The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Choice of Intellectual Property Interest Balance in the Two Countries

2018 ◽  
pp. 119-137
Author(s):  
Henry Yan
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Property Interest ◽  
Interest Balance

scholarly journals DEVELOPING STRATEGY TO IMPROVE MARKET ACCESS: INDONESIA-US FTA

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-67
Author(s):  
Imbang Listiyadi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Fair Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Developing Strategy ◽  
Joint Study

Prinsip-prinsip dasar kepentingan didalam merangkai hubungan perdagangan bilateral antara dua negara yaitu Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat adalah lebih ditujukan kepada landasan kerja sama perdagangan yang saling menguntungkan. Tawaran serta permintaan yang dapat diintegrasikan bersama secara spesifik dan dapat menunjang pertumbuhan ekonomi masing-masing.Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Indonesia-Amerika Serikat diharapkan dapat menciptakan susasana kesepakatan yang disebut sebagai kebebasan dalam perdagangan atau Free Trade, keadilan didalam perdagangan atau Fair Trade. Landasan Filosofi “Free Trade” dan “Fair Trade” perlu dicarikan formulasi/rumusan jbersama terlebih dahulu guna mencari jawaban bahwa perdagangan bilateral yang dituangkan di dalam agreement nantinya tidak menjadi hambatan baru bahkan sengketa perdagangan didalam kerangka perdagangan bebas, sehingga perlu adanya pembicaraan bersama atau kajian bersama (Joint Study).FTA Indonesia Amerika Serikat akan memberikan fungsi penting sebagai alat penjamin manakala secara tiba-tiba terjadi perubahan kebijakan perdagangan kedua belah pihak FTA Indonesia Amerika Serikat juga berfungsi sebagai kepastian “Market Access” masing masing sebagai mitra dagang, serta bagi dunia usaha yang akan membangun komitmen untuk berbagai investasi baru.FTA Indonesia AS diharapkan akan memperkecil ketimpangan yang selama ini dirasakan oleh pihak Indonesia sebagai negara berkembang. Anggapan adanya ketimpangan antara negara maju dan negara berkembang yang secara tradisi ditandai dengan tingkat ekonomi maupun teknologi yang berbeda menyolok. Tingkat ketergantungan (dependence) Indonesia terhadap AS akan sangat mempengaruhi posisi tawar.Perdebatan di forum Kongress Amerika Serikat yang menganggendakan Free Trade Agreement seri9ng dikaitkan dengan permasalahan lain seperti: lingkungan hidup, pelanggaran hak asasi manusia, pelanggaran hak cipta, patent, ppolitik dan lain-lain dan sering bersifat sepihak atau unilateral. Tak urung masalah ini akan menjadi beban berat bagi negara-negara mitra dagang yang sebenarnya tidak terkait langsung dengan masalah bisnis. Di wilayah yang lebih bersifat teknis banyak hal yang sulit dpenuhi oleh negara-negara berkembang untuk mengimbangi perilaku negara-negara maju. Amerika Serikat telah banyak menguasai masalah-masalah Ïntellectual Property Right” yang mana hal paradox tergambar atau mewakili ketertinggalan negara-negara berkembang/miskin.

Geographical Indications: A Major Challenge for MERCOSUR

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 1113-1122
Author(s):  
Roxana Blasetti
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Tariff Reduction ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Private Rights ◽  
Legal Challenges

Abstract This article focuses on the intellectual property chapter of the EU-MERCOSUR Free Trade Agreement. It is not intended to provide an exhaustive analysis of all the intellectual property rights involved but to go deeply into a specific matter, geographical indications, which is undoubtedly a controversial concession in the chapter. The entire free trade agreement negotiations took more than 20 years and ended in June 2019 with an ‘Agreement in principle’. From the very beginning it involved a red line for the MERCOSUR countries, namely the intellectual property chapter. This article will show the complexity of including the private rights of prior users (generic names, plant varieties and trademarks) as a trade-off for agricultural market access in negotiations mainly focused on tariff reduction and trade rules. In addition, the imbalance between the parties was deepened by the lack of regionally harmonized intellectual property standards within MERCOSUR. In this regard, the main objective of this article is to identify the legal challenges derived from the overlap of national, regional and bi-regional rules that the Mercosur countries will face when implementing the geographical indication commitments, given the bloc’s legal and institutional structure. Unlike tariff reduction, the commitments derived from the negotiation of private rights are a crucial issue. Against this background, some proposals are outlined to address how to determine a medium- and long-term strategy based on the needs of local producers to add value to their productions.

scholarly journals 'Stretching the Imagination': Geographical Indications in the EU-Australia FTA Negotiations

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Di Francesco-Mayot ◽  
Bruce Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Rural Development ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
New Wave ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Intellectual Property Issue

The launch of negotiations for an EU-Australia 'free trade agreement' (FTA) on 18 June 2018 was a confirmation of a 'like-minded' strong partnership, in which both parties had high hopes for an ambitious agreement which would test the new wave of protectionism promoted by Donald Trump.Nonetheless, the initial rounds of negotiations revealed several issues which illustrate the scale of the challenge to be addressed. One such example was the issue of Geographical Indications (GI). The EU and its member states adopt an approach which is highly regulated and prescriptive to safeguard the authenticity of its produce and encourage rural development. Australia approaches this kind of intellectual property issue via a trademark system as well as a sui generis system to better capture the benefits of innovation. This paper analyses the challenges and opportunities an accord on GI's could have for both regions, as revealed in the context of the EU-Australia negotiations. The paper claims that while an agreement on GI's was a significant outcome for the overall FTA, the process adopted by the EU and Australia was in itself a reflection of the ambition for an amicable, dynamic and innovative negotiating process.

Pharmaceuticals, intellectual property and free trade: the case of the US–Australia free trade agreement

Prometheus ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Drahos ◽  
Buddhima Lokuge ◽  
Tom Faunce ◽  
Martyn Goddard ◽  
David Henry
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The Us

scholarly journals Free Trade Agreements With The United States: 8 Lessons For Prospective Parties From Australia’s Experience

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Tully
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States

Abstract This article identifies 8 key lessons for those States contemplating a free trade agreement with the United States (U.S.) arising from Australia’s experience. The standards of intellectual property protection under the Australia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and their impact on pharmaceutical prices in Australia are a particular focus. Prospective parties must first conduct a national interest self-assessment which reviews the desired strength of intellectual property protection under national law and their preference for using flexibilities available to them under the existing international intellectual property rights framework. The United States negotiates free trade agreements in light of previous ones, negotiating outcomes obtained in other fora and the decisions of international trade tribunals. Negotiations typically occur behind closed doors, which is a process having adverse implications for transparent decision-making, public consultation periods and contributions from interested non-governmental actors. A concluded agreement will build on prior treaties and influence the course of future international arrangements. But the impact of a United States free trade agreement is not always clear, including because of a lack of reliable data, and the extent of national legal change is a contested issue given existing reform agendas and external influences. The United States seek to redesign national health care systems in its own image and had little success in Australia’s case. National legal systems need not be harmonised: although there can be some convergence in intellectual property rights regimes, significant differences may also remain. Negotiators must reconcile competing cultures, philosophies and perspectives between States for a free trade agreement to be worthwhile.

All Costs, No Benefits: How the US-Jordan Free Trade Agreement Affects Access to Medicines

2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit Malpani
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Public Health System ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Generic Competition ◽  
The Us ◽  
Medicine Prices ◽  
Product Launches

The US-Jordan free trade agreement and Jordan's terms of World Trade Organization accession introduced Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)-plus rules to the country's intellectual property (IP) law. This paper examines the benefits and consequences of TRIPS-plus rules and reports numerous negative consequences. In particular, data exclusivity, a TRIPS-plus rule, delayed generic competition for 79 per cent of medicines launched by multinational pharmaceutical companies between 2002 and mid-2006, which otherwise would have been available in an inexpensive, generic form. The public health system and individuals, owing to a lack of generic competition, had to pay higher prices for new medicines. There have been no benefits from introducing strict IP rules in Jordan. There has been nearly no foreign direct investment by drug companies into Jordan between 2002 and mid-2006 to develop medicines with local companies. TRIPS-plus rules have not encouraged Jordanian generic companies to engage in research and development for medicines. Finally, new product launches in Jordan are only a fraction of total product launches in the United States and the European Union and are unaffordable for ordinary people. TRIPS-plus rules contributed to a 20 per cent increase in medicine prices between 2002 and 2006. Higher medicine prices will strain Jordan's public health system and require significant out-of-pocket expenditure that will harm the poorest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document