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
11 March 2010
Indian Civil Society Raises Concerns Over US Industry-Sponsored IP Summits
By Kaitlin Mara @ 5:42 pmPublic interest groups in India are raising questions over annual summits involving Indian judges and policymakers that are being funded by major western industry groups, in particular pharmaceutical companies. At this year’s summit, held recently, a section of India’s patent law which prevents the extension of monopoly power for incremental innovations came under attack, the groups have said.
India is a key supplier of generic drugs to the developing world, so its intellectual property legislation is of concern both within and outside its national borders.
But since the country modified its patent laws in 2005 to come into compliance with the World Trade Organization Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, “there are continuing attempts … by the multinational pharmaceutical industry and through free trade agreement negotiations with developed countries to force India to adopt greater standards” of IP protection than required by TRIPS, says a recent letter signed by the public interest groups.
The IP summits, organised under the auspices of the India Project of the George Washington University (US), seems like a continuation of this process, says the letter.
The letter is addressed to Shri Anand Sharma, the Indian minister of commerce and industry, and calls for an end to “unethical and non-transparent lobbying with judges and policymakers” masquerading as an academic exercise. It further calls for the Indian government to disassociate itself from the summits’ Indian organising partner, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), which it says “no longer promotes the interests of India or of domestic companies.” It is dated 26 February.
The Intellectual Property Rights Summit met for the seventh time from 14-18 February in Delhi. The George Washington Law School has been organising them since 2004 with the help of CII as a part of its India Project, says the events programme [pdf].
The purpose of the summit according to its organisers is to “enhance education in the field of intellectual property law,” and they include mock trials held in front of US and Indian judges and lawyers as well as roundtables and visits to key IP offices. Participants include representatives from major law firms, companies and industry associations as well as governments and academics. Civil society groups are not listed.
The summit is also associated with the Creative & Innovative Economy Center at George Washington University, a group launched in 2006 which promotes industry views in developing countries (IPW, Lobbying, 3 April 2006). Intellectual Property Watch interviewed its director here: IPW, Inside Views, 31 March 2006.
The annual summit’s sponsors over the last few years have included Novartis and Gilead Sciences – both companies who have ongoing, high-profile disputes involving India’s patent law (IPW, Public Health, 2 September 2009) – as well as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), and the US-India Business Council – which published last year a report criticising Section 3(d) of India’s patent law [pdf], which prevents companies from receiving patents on improved (rather than new) formulations of medicine – according to the civil society letter.
These meetings are being used as a forum for such groups to “promote their intellectual property and to lobby for either law amendments or even to plead their cases,” the letter said. For example, Gilead presented a case as to why its patent application on its AIDS drug tenofovir should not have been rejected, and the law firm representing Novartis in a challenge to Section 3(d) made a presentation saying the law did not comply with TRIPS, the letter said.
Companies with a “vested interest in software patents” such as Intellectual Ventures, Microsoft, and Qualcomm also have been involved, although such patents are not currently allowed in the country, it added.
Further, the ministers and members of the judiciary who are invited to these events are not being fully informed of who is backing them, it said.
This year’s conference included a seminar on the role of intellectual property in technology development and transfer, with discussions on technology transfer through licensing and joint ventures and “legislation on reliable technology transfer mechanism like Bayh-Dole type legislation,” according to its programme. Bayh-Dole is a US law that allows universities and other publicly funded institutions to own intellectual property over innovations.
It also included a symposium on the “IP Ecosystem for Sustainable Business,” with discussions on IP in life science, “patentable subject matter in biotechnology and pharma, enablement and written description requirements in patent law,” patent litigation differences between India and the US, and IP issues in software and electronics, according to the suggested programme.
Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.
Categories: Developing Country Policy, English, Features, Lobbying, Patent Policy, Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer, US Policy, WTO/TRIPS
12 March 2010 at 8:35 am
Foreign sponsored IP summit may be academically advantageous to India. In some parts of the world, there are too few IP summits sponsored by Universities and companies. However, is these summits are masked to thwart the implementation or the delineation of IP policies in India, then I think it must be wary on these.
However, I believe the Indian government has had pro-poor and pro-society IP policies, and the devils will have to do extraordinary lures to destroy the role of India in providing its citizens and the world’s poor people the affordable and hopefully, quality and safe medicines. The Philippines import most of the generic drugs from India and Pakistan, and these has been very uplifting to most needy Filipinos
15 March 2010 at 9:37 am
[...] benefits they receive from these monopolies are greater than the occasional damages. According to this new report from IP Watch, Microsoft is now joined by it patent troll Nathan Myhrvold, who helped the company [...]