Re: Copyright impact in Developing Countries
- I am organizing a workshop for the EU thematic network COMMUNIA for the
Public Domain http://media.polito.it/mailman/listinfo/communia-prep and
also I engage the Union for the Public Domain
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss and two working
groups at my Minciu Sodas laboratory
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learningfromeachother/ Andrius Kulikauskas
Maria Agnese Giraudo,
Thank you for shortening your statement on "Intellectual Property Rights
protection impact in Developing Countries". I look forward to you
leading a debate on this at our workshop Ethical Public Domain: Debate
of Questionable Practices in Vilnius, Lithuania on March 31, 2008
http://www.ethicalpublicdomain.org live video feed:
http://www.internettv.lt online chat: http://www.worknets.org/chat/
Thank you for your important topic. You found some excellent references.
However, when you present your statement, please state the ideas in your
own words so that it is clear you understand what you are saying and we
can, too. You consider several areas:
A) Digital content and Internet
B) Access to content for education and scientific research
C) Scientific research and economy
D) Patents in pharmaceuticals
You can mention them all (one sentence each) but please focus on one of
these areas so that you can present your position in five minutes! and
we can debate and discuss.
Let us know who you are criticizing and for what reason: Scientific
publishers? the European Union? African states? Drug companies?
Agnese, you have already received your first response. I am excited
because it is from Richard Stallman
who is the author of the GNU software license and the founder of the
free software movement which is the inspiration for Creative Commons,
COMMUNIA, and our workshop Ethical Public Domain. I add his letter after
your statement below. He urges us not to use the term "intellectual
property" but rather to use the terms "copyright" and "patent"
separately and not try to lump them together. I note that there are
other topics that are relevant, such as "terms of service". Perhaps
these might all be called "regulation of competition"?
Agnese, Thank you for bringing us this important topic! It is wonderful
that Eric Wanjamah, Kennedy Owino, Pamela McLean, Theresa Bakalarz and
others who care about Africa will be able to discuss with us. I will ask
Birute Railiene and look for others who might represent an opposing
point of view, for example, representing traditional journals and libraries.
Andrius Kulikauskas, Minciu Sodas, http://www.ms.lt, ms@...
Intellectual Property Rights protection impact in Developing Countries
By Maria Agnese Giraudo
Trade –Related Intellectual Property Agreements TRIPS
World Intellectual Property (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (WCT)
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT)
Digital content and Internet
Dalindyebo Shabalala, in Towards a Digital Agenda for Developing
analyses the expansion of the international protection of Intellectual
Property Rights to digital and Internet content by treaties, with some
reference to national legislations. The Author considers the impact of
the enforcement of IPR in developing countries in term of risks and on
the contrary the development of Public Domain as a great opportunity.
I report some actions to undertake now and next steps suggested by
Shabalala (Chapter VI.3 The Way Forward for Developing Countries)
Shabalala says “Do not sign TRIPS-Plus, WCT and WPPT. Developing
countries should not sign such terms in bilateral treaties with the
United States or the EU …”
Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the European Union (EU) have
been negotiated in the past decades with more than 30 countries.
Recently EU is negotiating with regional blocs instead of specific
countries. (ACP Countries: CARIFORUM/CARICOM (Caribbean); CEMAC (Central
Africa): ECOWAS (West Africa); ESA (East Africa); the Pacific Forum;
SADC (Southern Africa);
Controversial issues between EU and Developing Countries regard: the
close coordination of developed counties for harmonization in the matter
and delay in taking decision in Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT). EU
Looking at IPR enforcement as a priority and focusing on
anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy measures.
African Union “Nairobi Declaration on Economic Partnership Agreements”
12-14 April 2006:
“Welcome the progress that has been made on clarification of the flexibility
available under the WTO Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights, including the amendment to the Agreement’s provisions on
compulsory licensing. We urge our negotiating partners to fully respect this
progress in the context of EPA negotiations and to refrain from seeking
that exceed those under the TRIPS Agreement. We urge the EU to expeditiously
complete the procedures necessary for the amendment to be implemented and
utilised by their producers and exporters of pharmaceutical products as
part of the
community regime. We also reject any attempt to introduce any TRIPS plus
provisions on any intellectual property rights issues in the EPA
Did African Union position sort some effect in these agreements?
Access to the content for education and Scientific Research in
Infrastructural problems, content access.
Shabalala says: “ Maintain and fully implement existing exceptions and
limitations” regarding Internet content that is vital for developing
countries together with ISPs and P2P and Search engines, then exceptions
for temporary, incidental and ephemeral copies.
In developing countries Internet and digital content is vital and is the
main source of information, education for all purposes of social,
cultural and economic development.
Online content has to be integrated with digital-optical disk and
analogic documents and all distribution system has to be reviewed in an
open access vision to cope with access problems.
Access to scientific knowledge: publications, databases, two-way
exchange, validation of results,
Open Access movement Initiatives: Pubmed Central- Biomed Central- Public
Library of Science- Hinari-OARE- AGORA
Scientific Research and Economy
General Trends of restriction of Public Domain in favour of IPRs
Bayh-Dole Act 1980 (shifting from Public Domain to pro-patent position)
France- Innovation and Research Law 1999.
Extension of IPR into scientific knowledge and production activities,
connection of science with R&D, Research laboratory have commercial
relationship with industry with increasing protection and patents.
IPRs in TRIPS are trade-related , it means that "on one hand, there is a
strengthening of IPR that favours industrialised countries. On the
other, there are some international trade compensations favourable to
developing countries.” (Forero-Pineda,2006, p.813)
“[…] Trade compensations, granted by developed countries in exchange for
more protection of IPR in developing countries, may balance the
developing-country welfare-losses. Nonetheless, they may exacerbate
those two negatives[in small countries], long run effects on domestic
research. First, there is an additional stimulus to allocate investment
resources to goods receiving incentives (traditional goods). Their
technology content is low, and this will reorient resources away from
domestic technology production[…]
Trade-relating intellectual property will have two main consequences:
(a) a deeper international division of labour, and (b)[…] and increase
or decrease of the technology sector of this
Other disadvantages and costs of strengthening IPRs:
High prices for imported products and new technology
Loss of economic activity, by the closure of imitative activities, while
innovation is restricted in small developing countries to transnational
companies mainly of the pharmaceutical sector or in countries with R&D
capability. (Lall, 2003, p.1661)
Forero-Pineda (2006, p.813) indicates that the consequence is “the
increase in the price of manufactured goods [that] will induce a switch
in domestic consumption from manufactured to traditional or imported goods”
Advantages for developing countries due to weak IPRs:
Imitation and reverse engineering in technological development
(Korea,Taiwan etc.) and local farmaceutical firms (India etc.)
The discussion should perhaps focus on the human right of creating and
of innovating and about the possibility of a low cost technology that is
effective and innovative in all sectors from production to service
Patents in pharmaceuticals
After TRIPS agreements the most important consequence for developing
countries has been “ the mandate to accept the patenting of
pharmaceuticals” dismantling local industrial production.
“India legislation of 1970 and many developed countries either refused
patenting of pharmaceutical products or patented processes [….] At the
time of the GATT Uruguay round, almost 50 developing countries did not
grant pharmaceutical patents.
The approval of TRIPs has reversed this tendency […]Member countries of
WTO are required to grant both product and process patents in the
pharmaceutical sector.” […Added to patent] trade secret protection
“would not cover the product[…but] the clinical research. […]
Pharmaceutical companies from developed countries fear the proliferation
of small laboratories in developing countries dedicated to the
production of no-patent and post-patent generics…” (Forero-Pineda,2006,
Developments in this sector:
Agreement in 2001 between WTO and WHO about price differentiation of drugs.
Monopoly of patented drugs and lower quality level of no-patented drugs
No benefit from research for developing countries
There is general concern for the population of developing countries
recruited by pharmaceutical companies for clinical trials, under “trade
secret protection”. What kind of warranties and controls can be adopted
to prevent abuses?
How local pharmaceutical firms are coping with multinational companies?
Is there still a market for them? What kind of market?
Forero-Pineda Clemente The impact of stronger intellectual property
rights on science and technology in developing countries Research Policy
Lall Sanjaya Indicators of the relative importance of IPRs in developing
countries. Research Policy 2003;32(9):1657-1680.
It is a grave mistake to use the term "intellectual property",
because doing so lumps together unrelated laws.
Patent law and copyright law are almost completely different, and
should be treated as two separate topics. Trademark law is totally
different from those two, and should be treated as a separate topic.
To lump these topics together is a recipe for confusion.
Ms Giraudo's article is about copyright law -- plus one paragraph
about patent law which doesn't relate to the rest. Aside from that
paragraph, it makes sense as an article about copyright. But every
time it uses the term "intellectual property", it lumps in other
unrelated laws and mixes up unrelated topics.
Replacing the term "intellectual property" with "copyright", and
deleting the one extra paragraph, would make the article coherent.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more explanation.
"Protection" is also a propaganda term in the context of copyright --
see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for explanation.