Note of Expert Meeting: Intellectual Property, Competition and Human Rights
On 23/4 March 2006 members of the Expert Network of the IP, Competition and Human Rights project held a very successful meeting. The group considered case studies, with a view to developing outcomes which were legally robust, but also practically achievable and desirable, from different perspectives.
A draft note of the discussions of the meeting can be found here, together with the texts of the case studies. We would welcome any comments you may have.
A draft note of the discussions of the meeting can be found here, together with the texts of the case studies. We would welcome any comments you may have.
posted by Dr Abbe Brown at 4:09 pm
2 Comments:
Dear Abbie,
I am very interested on the substance and notes of discussion you posted.
Personally, I would say that Intellectual Property commercialization, has triggered the abuse of action by major corporations which ignore the notion of human rights.
Competition regulations are only a tool to hinder the overzealous dominance of commercialization. In South East Asia, almost 20% of natural resources were biopirated and in the absence of harmonized competition laws amongst the member states, should we blame major corporations on the ground of human rights intervention?
Unreported cases on importation of traditional knowledge and expression of folklore seems to be gradually increasing. Whilst awaiting the WIPO to issue certain directive(s), it will certainly take time, let say, 5 years for an agreed convention / treaty to be ractified by the WIPO members and to be enforced restropectively.
Again, major corporations which do not have "human rights" principle will camourflage the people / community on linking their "corporate social responsbility" initiatives. It is like an opera and a play, don't you think so?
Whilst China will be an emerging economy in 5 years time, what and how actually we need to prepare with potential enforcement issues? and how we need to be able to understand their competition laws and anti-competitive regulations?
In Asia itself, Japan is leading the Intellectual Property Rights race against its counterparts from the European Union and the United States of America. Japan has done much to her neighbouring countries (ASEAN) to disseminate the strategies to fight cross border measures, IPR infringement, parallel importation and diffusion of IPR itself. Again, it will take some time for ASEAN to realize that actually, their human rights on IP have been indirectly driven by a camourflage corporation's corporate social responsibility.
To make things worst, the confidence to register Patent in ASEAN countries have yet to reach the expected confidence level. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) seems to be slower down due to pressure of open trade and endless WTO negotiations by the super economy. Is that called human rights?
In ASEAN, the policies, laws and regulations on IP are just a white elephant rather than generating the whole economy. ASEAN are quite reluctant to accept drastic change if the change abuse its traditional knowledge and natural resources. And, ASEAN also uphold human rights on its IPR protection too - even though most of the state members are still developing - Exception occurs to Singapore and the improving Kingdom of Thailand. I could also understand why some South American countries are facing the similar predicament like the ASEAN do, simply because their geographical demography is slightly similar - which is, rich with natural resources.
Having said the above, it is a waste of time by advocating human rights on academic stance and its co-relation to IP to the major corporations as they won't take substantial of their time to preach on it unless it yield a better dividend. Industries are thinking about expanding their businesses rather than highlighting that they are the leader of "corporate social responsibility". At times, we have to think realistic, open our eyes and think out of the box on how to integrate one subject matter (which is IP) to another subject matter (Competition) and to an extension of right to life (Human rights). It's really an endless co-existence between the three. I put the reservation on the European Union and the United States of America's existing scenarion as it is premature for me to comment and am unqualified to utter.
As this might be thought provoking comment, probably, the academicians need to understand the shoes of major corporations, the regulators and the leaders in great detail. It is suggested talks, conference and white paper must be realistic rather than just make it as a juristic outcome with less impact and execution. At the end of the day, it will not yield dividend to the IP rights holder and the Country.
Respectfully commented
ASEAN IP Practitioner and Reader
Thanks very much for your interesting comments. The question of corporate power, social responsiblity, and corporate human rights obligations is one which interests us a great deal: at our first conference in December 2004, Professor Alan Miller considered the question, and I've also published a paper on the issue (see http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb/script-ed/vol2-4/csr.asp).
I agree that a more global approach to competition law might ultimately have more teeth than a solely human rights approach, and the development of this is of course the subject of further debates and work, through the ICN, WTO and academic commentary. There may, however, be challenges in agreeing and implementing a system in less sophisticated economies particularly in respect of IP - as there have been in the US and EU in the essential faclities and IP compulsory licensing cases.
As a result, we think that there is a useful contribution to be made by academic consideration of how to combine the three relevant fields to produce workable solutions. However, as you identify, this will not be effective in itself - there is a need to go on to stimulate wider debate and practical action, involving, or having regard to, the regulatory and corporate perspectve and approach. We've tried to address this through the membership of our expert network.
Would be very interested in hearing further views from readers!
Post a Comment
<< Home