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 Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas 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.

Analysis: Monkey In The Middle Of Selfie Copyright Dispute

The recent case of a monkey selfie that went viral on the web raised thorny issues of ownership between a (human) photographer and Wikimedia. Two attorneys from Morrison & Foerster sort out the relevant copyright law.


Latest Comments
  • are you aware that within the photographic industr... »
  • A VPN is a virtual private network, which generall... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    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 >

    Coverage Of Anti-Counterfeit Policy Debate Varies Widely Across Global Media

    Published on 2 August 2010 @ 5:35 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Are counterfeit products first and foremost a threat to human health and safety or is provoking anxiety just a clever way for wealthy nations to create sympathy for increased protection of their intellectual property rights? In Geneva the debate is raging, but a look at a sample of coverage of this issue in the world’s news media shows it can vary greatly.

    Few would defend the manufacture and distribution of dangerous or ineffective drugs. But some argue that attempts to fight fake drugs are as much a risk to access to the real medicines as the fakes themselves. Legitimate, low-cost generics – often the only medicines the poor can afford – can get caught in the crossfire of anticounterfeiting enforcement measures. In addition, they say, there is need to combat not only medicines that violate trademarks (as counterfeit is often defined) but also medicines of general low quality (harder to spot and often, some say, a greater problem).

    With a range of information competing for writers’ attention, media portrayals of this complex issue often differ dramatically in their portrayal of the issue.

    French language paper Tribune de Genève last week captured some of this debate in a front-page story detailing the North-South divide on counterfeit medicines, interviewing several of the key Geneva-area diplomats working on the issue. But what of news sources farther away from the action at the World Health Organization – where debate has flared hot since 2009 over the agency’s work on fake medicines, and as of May is now in the hands of an intergovernmental working group – and at the World Trade Organization – where concern over IP-enforcement limiting generic-drug access this spring turned into two official dispute settlement proceedings?

    American business news television network CNBC recently ran a dramatic special called “Crime, Inc” calling counterfeiting the “largest underground industry in the world” with “hundreds of billions of dollars … generated while sapping the economy, putting lives in jeopardy, and funding organized crime in the process.” Of counterfeit products, it calls drugs the “most lethal.”

    At the other end of the spectrum comes Reuters blogger Felix Salmon, who has been decrying “baseless” counterfeiting statistics for years. With the headline “CNBC embarrasses itself on counterfeiting,” Salmon dissects the statistics listed in the show, which he called “quantitative dissonance.”

    The BBC, which recognises the problem of access to affordable drugs, calls counterfeit medicine a “growing problem across the world” and a “racket controlled by violent criminal gangs.”

    According to the English language China Daily, Chinese crackdowns on both counterfeit drugs and underground radio stations were intended to protect public health (apparently the underground stations “broadcast advertisements for fake or substandard medicine,” China Daily reported).

    The volume of such medicines is also unclear: the European Union’s customs authority recently published a report detailing what it says is an “upward trend” in IP-violating goods crossing its borders, citing 43,500 cases of such goods in 2009 with 10 percent of them falling into the category of medicine.

    Meanwhile, news from Uganda’s National Drug Authority said recently that in the last 10 years cases of medicines failing to meet quality standards at the country’s national labs has fallen by 15 percent since the early 2000s, according to the InterPress Service.

    Hard to Define

    Defining what these drugs are is particularly difficult, especially as what ‘counterfeit’ means is one of the larger areas of disagreement among experts at the WHO. The InterPress Service article says “counterfeit medicines can be both branded and generic medicines and refer to drugs without the necessary ingredients to treat the disease it is fraudulently purported to treat.” IPS has also written about some of the problems misapplied enforcement of counterfeiting can cause, such as in Kenya where an anti-counterfeiting law was causing confusion between counterfeit and generic medicines.

    An article from Business Insight Malaya from the Philippines notes that “counterfeits may or may not contain the same active pharmaceutical ingredients as the authentic product” in a report on a coalition of pharmaceutical companies saying the government had been underestimating the size of the problem. It adds that “almost all of medicines are now being faked.”

    Some just treat counterfeiting as one among many threats to drug safety, as this recent article from the Tanzania Daily News, which says “the issue of substandard and counterfeit medicines remain a huge problem” and goes on to list critical problems as expired medicines, poor storage facilities and poorly followed storage and usage instructions as well as counterfeit products, which it defines as “imitations or substitutes of another product likely to deceive or bear upon its label or container, the name of another product,” or “deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled products,” including those with correct ingredients but fake packaging as well as those containing the wrong ingredients.

    Others focus on solutions. South African news agency the Daily Maverick and US news agency Bloomberg both wrote recently of a new solution to fight the “fake-drugs monster. MPedigree, a Ghanaian-based group looking to fight counterfeiting with technology is currently launching a plan to place codes on legitimate medicines, they write. The code can then be sent via mobile phone text message free of cost to a database that answers whether the drug is legitimate or not.

    Others, such as the Times of India, worried about how generic drug companies would fare with accusations of counterfeiting. “EU custom authorities are increasingly seizing Indian drugs for patent infringements in European ports,” said a January 2009 article, adding “[e]xperts believe that EU is deliberately trying to create legal barriers to prevent movement of drugs to developing countries to protect its own industry.”

    As talks continue in Geneva, the message to consumers of potentially dangerous drugs remains mixed.

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

     

    Comments

    1. ACTA-bloggen » Blog Archive » Kritik mot ACTA-avtalet från forskarhåll says:

      [...] Ip-watch´s genomgång av de olika mediernas rapportering av förfalskningsfrågan (counterfeit). Dela med [...]

    2. Miles Teg says:

      If this issue was so important, then why is business mucking about with dubious statistics. No less than the International Chamber of Commerce came up with a statistic in the late 90′s that 7% of goods were counterfeit. When scholars looking into the figure that the OECD lapped up initially then decided to check these scholars found that the figure had no statistical underpining. Thereafter, the ICC did research and confirmed the 7% figure. Everyone aside from large property rights owners have to use credible evidence to substantiate their claims, which is a cause for concern.
      On health, somehow there is the belief that a patent list is going to solve the Drug Regulatory problems in Africa. While Africans get patent dossiers and new legislation, China gets mobile drug testing 4×4 vehicles through WHOs controversial IMPACT programme… funny how things actually play out…


    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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 69.12.76.113