A recent US court decision introduces entirely new questions about the balance between a transformative work and a copyright infringement. It also places the responsibility of balancing the public interest in freedom of expression against the interests of rights holders squarely in the hands of the court, writes Leslee Friedman.
Brazil is actively engaged in a cutting-edge debate over reform of its copyright law, involving issues such as the abuse of copyright holders and constructive exceptions in the law (like copying for education and/or transformative purposes and authorisation to copy by libraries and museums to preserve their works). But the government needs to hear from all interested parties – especially the artists – and avoid letting the debate transform into a political-ideological discussion, writes Brazilian lawyer Manuela Correia Botelho Colombo.Intellectual Property Watch
12 January 2006
Chile Urges WIPO To Act To Protect Public Domain
The government of Chile this week submitted a proposal to an upcoming meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s new committee on the development agenda that calls for positive steps to protect information in the public domain.
The first meeting of the new Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda will be held in Geneva on 20-24 February. The committee created by the WIPO General Assembly in October reflects a compromise extension of discussions over a proposal to expand WIPO’s focus on developing countries’ needs (IPW, 3 October 2005). The original development agenda proposal was put forward at the 2004 General Assembly by Argentina and Brazil, supported by 12 other Friends of Development. Subsequent proposals have followed.
In its proposal, Chile highlights the benefits to society of a rich base of freely available public information. The public domain is of “crucial importance” to researchers, academics, educators, artists, authors and enterprises, as well as all varieties of institutions, it said.
Developing countries in particular have raised concern that WIPO’s emphasis on the protection of rights, rather than the protection of public knowledge, may reduce their ability to innovate since most rights belong to developed countries.
The proposal, obtained by Intellectual Property Watch, mentions a series of previous documents negotiated by governments in various bodies such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and the UN World Summit on the Information Society.
Chile calls for an analysis of the implications and benefits of a substantive and accessible public domain, and elaboration of proposals and models for the protection and identification of and access to the contents of the public domain. It further calls for protection of the public domain to be considered in the making of policy at WIPO.
To address these issues, Chile also urged the establishment at WIPO of a permanent venue for the analysis and discussion of incentives that promote creative activity, innovation, and technology transfer, within the intellectual property system.
Chile also proposed a study evaluating adequate levels of intellectual property taking into account each nation’s situation, especially its level of development and institutional capacity. The study should include consideration of the relationship between intellectual property policies and competition policies, exceptions to and limitations of the intellectual property system where necessary, and the economic and social effect of changes in levels of protection of intellectual property rights.
The value of the study will depend upon it being based on terms of reference fully and openly discussed by WIPO members, handled by an independent body in an open and transparent process, Chile said.
Categories: Access to Knowledge, English, News, Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer, WIPO
24 January 2006 at 10:52 pm
The document and a brief note in spanish has been published in our Web site:
http://www.derechosdigitales.org/node/139
8 June 2006 at 4:52 am
I would like to know more about chile and their Intellectual property and competition law
8 June 2006 at 4:55 am
The main fear for both Large and small companies are issue of protecting intellectual property. Tackling the issue of intellectual property protection is very challenging. From all I have read about this issue I personally do not think there is no one solution to solving this problem. In legal theory, I maintain my position with the issue, which is exclusive intellectual property rights, such as patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, are supposed to serve as incentives for technical innovations. The idea is that when entrepreneurial individuals are provided with limited monopolies over their proprietary technologies, those individuals will invest further in their technology, and hopefully encourage more innovation and economic growth.
Unfortunately, the theory on intellectual property rights does not always translate to reality. The practical advantages of intellectual property rights have become a fuzzy concept. Serious challenges have originated in both the Patent and Trademark offices and laws, which is struggling to keep up with the ever-changing world of technology. The route to securing a patent is a long and expensive one. From the applicant filing to the patent and trademark office to an examiner investigating to make sure that the invention has been done before. Another problem encountered in patent law is the determination of a proper standard for patents.
There are good reasons, however, to choose a patent over a copyright. For many startup software companies, copyright protection provides an economical (cheaper), but functionally limited means for protecting invention from large industry piracy. Costs are also rising with respect to official filing and patent attorney fees. And even if you spend many years and many dollars protecting what you think is an exclusive right to make, use and sell a certain technology, you could lose big in court. For instance, the Apple and Microsoft case, in which Apple sued Microsoft for, copyright infringement of Apple’s unique graphical user interface.
For entrepreneurs and up-and-coming start-up companies and so on, the current set of guidelines of intellectual property may not serve as perfect legal tools for protecting proprietary technology rights, but such doctrines, when properly understood, acquired and enforced, can serve as powerful barriers to competition in a tough marketplace.
Dilibe Aneke