Intellectual property primary and secondary rights in international law: The case of Mexican Pharmaceutical Patents and the USMCA

Author(s):  
Roberto Garza Barbosa
Author(s):  
Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan

This chapter looks at how rule-relations within the international intellectual property (IP) system have developed from continuity (in constantly raising minimum standards) to resilience (against certain forms of increasing protection). It considers the evolution of the international IP system from the nineteenth century onwards, examining how each succeeding changes and additions to the system had established a relationship of continuity which integrates existing standards and adds new ones. The chapter then turns to the emergence of another revolutionary change. The integral nature of the common goals established in TRIPS’ object and purpose creates a form of ‘resilience’ of the multilateral system over attempts for inter-se modifications. Moreover, international law has appropriate tools so that those charged with applying, implementing, and interpreting multilateral IP norms can give effect to this resilience both in relations of interpretation and relations of conflict.


Author(s):  
Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan

This chapter discusses conflict-resolution tools and develops an analytical structure building on rules and principles in international intellectual property (IP) treaties, other rule-systems, and general international law to define norm relationships of interpretation and of conflict. Several tools are taken from the ‘toolbox’ developed in the Fragmentation Report of the International Law Commission and other fragmentation literature. Depending on the type of relationship at stake, the most appropriate legal tools to address them may vary. The ILC Report and Conclusions provide for some of the tools and to some extent for an analytical structure, a logical order for examining these relationships. As the chapter shows, for some types of legal relations other approaches are more adequate. They hence complement the ILC principles and need to be integrated in the set of tools available.


Author(s):  
Julia Hörnle

Jurisdiction is the foundational concept for both national laws and international law as it provides the link between the sovereign government and its territory, and ultimately its people. The internet challenges this concept at its root: data travels across the internet without respecting political borders or territory. This book is about this Jurisdictional Challenge created by internet technologies. The Jurisdictional Challenge arises as civil disputes, criminal cases, and regulatory action span different countries, rising questions as to the international competence of courts, law enforcement, and regulators. From a technological standpoint, geography is largely irrelevant for online data flows and this raises the question of who governs “YouTubistan.” Services, communication, and interaction occur online between persons who may be located in different countries. Data is stored and processed online in data centres remote from the actual user, with cloud computing provided as a utility. Illegal acts such as hacking, identity theft and fraud, cyberespionage, propagation of terrorist propaganda, hate speech, defamation, revenge porn, and illegal marketplaces (such as Silkroad) may all be remotely targeted at a country, or simply create effects in many countries. Software applications (“apps”) developed by a software developer in one country are seamlessly downloaded by users on their mobile devices worldwide, without regard to applicable consumer protection, data protection, intellectual property, or media law. Therefore, the internet has created multi-facetted and complex challenges for the concept of jurisdiction and conflicts of law. Traditionally, jurisdiction in private law and jurisdiction in public law have belonged to different areas of law, namely private international law and (public) international law. The unique feature of this book is that it explores the notion of jurisdiction in different branches of “the” law. It analyses legislation and jurisprudence to extract how the concept of jurisdiction is applied in internet cases, taking a comparative law approach, focusing on EU, English, German, and US law. This synthesis and comparison of approaches across the board has produced new insights on how we should tackle the Jurisdictional Challenge. The first three chapters explain the Jurisdictional Challenge created by the internet and place this in the context of technology, sovereignty, territory, and media regulation. The following four chapters focus on public law aspects, namely criminal law and data protection jurisdiction. The next five chapters are about private law disputes, including cross-border B2C e-commerce, online privacy and defamation disputes, and internet intellectual property disputes. The final chapter harnesses the insights from the different areas of law examined.


Author(s):  
Юрий Юмашев ◽  
Yuriy Yumashev ◽  
Елена Постникова ◽  
Elena Postnikova

The article deals with international law aspects of the GCL. To this aim firstly the international conventions on copyright law are analyzed, in particular: the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in the wording of the Paris Act of 1971, the Convention on the Establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization of 1967, the Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations of 1961 and Aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) 1994. There is also an analysis of the EU copyright law in terms of its correlation with the law of the EU member-states and an assessment of its evolution. It is emphasized that the core fact of origin of authorship is determined on the basis of the national legislation of the Member-States. Special attention is paid to the scope of the “principle of exhausted rights”. The article also touches upon the aspect of private international law. Particular attention is paid to the legal regulation of the Internet, including Internet providers, and its impact on the formation of the GCL. The problem of combating Internet piracy is also raised, as copyright infringement often occurs in relation to works published online. In addition, the article revealed what changes were made to the GCL to comply with EU law (including secondary law acts and the practice of the EU Court). The result of the study is, among other things, the conclusion that special legal mechanisms should be developed to regulate new forms of selling works that have emerged as a result of technological progress and in the near future the Internet will undoubtedly form ways for the further development of the GCL. However, this process can negatively affect the leading role of the author as a creative person.


Author(s):  
A. N. Kirsanov ◽  
A. A. Popovich

Introduction. The use of technical means for copyright protection is regulated not only in Russian legislation, but also in foreign and international law. It means that the international concept of intellectual property protection could be perceived differently by foreign jurisdictions, which, in turn, is of special scientific interest. The foundations of legal regulation are laid down in international treaties, which in the intellectual property law are tools that contain substantive rules of law. The provisions of such treaties are implemented in the national (supranational) legislation, and, therefore, become part of them and subject to additions.. The article is devoted to the study of international legal regulation of the use of technical means for copyright protection.Materials and methods. The methodological basis of the research consists of the following general scientific and special methods of cognition of legal phenomena and processes: dialectical, formal-legal, comparative-legal, formal-logical, structural-functional.Results of the study. The authors found that attempts to protect copyright using technology available at every stage of history were undertaken by individual countries, beginning from the second half of the 19th century. However technical means of protection received legal regulation at the international level relatively recently, the prerequisite for that was the rapid development of digital information technologies. Analysis of international legal norms in the field of legal regulation of technical means of copyright protection has shown that at present international legal regulation is of a general nature, providing each of the states at the national level with ample opportunities for legal concretization of gen-eral norms. However, recently the Internet treaties of WIPO recognized for the first time not only the advisability of the use of technical means of protection, but also the obligation prohibiting circumvention of such protection technologies, and therefore national legislations should contain provisions regulating the circumvention of such protection technologies.Discussion and Conclusions. The introduction of international law with regard to the use of the protection technologies, despite their general and abstract nature, has given a serious impetus to the establishment of legal regulation of this institution at the national level. At the same time, the rules governing the use of the protection technologies in the near future will require greater unification and concretization due to the rapid development of digital information technologies, blurring the borders between states in terms of disseminating the results of intellectual activity, and also in order to avoid a multiplicity of interpretation of law and to ensure effective legal regulation and protection of copyright.


2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-364
Author(s):  
Fiona Macmillan

Starting from an argument about the relationship between cultural heritage and national and/or community identity, this article considers the different ways in which both the international law regime for the protection of cultural heritage and the international intellectual property regime tend to appropriate cultural heritage. The article argues that, in the postcolonial context, both these forms of appropriation continue to interfere with the demands for justice and for the recognition of historical wrongs made both by indigenous peoples and by many developing countries. At the same time, the article suggests that these claims are undermined by the misappropriation of the postcolonial discourse with respect to restitution of cultural heritage, particularly in the intra-European context. The article advocates the need for a regime for the protection of cultural heritage that is strong enough to resist its private appropriation through the use of intellectual property rights and nuanced enough to recognise significant differences in the political context of local and national claims to cultural heritage.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document