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.

The Politicization Of The US Patent System

The Washington Post story, How patent reform’s fraught politics have left USPTO still without a boss (July 30), is a vivid account of how patent reform has divided the US economy, preempting a possible replacement for David Kappos who stepped down 18 months ago. The division is even bigger than portrayed. Universities have lined up en masse to oppose reform, while main street businesses that merely use technology argue for reform. Reminiscent of the partisan divide that has paralyzed US politics, this struggle crosses party lines and extends well beyond the usual inter-industry debates. Framed in terms of combating patent trolls through technical legal fixes, there lurks a broader economic concern – to what extent ordinary retailers, bank, restaurants, local banks, motels, realtors, and travel agents should bear the burden of defending against patents as a cost of doing business.


Latest Comments
  • “We want everybody to agree on the science telling... »
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »

  • 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 >

    Canada, Mexico Tilt Weight West In Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks

    Published on 20 June 2012 @ 2:12 am

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    A complex trade negotiation among several countries bordering the Pacific Ocean just got more weighted toward the west as Canada and Mexico joined their North American partner the United States in the talks. They may also infuse new energy into the talks, which are about to enter their 13th round, but may make intellectual property demands tougher to achieve.

    Existing countries negotiating the TPP are: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. Japan also has expressed interest in joining.

    According to USTR, the 18 and 19 June invitations to Mexico and Canada, respectively, to join the TPP talks set in motion 90-day consultation periods with the US Congress on US negotiating objectives with respect to those countries. And a notice seeking public comments will be published in the Federal Register, it said.

    USTR issued similar press releases on Mexico and Canada.

    The US has a longstanding trilateral trade agreement with Canada and Mexico in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and may be looking to improve on terms of that deal. This could include intellectual property rights protection, such as copyright laws in Canada.

    University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, a critic of escalating IP rights, raised several questions about Canada’s entrance into the talks, including its possible second-class status and take-it-or-leave-it acceptance of what has already been negotiated.

    The announcement about Canada and Mexico comes as the outward tenor of the plurilateral Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks may be shifting slightly to try to accommodate public interest groups in light of strong resistance recent similar agreements (like ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) and legislation (like SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, and PIPA, the Protect IP Act) have run into for lack of public accountability.

    Like a private-sector venture discussed among corporate bosses before it is released to shareholders, details of the TPP talks have been kept tightly behind closed doors. But in recent weeks, the US Trade Representative’s office has sought to create a sense of inclusiveness, inviting interested civil society representatives to briefings and insisting they are acting openly.

    Still, it remains to be seen whether any substantive details at all will be shared with the public before the negotiations are over. In May, several dozen law professors issued a letter calling for great transparency in the TPP talks.

    Last week a draft of the investment chapter of the agreement was leaked and was published by Public Citizen [pdf], whîch said it “provides stark warnings about the dangers of “trade” negotiations occurring without press, public or policymaker oversight.” For instance, it reveals that negotiators already have agreed to many radical terms granting expansive new rights and privileges for foreign investors and their private corporate enforcement through extra-judicial “investor-state” tribunals.”

    Tougher on IP Chapter?

    The invitation to Mexico to join the talks may complicate negotiations on the intellectual property chapter, said Sean Flynn, associate director of American University Washington College of Law Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property.

    “Bringing Mexico into the TPP negotiation will make the negotiation of the intellectual property chapter that much harder,” Flynn said in a 18 June statement. He said Mexico participated in the ACTA negotiations, but that “ACTA will never go into force in Mexico; the Mexican Senate rejected that agreement in an overwhelming vote while it was being negotiated and there is no indication that it will be asked to change its vote now that ACTA is finished.”

    In the TPP, the US is “asking for disciplines on domestic intellectual property laws far in excess of ACTA, which have virtually no chance of being accepted in that Mexico,” Flynn said. And after NAFTA, the US does not have more market access benefits to offer Mexico “in exchange for accepting the onerous U.S. intellectual property demands – a similar context that is driving the resistance of Chile, Australia, Peru and Singapore to the U.S. proposals,” he said.

    Flynn said similar barriers will be faced with Canada. “Canada is currently amending its copyright law in ways directly at odds with the U.S. demands for a TPP intellectual property chapter – including by implementing a ‘notice and notice’ brand of internet copyright enforcement that does not rely on private take downs of allegedly infringing content,” he said.

    But another source raised several factors in relation to Mexico, including that Mexican negotiators may have learned from the ACTA experience, but the current legislature will turn over in August, the administration will change in December, and the negotiating rounds may be kept within the United States (the last one was in Dallas and the next one in San Diego).

    USTR Ron Kirk suggested in his statement that this may be a way to take the relationship further and extract change from Canada on cutting-edge areas like IP rights. “Inviting Canada to join the TPP negotiations presents a unique opportunity for the United States to build upon this already dynamic trading relationship. Through TPP, we are bringing the relationship with our largest trading partner into the 21st century,” he said. “We look forward to continuing consultations with the Congress and domestic stakeholders regarding Canada’s entry into the TPP as we move closer to a broad-based, high-standard trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region.”

    The next round of negotiations is scheduled to take place on 2-10 July in San Diego, California.

    Supporting Cast in Congress

    Trade-supporting congressional leaders were quick to signal their support for the inclusion of Mexico and Canada. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan, and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Kevin Brady of Texas, both Republicans, applauded the invitation to Mexico. They signalled the geopolitical aspect of the decision.

    “The TPP talks are critical to establishing strong economic footing for the United States in the Pacific region and providing a counterbalance to China,” said Camp.

    “Mexico is our third largest trading partner, and its participation creates an opportunity to further deepen and strengthen our economic ties as we expand the TPP’s breadth,” said Brady. “Today’s action increases the value of TPP negotiations…. I hope that the negotiations are concluded as quickly as possible this year so that we can begin creating jobs through expanded trade in the fastest-growing region of the world.”

    Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin of Michigan and Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Jim McDermott of Washington, both Democrats, welcomed Canada, and put Japan on a different track.

    Canada’s inclusion will “give us the opportunity to correct the mistakes of NAFTA, especially on labor and the environmental standards,” said Levin. “Japan continues to be in a wholly separate category from both Canada and Mexico. With our long history of fruitless attempts to open Japanese markets through negotiations, what we need from Japan is action not commitments to act, comprehensive action before – not after – joining TPP.”

    “Canada is our single largest trading partner,” McDermott said. “It gives us a good opportunity to fix some of the broken parts of NAFTA, to create more American jobs, and build an even better relationship with an important neighbor.”

    More on Canada’s decision to join, including some insight into likely resistance, is here and here.

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

     


    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 107.22.141.14