The U.S. and China Reach Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights

1995 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 42-45
2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamnad Basheer

The biblical David vs. Goliath paradigm plays out very frequently in international trade disputes. In 2003, a tiny island state, Antigua and Barbuda (hereafter Antigua) took on the United States (hereafter U.S.) in a WTO (World Trade Organization) dispute, alleging that the U.S. violated the General Agreement on Trade in Services (hereafter GATS) obligations by effectively foreclosing its borders to overseas internet gambling services. It won at both the panel and the appellate levels. However, to this date, it has been unable to secure compliance by the U.S.This paper considers “cross retaliation" by suspending intellectual property rights under the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (hereafter TRIPS) as a viable remedy for developing countries such as Antigua that often find themselves at the receiving end of WTO inconsistent measures maintained by countries that are economically more powerful.Towards this end, it proposes a “Tiered IP suspension model," where certain kinds of Intellectual Property (hereafter IP) are targeted first for suspension before others, depending on the ease of objectively ascertaining the harm caused by the unauthorized use of such IP and/or the potential to induce compliance by the defaulting state. Illustratively, copyrights over sound recordings that have established rates for public performance are targeted first. If working with this tier of IP subject matter does not yield desired results, then the complaining state moves on to other IP where it is relatively more difficult to compute the loss caused to the IP owner (such as pharmaceutical patents) but which may be a more powerful tool to induce compliance. Such a model could be useful for a large number of developing countries, such as India and Brazil, that often find that, despite WTO victories, scofflaw states such as the U.S. and EU fail to comply. Towards this end, this paper offers a very concrete “development" oriented international trade law remedy.


2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Flynn ◽  
Aidan Hollis ◽  
Mike Palmedo

Not all intellectual property rights grant the right to exclude that is indicative of “property rules,” as that term was used by Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed in their seminal article. Some intellectual property rights are “liability rules,” in which the right holder has an entitlement to compensation for use of the protected invention, not a right to preclude the use. Although patent laws normally grant a right to exclude others from use of the protected invention as a default, most countries’ laws allow the government to convert the patent property rule into a liability rule through a compulsory license. It has been noted, for example, that by the end of the 1950s, the U.S. had issued compulsory licenses covering 40 to 50 thousand patents, including substantial portions of the patent portfolios of AT&T, General Electric, IBM, and Xerox. The U.S. Supreme Court recently expressed a willingness to accept liability rules over injunctions in some patent infringement cases.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley

Most antitrust claims relating to intellectual property involve challengesto agreements, licensing practices or affirmative conduct involving the useor disposition of the intellectual property rights or the products theycover. But sometimes an antitrust claim centers on an intellectual propertyowner's refusal to use or license an intellectual property right, perhapscoupled with efforts to enforce the intellectual property right againstinfringers. The allegation may be that the intellectual property right isso essential to competition that it must be licensed across the board, orthat a refusal to license it to one particular party was discriminatory, orthat in context a refusal to license helped a monopolist to acquire ormaintain market power.Claims based on a unilateral refusal to license - the subject of thischapter - present important issues at the center of the tension betweenantitrust and intellectual property. The antitrust and intellectualproperty laws are not necessarily in conflict. For the most part they servecomplementary goals, though each must limit the scope of the other.Unilateral refusal to license cases, however, cut to the heart of theintellectual property owner's right to exclude others from practicing theintellectual property. As such, efforts to invoke antitrust law in thiscontext deserve special scrutiny.Section 2 reviews the basic principles relating to unilateral refusals tolicense intellectual property rights. Section 3 discusses in detail thevarious sets of circumstances in which antitrust plaintiffs argue forexceptions to those basic rules. Section 4 distinguishes unilateral fromconcerted and conditional refusals to deal.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inggrit Fernandes

Batik artwork is one of the treasures of the nation's cultural heritage. Batik artwork is currently experiencing rapid growth. The amount of interest and market demand for this art resulted batik artwork became one of the commodities in the country and abroad. Thus, if the batik artwork is not protected then the future can be assured of a new conflict arises in the realm of intellectual property law. Act No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright has accommodated artwork batik as one of the creations that are protected by law. So that this work of art than as a cultural heritage also have economic value for its creator. Then how the legal protection of the batik artwork yaang not registered? Does this also can be protected? While in the registration of intellectual property rights is a necessity so that it has the force of law to the work produced


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document