https://iris.unitn.it/retrieve/handle/11572/142760/76403/Caso__LTRP_28_def.pdf
Roberto Caso oa_rivoluzione_incompiuta_novembre_2014Roberto Caso
L’Open Access rappresenta una rivoluzione incompiuta. Sebbene cresca il ricorso alla pubblicazione (c.d. gold road) e ripubblicazione (c.d. green road) in accesso aperto della letteratura scientifica, il sistema dell’OA rimane solo un complemento dell’editoria tradizionale. La pratica della condivisione dei dati della ricerca è ancora a uno stadio iniziale. Si rafforzano gli oligopoli commerciali della comunicazione scientifica. Senza interventi organici sulla normativa internazionale e nazionale del copyright, senza una reale innovazione sul piano delle prassi di valutazione della scienza, senza investimenti infrastrutturali, organizzativi e formativi, senza una visione d’insieme della scienza aperta, l’OA è destinato, nella migliore delle ipotesi, al ruolo di comprimario sulla scena della comunicazione scientifica. In Italia occorre dare nuovo vigore alla promozione dell’Open Access, in particolare occorre riportare al centro della missione universitaria l’apertura della scienza
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
Strong Copyright vs Open Source, Open Access, Open Data: the role of Free Trade Agreements
1. Strong Copyright vs Open Source,
Open Access, Open Data:
the Role of Free Trade Agreements
Roberto Caso and Paolo Guarda
University of Trento
Faculty of Law
LawTech Research Group
2. Outline
1. Copyright vs Openness
2. FTAs and Copyright: some examples
3. Towards a better regulation?
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
2
4. The role of copyright
• The relevance of copyright in the new
technological age
• Copyright and progress of science
(encouragment of learning), progress of
knowledge (balancing of rights, public
domain)
• A false equation: innovation = stronger
copyright
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
4
5. Western (strong) copyright
• Two decades of solicitude (TRIPs, WIPO, DMCA,
InfoSoc Dir.): more rights, stronger rights, new types
of rights (e.g. protection of TPMs)
• The rethoric of “high level of protection”
• Policy laundering: international treaties and
agreements (WIPO, WTO-TRIPs, FTAs, PTAs)
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
5
6. Open Logic as a symptom of a
larger problem
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
6
7. Towards a new equilibrium?
Some counterforces:
•Open models, Open licenses
•Part of case law
•Political actions (e.g. Pirate party in EU)
•Piracy
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
7
10. Progress of IPRs in the FTAs: two
approaches
• FTAs with no or very few provisions on IP with
little substantive content:
– they do not mentions IP, but stress general
exceptions as stated in Art. XX GATT, (art. 15 CIS
FTA; art. IV Free Trade Agreement between India
and Sri Lanka; etc.) or they contain a single
permissive provision (i.e. PICTA; PACTRA II; etc.)
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
10
11. Progress of IPRs in the FTAs: two
approaches
• FTAs with entire chapters on IP:
– Details and obligations even beyond the TRIPs (so
called “TRIPs plus”)
• Facilitation in patenting process; accession to further
international treaties; border enforcement measures;
obligations from WIPO Internet treaties, and UPOV
standards for plant varieties
– i.e. Korea-Singapore Trade agreement; Singapore-
Australia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA); TPP; etc.
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
11
12. Issues in FTAs proliferation and IP
• Locking in current regime
• Confusion created by the simultaneous
existence of overlpapping obligations and
norms (“Spaghetti Bowl”)
• Combination of divergent interests
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
12
14. Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
By https://www.munz.org.nz/2009/05/26/free-trade-dairy-debacle-with-usa-was-inevitable/
14
15. Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
By http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/tpp-ptp/index.aspx?lang=eng
15
16. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): a
paradigmatic example
• A trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada,
Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zeland, Perù,
Singapore, USA and Vietnam.
• Finalized proposal signed on 4 February 2016 in
Auckland, New Zealand.
• It currently cannot be ratified due to U.S. withdrawal
from the agreement on 23 January 2017
• After that, negotiations continued on the Regional
Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
• An example of TRIPS plus agreement!
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
16
17. TPP: Copyright terms of protection
Article 18.63: Term of Protection for Copyright and Related Rights
“Each Party shall provide that in cases in which the term of protection
of a work, performance or phonogram is to be calculated:
(a) on the basis of the life of a natural person, the term shall be
not less than the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s
death; and
(b) on a basis other than the life of a natural person, the term shall
be:
(i) not less than 70 years from the end of the calendar year of
the first authorised publication of the work, performance or
phonogram; or
(ii) failing such authorised publication within 25 years from the
creation of the work, performance or phonogram, not less
than 70 years from the end of the calendar year of the
creation of the work, performance or phonogram”
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
17
18. TPP: Copyrigth terms of protection
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
18
19. TPP: Stronger Copyright
Enforcement
• Article 18.68: Technological Protection Measures (TPMs):
– “1. In order to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal
remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures
that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms use in connection
with the exercise of their rights and that restrict unauthorised acts in
respect of their works, performances, and phonograms, each Party shall
provide that any person that:
• (a) knowingly, or having reasonable grounds to know, circumvents without authority any
effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance,
or phonogram; or (…)
– is liable and subject to the remedies provided for in Article 18.74 (Civil and
Administrative Procedures and Remedies).
(...) Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be
applied if any person is found to have engaged wilfully and for the
purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain in any of the above
activities (...)”
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
19
20. TPP: Removal of TPMs
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
20
22. FTAs and IPRs: a “Marriage of
Convenience”
IP as a
“bargaining currency”
to negotiate FTAs
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
22
23. Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
By http://www.sauer-thompson.com/archives/opinion/002141.php
23
24. Openness: principles for improving
negotiations on Copyright
• Minimal and flexible IP rules
• Integration of the public interest as a core
value for copyright
• Increasing of transparency
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
24
25. Hilty & Jaeger 2015
• “Legal Effects and Policy Considerations for
Free Trade Agreements: What Is Wrong with
FTAs?” in Christph Antons and Reto Hilty M.
Hilty (eds), Intellectual Property and Free
Trade Agreements in Asia-Pacific Region,
Springer, 2015, 55
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
25
26. TRIPS: the orginal sin
• National treatment and Most-favoured nation
• Hilty and Jaeger:
– “These two provisions of TRIPS yield leveraging
effects in terms of transposing high IP protection
standards either (1) from the domestic to the
international level (NT principle), and/or (2) from
a bi- or multilateral FTA setting to a universalist
setting (MFN clause)”
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
26
27. Abuse of right: a remedy?
• Hilty and Jaeger: “conclusion of a global
accord on the prevention of a misuse of rights
that goes beyond the sphere of just antitrust
law. Such an accord would fix specific
countermeasures to be taken by states parties
to forestall or end certain kinds of abuses of
individual IP rights upon enforcement”
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
27
28. IP: a single piece of a complex
puzzle
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
28
29. References
• Antons C., Hilty R.M. (editors), Intellectual Property and Free Trade
Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
2015
• Braga C.P.P., Innovation, Trade and IPRs: Implications for Trade
Negotiations, 2016, Working Paper, East-West Center Workshop on
Mega-Regionalism - New Challenges for Trade and Innovation, at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2745500
• Caso R., Ducato R., Open bioinformation in the life sciences as a
gatekeeper for innovation and development, in G. Bellantuono, F. T. de
Rezende Lara, (Eds.), Law, Development and Innovation, Springer, 2015
115, http://www.springer.com/series/10062?detailsPage=titles
• Hofmann C., Osnago A., Ruta M., Horizontal Depth: A New Database on
the Content of Preferential Trade Agreements (February 22, 2017). World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 7981, at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2923535
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
29
30. References
• Maskus K. E., Ridley W., Intellectual Property-Related Preferential Trade
Agreements and the Composition of Trade (September 2016). Robert
Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. 2016/35,
available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2870572 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2870572
• Moscon V., University knowledge Transfer: From Fundamental Rights to
Open Access within International Law, in Bellantuono G., Rezende L., Law,
Development and Innovation, 2015, pub. Springer. ISBN: 9783319133102.
- URL: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319133102
• Puutio T.A., Intellectual Property Rights in Regional Trade Agreements of
Asia-Pacific Economies, Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on
Trade No. 124/May 2013, available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2779903
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
30
31. References
• Puutio T.A., Parisotto L., Intellectual Property Rights in the Asia-Pacific
Trade Context (December 29, 2015), available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2788732
• Seuba X., Intellectual Property in Preferential Trade Agreements: What
Treaties, What Content?, The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 2013,
at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2670201
• Tang Y.S., Teodoro J.P.H., The Politics and Outcomes of Preferential Trade
Strategies: Evidence from TRIPS-Plus Provisions in US-Latin America
Relations, Journal of World Trade, Vol. 50, No. 6, p. 1061-1084, 2016, at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2884847
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
31
32. Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
32
33. Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
33
36. Copyright
Copyright by Roberto Caso and Paolo Guarda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
Caso - Guarda - Copyright vs Openness -
BFSU - 2017
36
Thank Marta Breschi for her invaluable research assistance
Editor's Notes
Hilty 44
PICTA : Pacific Islands Countris Trade Agreement
PACTRA: Agreement on Trade ad Commercial Relations between Australi and Papua New Guinea of 1991
Hilty 47-49 ; 77
Parisotto-Puutio, 2-3
Locking in current regime: FTAs can cause legislative frictions that may prevent countries from undertaking further reforms in the future.
Conflics also with reference to public health biological diversity, processes informed by more socially driven objectives
The ‘ spaghetti bowl’ of FTAs leads to a multiplication of IP-related provisions, so that states are bound by a multitude of parallel obligations vis-a`-vis different trade
partners. (Hilty, 58)
Hilty 73
“The practice of laying down TRIPS-plus standards in FTAs is commonplace in the Asia-Pacific ‘ spaghetti bowl’ and outside it, in spite of the fact (highlighted earlier) that the provisions of such agreements are either irrelevant because they duplicate pre-existing obligations or that they drive protection standards ever further upward. Yet, there appears to be no significant
opposition from Asian governments in this regard”.
Hilty 74ss $ gruppi di paesi con differenti interessi (1)Tradionally Developed C;2)newly developed countries;3)developing countrier;4) undedeveloped countries
Free trade ideology led to an unstable international economy and worked for the benefit of large capitalist corporates.
The longer we pursue this shimmering mirage of a free trade nirvana, the greater damage will be done to the New Zealand society and economy.
Braga 9
The RCEP contains no requirement for countries to extend the coprygith term beyond the minimum specified in the Berne Convention (50 years).
Braga 6-7
Hilty 77-78 Risk that substantially more or broader IP protection than would be required from an economic point of view is established
Da Hilty 28-29
Countries may agree to high IP standards with technology exporting country partners where they are seeking market access
Countries may omit them with developing country partners reluctant conversion to the importance of higher IP standads.
An example is the Intellectual Property (IP) obligations under the Free Trade Agreement, and the implications the US attempt to establish a strong IP regime for its owners has for Australia&apos;s IP regime. From what I can gather the US is using the Free Trade Agreement to improve its global intellectual protection. This approach to the value of intellectual property goes against competition policy and cheaper consumer goods.