[A2k] Infojustice Roundup - April 30, 2012

Mike Palmedo mike.palmedo at gmail.com
Mon Apr 30 14:39:36 PDT 2012

Infojustice Roundup
Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

*Call for Participation:  2012 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
the Public Interest*

The Second Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest
will be held December 15-17, 2012 at FGV Law School in Rio De Janeiro,
Brazil.  The theme for this year’s Congress will be "Setting the positive
agenda in motion." The first Global Congress was convened last year to
define a positive agenda for policy reform, build a global network of
scholars and advocates to promote the agenda and provide opportunities for
the sharing of research and strategies.  Participants deliberated to
produce the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public
Interest — an action agenda for promoting the public interest in
intellectual property and information law reform around the world. Sixteen
months later, we will come together to measure our progress and expand the
positive agenda. To this end, we invite applications to attend the Congress
and contribute to its deliberations identifying forums where policy is
being developed, proposing policies or actions that promote public interest
goals and principles, and identifying and planning to respond to research
and analysis needs. Click here for

*PIJIP Res. Paper: Beyond the Unrealistic Solution for Development Provided
by the Appendix of the Berne Convention on Copyright*

*Author:* Aberto Cerda Silva  *Abstract:* The standards of copyright
protection promoted by the Berne Convention are highly problematic for
developing countries because these countries need to ensure a wide
dissemination of works for teaching, scholarship, and research purposes. In
order to accommodate these needs and to promote accession to this
Convention, the 1971 Paris Act of the Berne Convention, included an
Appendix that allowed developing countries to issue compulsory licenses for
translating and/or reproducing foreign works into languages of general use
in their territories. Unfortunately, the Appendix has not met the needs of
developing countries, which, instead, have relied on idiosyncratic
solutions. Additionally, the instrument does not provide solutions for
other needs, such as those of linguistic and cultural minorities, and it is
arguable whether the Appendix applies online. Click here for

*Analysis of China's Copyright Reform by Hong Xue - A User-Unfriendly Draft*

[by Hong Xue] Chinese Copyright Law, in its 21-year history, has only been
revised twice, in 2001 and 2010 respectively. From its initial enactment to
two revisions, foreign trade had always been an important consideration. In
1980s, several rounds of Sino-US intellectual property negotiation in the
ambit of bilateral trade negotiation was the pushing force for the
promulgation of the Copyright Law in 1990. In 2001, the Copyright Law was
completely revised to be complied with the TRIPS Agreement before China’s
accession to the WTO. In 2010, the Copyright Law was revised for the 2nd
time to be complied with the WTO DSB Panel Report regarding US-China
intellectual property dispute. Since the 2nd revision merely covered the
limited provisions addressed in the WTO dispute, 2001 Copyright Law was
largely kept intact. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/15477>

*Colombian Court: Abbott Labs’ AIDS Drug Pricing Abuse Violated Health

[by Peter Maybarduk] A Colombian administrative judge has ruled that Abbott
Laboratories and the Ministry of Health threatened and violated collective
rights to public health by maintaining the price of an HIV medicine above
the reference price, flouting a government order. The court’s decision is a
groundbreaking condemnation of Big Pharma pricing abuses and a precedent
for health rights in Colombia. The decision arises from a lawsuit filed by
health groups seeking a compulsory license on lopinavir + ritonavir
(LPV/r), marketed by Abbott as Kaletra and Aluvia. A compulsory license
would introduce cost-cutting generic competition with Abbott’s patent-based
monopoly. Click here for more. <http://infojustice.org/archives/16870>

*Paper by Christphe Geiger: ACTA and Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual
Property - What Consequences for the European Union?*

Abstract:  The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the secrecy
of its negotiation process have given rise to widespread speculation on the
content and the objectives of the Agreement, leading to the development of
considerable mistrust among the general public. This article concentrates
on one of the most problematic aspects of the Agreement: the provisions on
criminal enforcement. It will first show why criminal enforcement of
intellectual property is generally a problematic issue, especially in the
European Union, and then briefly try to demonstrate why ACTA is not the
right answer in this regard, since criminal enforcement provisions clearly
need a differentiated approach, an approach which is not reflected in the
Agreement. Click here for more. <http://infojustice.org/archives/16302>

*Paper by Margot Kaminski: The USTR’s Democracy Problem*

Abstract: This paper explores why the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR) seems so shocked by current demands for what seem
like basic democratic elements of transparency and public involvement. I
summarize the current state of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
(ACTA) and what it contains. ACTA is part of a larger trend of
international lawmaking in the United States, a shift from Article II
treaties to executive agreements. ACTA is also part of a longstanding trend
of coziness between industry groups and government representatives within
IP policy-making. Trade negotiations made through the executive branch are
particularly subject to industry capture, and that industry capture is
particularly problematic when it is located in an agency of the government
that does not envision itself as publicly accountable. Click here for

*Department of Commerce Seeks Comments on "Feasibility of Placing
Economically Significant Patents Under a Secrecy Order"

[Federal Register, vol 77, no. 77]: Pursuant to a request from Congress,
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking comments
as to whether the United States should identify and bar from publication
and issuance certain patent applications as detrimental to the nation’s
economic security. The USPTO is also seeking comments on the desirability
of changes to the existing procedures for reviewing applications that might
be detrimental to national security. Those wishing to submit written
comments should submit those comments for consideration by June 19, 2012. Click
here for more. <http://infojustice.org/archives/18164>*

*House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on International Patent Issues*

On April 26, the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property of the U.S. House
Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “International Patent Issues:
Promoting a Level Playing Field for American Industry Abroad.”  Witnesses
from industry and academia participated, and each listed what they consider
to be the largest threats to firms relying on IP in international markets.
All of the witnesses presented an IP-maximalist view.  For instance, they
each warned that the way compulsory licenses have been used in middle
income countries is problematic.  Click here for

More information about the A2k mailing list