TRIPS and enforcement

The suspension of the Doha round has not meant an end to controversies over TRIPS. A meeting of the TRIPS council 25-6 October degenerated somewhat over attempts by the EU to give a powerpoint presentation about what it was doing in terms of enforcement of IP. This was against the backdrop of an attempt by the EU, US, Japan and Switzerland to have the question of enforcement included in the ambit of the TRIPs Council (see http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=432&res=800&print=0 - thanks as ever to IP-Watch for most excellent reports).

The basis for some developed countries pursuing this seems to be objections to piracy, as against fears that more stringent enforcement mechanisms may not be in the interests of developing countries' economies. The debate can never advance for long, however, without more general questions of TRIPS and public health etc being raised. Is the question of enforcement in fact to be viewed more broadly, in terms of outcome, rather than process? The drafting of TRIPS would not seem to permit this, with the substantive minimum standards and requirements for injunctions etc being quite distinct. Is the pressure on both sides an echo of more fundamental concerns?

Business Method and Software Patents - Court of Appeal

Thanks to Society of Computers and Law for the prompt notification of this decision (thanks also to them for their part in organising the inspiring and stimulating policy think tank Decentring Internet Regulation over the last couple of days).

Lord Justice Jacob has delivered a full analysis of the present UK provisions regarding patenting of software and business methods - which, of course, has involved consideration of the EPC and decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal. Writing this about to board a plane back from said conference, I will refrain at least for now for detailed comment on the decision - although it does include interesting points on statutory and treaty interpretation, and the links between the UK courts and the EPO, all key interests of our project. I also like the suggestion that the EPO Enlarged Board should look at the matter, and the ECJ style reference questions framed. Remains to be seen what happens.

Article: Human rights: in the real world

Here's a link to "Human rights: in the real world" published by Abbe Brown in the August 2006 issue of OUP's Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice.

WTO, China and Patent

Thanks to the Register f0r details of mullings by Peter Mandelson of a possible complaint to the WTO DSS by the EU in respect of China's enforcement of its patent laws. The patent laws are acknowledged to be adequate in themselves.

This is potentially interesting on many fronts: of relevance here is the impact of a finding that the Chinese courts, enforcement authorities and judicial systems did not enable laws compliant with TRIPS to be properly used. As one aspect of our project is development of a new national approach to IP interpretation, which we argue is consistent with TRIPS but anticipate others not accepting, we will be monitoring any developments closely.

And the Independent continues

Following on yesterday's post, another interesting article in the Independent about new forms of business models and IP owners (clearly not always the same as creators and inventors) seeking alternative means of obtaining reward.

Under the suggestions, competition questions will remain - and I'm not too sure about the two distinct categories of access which seem to be emerging. They may raise their own human rights questions. However, when such issues are regularly debated in the broadsheet press, it's a sign that not just academics and focussed activists are interested in our type of work and its possible contribution. Excellent for morale!

Google and beyond

An article in today's Independent sets the basis for many themes that interest us: how Google, once the opener of doors, could now be seen as a monolith which could control access to information; without respect for copyright and rights to information, expression and education; and potentially raising competition questions. The article also, however, makes interesting points about the reality of business, corporate growth, consumer and corporate behaviour in an evolving industry and the need for changing business models.

A reminder of the place of constant awareness of the fine balance between IP, competition and human rights. Each of these, with their precarious interrelationship, will continue, after each wave of innovation, corporate power, and activist and consumer reaction has gone. And when one "problem" disappears, another will appear to fill market need or take the market in a new direction - this can lead to a power base, is likely to involve at least copyright and database rights, and can in turn have a negative implication on some human rights. The focus should be on the proper balance and delivering it, not merely on addressing specific issues - such as Google.

WIPO and the Development Agenda

At the recent WIPO Assemblies it was agreed that work on the Development Agenda would continue for another year. The Provisional Committee will prepare a report in 2007 for the General Assembly. This is a welcome development, although clearly the question is what will be achieved in securing a balanced and openminded approach to the role of IP in stimluating development in both the long and short term.

The need for WIPO to continue its focus in this area was highlighted by the parallel announcement of WHO consultations into IP and reports of a WTO meeting (thanks to IP Watch: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=413&res=1024&print=0 http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index_test.php?p=412). IP, and its implementation and exploitation has its faults; but it has also advantages. The key challenge is to ensure that decisions as to the future of IP are made after broad and multi-faceted debate. This does seem to be taking place.