Power and Inequality in Megaregulation: The TPP Model

2019 ◽  
pp. 124-139
Author(s):  
B. S. Chimni
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Economic Globalization ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Matrix

Neo-Marxist approaches have begun again to exercise influence in contemporary critiques of globalization. This chapter sketches a transnational and national class-based analysis of international trade-regulatory agreements, using the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as the representative ideal type. With this framework, it looks at the implications of the TPP model for developing countries in the area of foreign investment and intellectual property rights in the matrix of the recent evolution of these two regimes. It further examines strategies available to the United States and India as their different domestic class constellations struggle over the countries’ political positioning towards economic globalization.

Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamnad Basheer
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Performance ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Suspension Model ◽  
The U.S

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.

scholarly journals Comparative characteristics of intellectual property judges: Ukraine, United Kingdom, USA

2020 ◽  
pp. 107-111
Author(s):  
M.I. Logvynenko ◽  
M.G. Shunko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Specialized Courts

The article deals with the comparative characterization of specialized courts for the protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine and developed foreign countries, such as Great Britain and the USA. The article deals with the historical background of the creation of a specialized court on intellectual property in Ukraine, as well as the legal systems in the field of protection of intellectual property rights of Great Britain and the USA, the analysis and consideration of the current judicial systems – in the consideration of civil and criminal cases in the field of intellectual property. property, litigation of the patent authorities of England and Wales, types of specialized courts and their unique procedural features. The nuances and practice of law enforcement activities of judges in the United States, the types and levels of penalties in civil and criminal cases, as well as the divergence of lawsuits and pre-trial procedural arrangements are outlined. The article reveals the similarity of the UK and US legal systems with those currently in force in Ukraine in dealing with intellectual property cases. The identified deficiencies relate to territorial inaccessibility, instances of inconsistency, and imperfection of the judicial system, as well as the defects of the national intellectual property and legal frameworks in place in comparison with the United Kingdom and the United States of America in the field of intellectual property. After researching and analyzing the intellectual property rights protection systems of leading countries in the world, such as England and the United States of America, the conclusions were clearly drawn as to the advisability of setting up a specialized court on intellectual property in Ukraine and the risks involved.

The Intersection Between Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 121-134
Author(s):  
Mariateresa Maggiolino ◽  
Laura Zoboli
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Alternative Scenarios

The interface between intellectual property rights (IPR) and the rules to protect the correct functioning of the market can be canvassed by looking at when these two sets of provisions converge and collide. This chapter analyses four alternative scenarios, by stressing that policy decisions become crucial to solve the cases of conflict and, in particular, the case where antitrust law forbids practices that intellectual property (IP) laws allow. Moreover, the chapter illustrates that it is in relation to these policy decisions that scholars and practitioners can appreciate how different jurisdictions, as in the United States (US) and European Union (EU), conceptualize the role that property rights and competition are called to play in spurring innovation.

Paying for services: experiences at the Smithonsonian Institute

1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-23
Author(s):  
Cecilia H. Chin ◽  
lldiko P. DeAngelis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Art History ◽  
Smithsonian Institution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Care ◽  
The World ◽  
Research Complex

The Smithsonian Institution, a trust instrumentality of the United States, and the largest museum and research complex in the world, receives many outside permission requests to reproduce images in the Smithsonian Collections. Charging fees for photographic usage is a common practice in the United States, especially in art history and general museums. Beginning in 1992, the Smithonian established internal guidelines for changing such fees and for handling permission requests from outside sources. The procedures ensure that the Smithsonian recognises and respects the intellectual property rights associated with images in the collections and the terms of any pre-existing agreements. Great care is also taken to protect the Smithsonian’s name from use in any commercial context, to avoid the implication that the Institution endorses a product (or one product rather than another).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document