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
  • David, thank you for the note. It appears there is... »
  • The link to the US proposal seems to be broken, an... »

  • 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 >


    WTO Review Finds Brazil Progressing On Trade Policy, IP Rights Protection

    Published on 11 March 2009 @ 4:13 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Brazil, once criticised for lax intellectual property rights protection, has been stepping up implementation and enforcement of international IP rules in recent years, a World Trade Organization body announced Wednesday. But some major rights-holding nations urged the government to undertake further work.

    Brazil came out with “flying colours” in a recent review of its trade policies over the last four years, said the president of the WTO body that conducted it. The country is increasing wealth as well as distributing it in a more equitable way, said WTO Trade Policy Review Chair Ambassador Istvan Major, of Hungary. Trade policy reviews of WTO members are conducted periodically and consist of both the WTO secretariat review of a country’s trade policies and the countries’ reports on their own policies.

    Brazil also is expected to navigate the financial crisis better than many other global economies, and already is faring better than many developed countries, said another member of the review mechanism at an 11 March press conference on the trade policy review.

    Intellectual property policies were a notable area of progress in the 2004 – 2007 period of review, the official said, as there was new legislation adopted and clear changes in it IP law.

    Recent areas of interest in IP in Brazil – notably, the controversy over a stopped shipment of generic hypertension medicines from India by the Netherlands – were not mentioned in the report, as they are too recent, according to one of the secretariat members.

    Major areas of progress were on a new “comprehensive and modern IP protection law” and on improved enforcement of obligations under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, said Major, though on the latter they were “invited to make further efforts.”

    The country complies with all major aspects of the TRIPS agreement, and grants rights in excess of the minimum requirement in areas such as copyright law and pipeline patents, the WTO secretariat report on the review said.

    The Brazilian government report said that in 2004 it established a National Council to Combat Piracy and Crimes against Intellectual Property, an equal partnership between government representatives and private sector representatives. The Brazilian Association of Software Companies gave the partnership an award in 2007 for the decline of software piracy from 64 to 60 percent in a year.

    Legislation adopted in 2007 on layout designs of integrated circuits also was a significant change, a separate official from the WTO secretariat told reporters. Integrated circuits, or silicon chips, are essential to most modern electronics, including computers and mobile telephones. Previously, the designs of these circuits had no specific law in Brazil under which they were protected.

    The secretariat’s report said the number of patents granted annually has declined since 2003, from 4,725 in 2003 to 1,855 in 2007. The report says timely patent processing is still an issue: the average time a patent spends waiting for approval is seven years.

    Registrations of industrial designs also declined, from 5,651 in 2003 to 4,085 in 2007, though trademark registrations increased, from 10,541 in 2003 to 128,540 in 2007.

    Other changes since the last review include guidelines and regulations for genetically modified organisms, and the introduction in 2006 of a 10 percent preference margin for small and medium-sized enterprises competing for government procurement contracts. Brazil is not a member of the WTO Government Procurement Agreement. It was invited to join, but indicated that “for the time being it is not in the cards,” reported Major.

    This concerned the United States, which said in a statement it was “concerned with Brazil’s non-transparent policies on government procurement as well as lack of participation in the WTO GPA.” The US agreed with the WTO secretariat and encouraged Brazil to “consider the benefits of joining,” the statement added. The European Union echoed this encouragement.

    One compulsory licence was issued on an HIV/AIDS medication, in May 2007. The decision allowed Brazil to import or manufacture generic versions of the drug, efavirenz. A compulsory licence is an exception to patent law. Under TRIPS, there is public health flexibility for governments to allow the manufacture of generic versions of medicines under patent without permission of the patent holder.

    The United States recognised Brazil’s progress on IP “particularly with respect to pirated audiovisual goods” but said that stronger IP enforcement legislation is needed on book and internet piracy. The US also asked that Brazil look into acceding to the World Intellectual Property Organization “internet treaties,” covering copyright and performances online.

    The European Union also called for increased enforcement, and mentioned the “general backlog” of patents and trademark applications.

    Brazil is a net importer of IP: importing US$2.25 billion in royalties and licence fees, and exporting US$319 million, said the WTO secretariat report.

    Brazil also received commendation for its role in the Doha Round of trade liberalisation negotiations, said Major. The current round of talks was launched in Doha, Qatar in 2001.

    The Doha Development Round, said the Brazilian report, “will only be successful if it results in benefits for all members, particularly for developing countries.”

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Gabriel F. Leonardos says:

      Dear Kaitlin Mara,
      In your recent excellent article “WTO Review Finds Brazil Progressing On Trade Policy, IP Rights Protection”, of March 11, 2009, you mentioned that:
      “Brazil is a net importer of IP: importing US$2.25 billion in royalties and licence fees, and exporting US$319 million, said the WTO secretariat report.”
      The information you obtained from WTO is not accurate. The US$ 2.25 billion figure include payments for technical services rendered in Brazil by foreign companies, such as services rendered here by foreign technicians that come to our country to repair imported machines. These services do not transfer technology and their payment cannot technically be qualified as “royalties and licence fees”.
      The actual amount of only “royalties and licence fees” is certainly of less than US$ 1 billion. I have been criticizing this mistake in the Brazilian statistics for many years, but with no success.
      I thought you might be interested in this information, in case you With best regards,
      Gabriel F. Leonardos – Attorney-at-Law – Rio de Janeiro & São Paulo, Brazil

    2. Raul Vazquez says:

      The Brazilian government created a very effective mechanism to combat physical piracy of audio products in the National Anti-piracy Council. Some locations thought to be perpetual piracy points have been closed down and the amount of illegal products available in the streets stopped growing. The staff of the Council should commended for this achievement.

      Now we hope they will turn their attention to the crippling amount of online piracy.

    3. Thaddeus Parkes says:

      I definitely believe that inorder to rid the world of this piracy issue, is for producers of movies ,recording companies etc, to reduce the price of originals, to the point that the pirates cannot compete,for let say , a three year period and let the international community loby to create heavy taxes and penalties for the pirates and purchasers of pirated movies and musics etc.
      Is there a site where the various laws for every country is posted regarding intellectual property rights and results of cases filed?


    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.