International IP law

“It’s a small, small world.”

Well, sorta

Suffice to say, this is a very complicated and overwhelmingly

large area of study• Global economic politics are at play.• Global cultural issues are at risk.• As we’ve seen, IP involves a lot more than

media. Medical (including genetic and pharmaceuticals), agricultural, mechanical; these and every kind of “idea fixations” are at play.

• Let’s review those, broadly.

Global economic policies• Generally forces for capitalism appear to be winning. . . But

that’s not equally good for all.• Huge risks/losses for capital from piracy.• Significant increase of the have/have not divide by forcing locals

into “capitalized” relationships with the exchange of goods and services.

• Increased participation of global companies in domestic cultural productions.

• Increased leverage against non-participants to follow the rules.• Increased consolidation of ownership and control over capital.• Democracy/capitalism doesn’t always play fair: undue influence

via Word Bank/IMF and treaties.

Global culture issues• Again, American-Westernized culture appears to

be taking over . . . With mixed results for native peoples.

• Some increase in resistance from non-Western others . . . But tough to sustain.

• EU and overseas ownership might push back more strongly.

• Asian and Muslim worlds may yet prove daunting.• Undoubted role of cultural hegemony here, further

exacerbated by the global reach of media.

Panoply of categories

• As we’ve seen, IP involves a lot more than media. Medical (including genetic and pharmaceuticals), agricultural, mechanical; these and every other type of “idea fixations” are at play.– Copyright law leads, though there are also some

agreements on patents (esp.) and other matters.– International trade agreements and treaties are

also important factors.

The Big Guns: Copyright

• National laws.– Confuse the matters some, as they take precedence

within nations and they are not fully harmonized.

• Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Text 1971)Attempts top harmonize (esp.) copyright issues

• WIPO (Both in 1970)– Copyright Treaty– Performances and Phonograms Treaty

• Universal Copyright Convention, 1971 (Paris)

The Big Guns: Patents

• Paris Convention (1883)for the protection of industrial property (patents)– Patent cooperation Treaty (streamlines multiple

country applications) 1970– TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual

property agreement) [sets minimum protections]1994

The Big Guns: Treaties and Trade Agreements

• GATT/TRIPPS (general agreements on tariffs and trade/trade related aspects of intellectual property)– Originally on manufactured goods, adjusted to IP later.

Generally reduced tariffs and opened trade (advantaged the US)

• NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)

Cases illustrate complexity 1• U.S. BUSINESS NEWS Wrigley Suffers Legal Setback Over Doublemint Trademark A

WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUPLUXEMBOURG - Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., the world's leading chewing gum maker,received a legal setback Thursday in its bid to trademark the popular Doublemint brand across the 15-nation European Union.A European Union legal adviser denied Wrigley permission to trademark its popular brand across Europe. EU Advocate General Francis Jacobs judged the word combination Doublemint merely describes the product's characteristics,and lacks a required imaginative element to merit trademark protection.European trademark officials first turned down Chicago-based Wrigley's bidfor EU-wide protection in 1998. Wrigley then appealed the case to Europe's second-highest court, and won.On Thursday, Mr. Jacobs reversed that decision and handed a preliminary victory to the trademark officials. The EU high court, which is to take a final decision later this year, follows the advocate general's recommendations in about 80% of cases.Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. argues that Doublemint is a new combination of words that helps consumers immediately identify the product. Mr. Jacobs disagreed,saying, "The placing of a qualifier such as 'double' before a characteristic such as 'mint' is not structurally or syntactically unusual."Wrigley's brand has been trademarked in the U.S. for nearly a century.Within Europe, lawyers for the company say that 14 of the 15 EU states give the company protection of its mark on a national basis.However, companies increasingly want to register EU-wide trademarks to reduce administrative costs and ensure better legal protection.EU-wide trademark holders can stop infringers across the entire continentmore easily and cheaply by applying only once for an injunction. Holders ofsingle country trademarks must hop from one jurisdiction to another toenforce their intellectual property rights.Wrigley earns about 60% of its revenue outside the U.S., including importantsales in Europe.Updated April 10, 2003 8:44 a.m.

Cases illustrate complexity 2• Monday, April 14, 2003 New German Copyright Law Pleases Scholars and Angers

Academic Publishers By BURTON BOLLAG [Chronicle of Higher Education]• A hotly contested copyright law adopted on Friday by Germany's Parliament gives

universities and research institutions considerable leeway to digitally distribute copyrighted materials among students and scholars without paying extra charges. The law has been welcomed by academics. But academic publishers, who fought tooth and nail against the bill, say it will force them out of business. The bill was designed to bring German law in line with a two-year-old European Union directive covering a wide range of digital-copyright issues. But the directive is silent on the issue of copyright exemptions for education and research. Publishers say they will challenge the new legislation with European authorities in Brussels. The law in effect grants exemption from copyright restrictions, for specified nonprofit purposes, to "privileged institutions," meaning schools, higher-education institutions, and public research organizations. Passage of the bill was assured when a parliamentary committee last week inserted several compromises. The main opposition party, the Christian Democrats, then dropped its opposition. Two key changes stipulate that only "small parts" of copyrighted material can be distributed this way, and that access to such material shall be for "a defined, limited, and small" number of people -- for example, the students in a particular course. Access must be controlled by the use of passwords or a similar mechanism. Moreover, to remain valid, this section of the law must be reviewed by Parliament and re-approved at the end of 2006

Up to now Germany has had very restrictive legislation that, for example, made it illegal in most cases for scholars to put copyrighted material on even an internal computer network. Academics say the new law basically gives them the same rights over copyrighted material in digital form as they already have over such material printed on paper. Just as they may photocopy pages from a book and distribute them to students registered for a class, they will now be allowed to post such material on a Web page with access limited to those same students. But the compromises did not satisfy everyone. Georg Siebeck is head of a loose group of 35 academic book publishers, who include the majority of German publishers producing books for academe and have combined annual revenues of $2-billion. He says allowing only "small parts" of copyrighted material to be distributed is no guarantee for publishers' commercial interests. "You can still put the single chapters next to each other and with a click, download the whole book," he said. Mr. Siebeck, who is the owner of a small publishing house, says that digital copies of works should in fact benefit from greater copyright protection than paper copies since, unlike paper copies, digital copies are as good as the original. The new law, he says, "doesn't provide publishers with an incentive to publish in digital form." "No country would be as stupid as this" he said, and pass a law "to kill its own publishers." Publishers and booksellers mounted a vociferous campaign against the bill. One ad stated: "Imagine you have produced a book and the state is allowed to steal it." Publishers sent appeals to scholars, warning the proposed law would mean an end to the royalties they receive from sales of their works, and managed to get almost 2,000 scientists to sign a petition against the bill. Scientific associations, representing tens of thousands of researchers, and library associations responded with declarations rejecting the publishers' stance. Scholars say the publishers are greatly exaggerating the dangers they will face. "Their whole campaign was based on lies," says Rainer Kuhlen, a professor at the University of Konstanz and chairman of the German Association of Information Scientists. "The law will be a challenge to publishers to develop -- along with academics -- new ways to organize and distribute digital material." Tomas Hoeren, a professor of law and director of the Institute for Telecommunications and Media Law at Westfalische Wilhelms University, in Munster, says the new legislation will make Germany, along with the Scandinavian countries and the United States, among the nations with a relatively tolerant approach to the use of copyrighted materials for specified educational purposes. France and Spain are among those with a more restrictive approach.

Apple/iPod in France

Microsucks and the EU