SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • Congratulations upon re-election;-WHO chief.Priori... »
  • Great article. Ms. Chan may want to read our book ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    USTR Toughens IP Stance On China, Russia, Thailand; Praises EU, Brazil

    Published on 30 April 2007 @ 9:30 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By William New
    The United States Trade Representative’s office on 30 April announced the elevation of its pressure on China, Russia, Thailand, and others to better protect US intellectual property rights. But the announcement stirred reactions by accentuating the increasingly political-sounding criticism by developed countries of Thailand’s decision to utilise flexibilities under international trade rules allowing countries to manufacture cheap versions of patented drugs.

    Brazil, meanwhile, was taken off the “watch list” of USTR’s annual so-called Special 301 process for improvements in copyright enforcement. It will be monitored under a so-called “out-of-cycle” review, along with the Czech Republic and Pakistan, and reassessed in a year. A USTR official told reporters that Brazil’s recent declaration that the antiretroviral drug Efavirenz is of public interest, which could lead to a compulsory license, had not worked against Brazil but would be considered in the upcoming review.

    This year’s report is also marked by the results of the first province-by-province analysis of China, seen as the largest source of pirated and counterfeit goods globally. Russia risks losing US support for a multilateral agreement on the country’s accession to the World Trade Organization, a US trade official said in a telephone press briefing. And a contributing reason for Thailand’s elevation on the list is its decision to issue compulsory licenses for three pharmaceuticals (two HIV/AIDS drugs and a heart disease treatment), allowing the use of the patented material to produce cheaper versions, an official said.

    “The [Bush] administration’s top priorities this year continue to be addressing weak IPR protection and enforcement, particularly in China and Russia,” the report said. “Although this year’s Special 301 report shows positive progress in many countries, rampant counterfeiting and piracy problems have continued to plague China and Russia, indicating a need for stronger IPR regimes.”

    The report contains separate sections on “counterfeit pharmaceuticals”, “intellectual property and health,” and “supporting pharmaceutical innovation,” which tout the advantages of strong IP protection. For Thailand, one of the reasons cited for its elevation is “the further indications of a weakening of respect for patents” by issuing the compulsory licenses, even though it was not accused of violating WTO rules.

    “While the United States acknowledges a country’s ability to issue such licenses in accordance with WTO rules, the lack of transparency and due process exhibited in Thailand represents a serious concern,” the report said. “These actions have compounded previously expressed concerns such as delay in the granting of patents and weak protection against unfair commercial use for data generated to obtain marketing approval.”

    ‘Bullies and Hypocrites’

    In response to questions from reporters, USTR stressed that the compulsory licenses were only one factor among many longstanding concerns in Thailand, such as copyright protection. But Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), an advocacy group, reacted strongly. “The sanctioning of countries for using legitimate and important flexibilities in the TRIPS agreement brings shame to all US citizens who are increasingly seen in Thailand and elsewhere as bullies and hypocrites,” KEI Executive Director James Love said in a statement. KEI said Thailand has been “highly” transparent in its issuance of the licenses, which the government has said repeatedly since taking the decisions in December and January.

    “Since Thailand is acting legally, the USTR makes vague allegations that while Thailand has the ‘ability’ under the WTO rules to issue such licenses, there was something undefined that the USTR cannot or will not explain that was worth citing on the 301 list,” Love stated. “If Thailand actually did something the US claims is contrary to US trade policy, the USTR should at least be able to explain it. What is the “due process” for the 301 list? We should not be giving the impression to the world that US pharmaceutical industry lobbyists can use USTR to settle commercial disputes, entirely outside of the framework of global trade rules.”

    In addition to analysing individual provinces in China, the report singles out “notorious markets” around the world, such as China’s Silk Street Market or Russia’s allofmp3.com, the world’s largest server-based pirate music website. US copyright industry sources indicate that perhaps 90 percent of all copyrighted materials sold in China were pirated in 2006, the report said.

    A copyright industry group praised the report, while also pointing out shortcomings. Dan Glickman, Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America said the report “provides important leadership for dealing with the global scourge of piracy.” But Glickman criticised the decision to return Canada to the lower watch list despite US industry pressure to elevate it for failing to stop filming of new release movies that then end up on the Internet. “Canada should have been elevated to the Priority Watch List,” Glickman said.

    China Standards-Setting in Sights

    The report also cites concern over China’s treatment of intellectual property in standards-setting. It also specified concern with China’s “lack of clarity in laws involving generic drug patent infringement” and China’s “protection against unfair commercial use for data generated to obtain marketing approval.” A similar concern was cited in a number of countries, such as India, where Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis has legally challenged India’s new patent law.

    As mandated by the 1974 US Trade Act and amended by later agreements, every year at the end of April, USTR issues the report listing countries it deems to “deny adequate and effective protection for IPR or deny fair and equitable market access for persons that rely on intellectual property protection.” Those deemed most problematic are designated as “priority foreign countries,” followed by the “priority watch list” and the “watch list.” Countries that fail to respond are threatened with losing the trade benefits the US government unilaterally provides for access to its market known the Generalised System of Preferences, and ultimately, trade sanctions.

    In addition to China and Russia, on the priority watch list this year are Argentina, Chile, Egypt, India, Israel, Lebanon, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela. There are 30 countries on the watch list (see below).

    Perhaps reacting to a negative portrayal by some of the annual report, which gives USTR a unilateral wedge against smaller economies, the trade office this year emphasised the positive side of the report as well.

    Positive Changes Too

    The report “isn’t only about complaints and problems,” a US trade official said. Removed from the watch list altogether were Bahamas, Bulgaria, Croatia, the European Union and Latvia. The EU change was mainly due to its adoption of new regulations on geographical indications (products deriving their names from geographical locations or characteristics) after an adverse 2005 WTO dispute settlement panel ruling, USTR said.

    The report also highlighted USTR’s focus on Internet piracy. It said, for instance, that the United States will continue to use bilateral trade negotiations to elevate countries’ protection levels, and will continue to press other countries to implement two 1996 copyright treaties at the World Intellectual Property Organization, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty

    The United States also will continue to provide technical assistance to trading partners, will work with WTO members to implement the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), possibly using dispute settlement consultations where necessary to encourage implementation. It also will continue to push for discussion of implementation of TRIPS enforcement provisions in the WTO TRIPS Council, along with the European Union, Japan and Switzerland, it said.

    The watch list this year includes: Belarus, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

    There is also a watch list of countries that recently completed free trade agreements with the United States, including Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Peru and Korea, all of whom were on the watch list last year.

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. R.Farmer says:

      This website has an interesting article about a lawyer that knows exactly what to do to protect your IP. http://www.chinasuccessstories.com/2007/06/01/lawyer-advice-on-legal-self-protection-in-china/


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.