Posts Tagged: "intellectual property rights"

The WHO is gathering governments, academics and activists in Amsterdam next month to discuss price setting options for medicines. But the so-called Fair Pricing Forum ignores the main driver of higher healthcare spending and will do more harm than good. While there is a pressing need to balance access to affordable medicines and the incentives to innovate, a reactionary focus on prices is misdirected and could have dire consequences for pharmaceutical innovation… The WHO’s exclusive focus on price setting also misses the mark on another issue – medicines are working to extend lives and even to lower overall healthcare spending by eliminating the need for more expensive interventions, such as surgery and hospitalization.

The problem with not having an independent invention defense, according to Lemely, is that people who invent themselves couldn’t possibly find out about what others have invented because these inventions lay in unpublished patent applications at the Patent Office. “You have people who genuinely tried not to infringe,” Lemley said… While Professor Lemley is entitled to his opinion, and he is an excellent and formidable attorney that no one should ever take for granted, he is not entitled to his own facts. Deliberate disdain for patent property is a purposeful business model driving mega-tech IT incumbents. This business model is called “efficient infringement.” Efficient infringement is a cold-hearted business calculation whereby businesses decide it will be cheaper to steal patented technology than to license it and pay a fair royalty to the innovator, which they would do if they were genuinely trying not to infringe as Professor Lemley suggests.

There are several different forms of intellectual property rights available in the United Kingdom, each with its own formality, level of protection, and duration period. It is crucial that any individual who creates a product, or who believes that they would benefit through protecting their intellectual property ensures that they follow the correct procedure… Many individuals will incorrectly assert a claim for copyright infringement. However, copyright infringement is a niche protection right and is only afforded to ‘artistic output’. No formality is required to register this right in the United Kingdom, which is different than U.S. practice.

IP rights are often viewed as barriers, not assets. No wonder respect for IP is at an all-time low, and pilfering of IP rights is widely acceptable. Our culture seems to be saying: “It’s ok to shoplift intangibles, if it’s not too obvious.” But buying fake goods, copying content, or appropriating someone’s trade secrets are not victimless crimes. They have a dramatic economic impact.

Because the production costs of these medical devices and pharmaceuticals are so high, millions of people around the world are unable to obtain necessary healthcare. For example, as of 2014, close to seventy percent of all cardiac pacemaker sales occurred in the United States and Europe, while several countries in Africa and Asia have absolutely no access to pacemakers. In order to respond to this problem, research scientists have begun developing low-cost medical technologies and using intellectual property rights to give people in developing countries access to adequate healthcare.

In 2016, the ITC had its busiest year since 2011–which was the peak of the “smartphone wars”–in terms of new investigations instituted. In 2016, 55 complaints were filed, notably, 16 of these complaints were filed by foreign companies. The ITC had an above average settlement rate of 60%; normally the settlement rate is approximately 50%. Last year also had a slight growth in nonpatent investigations which includes antitrust, trade secret, copyright and Lanham Act violations. Despite the increased workload, the average target date was 15.8 months from institution date to final Commission opinion.

President-Elect Donald Trump has announced that he will withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement on his first day in office. So ends more than five years of often heated negotiations led by President Barack Obama’s administration as part of an overall strategy to strengthen the US position in the Pacific Rim region… Pulling out of the TPP is a missed opportunity for the US to pursue its IPR agenda in the Pacific Rim economies.

It is also important to recognize that the social, political and economic impact of strong protections for intellectual property cannot be overstated. In the social context, the incentive for disclosure and innovation is critical. Solutions for sustainability and climate change (whether natural, man-made or mutually/marginally intertwined) rely upon this premise. Likewise, as we are on the precipice of the ultimate convergence in technologies from the hi-tech digital world and life sciences space, capturing the ability to cure many diseases and fatal illnesses and providing the true promise of extended longevity in good health and well-being, that is meaningful, productive, and purposeful; this incentive must be preserved.

A rising tide lifts all boats. While an age-old saying, the concept is relatively simple really. Of course, the path to broad based economic opportunity for all has been elusive for many countries. If underdeveloped and developing countries are going to transform economically, they need to encourage and support innovation. That means many countries like those facing the so called middle income trap like China, South Africa and Brazil, may want to think about IP protection and enforcement and what it could mean for economic development, in terms of encouraging foreign investment, and with respect to raising the quality of life.

Given the devastating impact of counterfeit medicines on patients and the importance of intellectual property protection in combating pharmaceutical counterfeiting, it is troubling that the UN High Level Panel seems poised to prevent a series of recommendations that will undermine public health under the guise of enhancing access. Without the assurance of quality medicines, access is meaningless. Moreover, while falsely presenting intellectual property rights as the primary obstacle to global health care, the High Level Panel downplays a host of other factors that prevent developing country patients from getting the drugs they need: inadequate medical infrastructure, insufficient political will, a shortage of clinical trials in nations where neglected diseases are endemic, poverty, and insufficient market incentives.

Collectors love eBay because it allows them access to items them may never otherwise be able to purchase. Bargain hunters love eBay for the ability to buy items at a much lower cost than normal retail. But, sometimes costs are lower because the goods infringe on someone’s intellectual property. Section 512(c) of the DMCA provides a safe harbor from liability for “online service providers” (OSP), like eBay, as long as the OSP: (1) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity; (2) is not directly or circumstantially aware of the presence of infringing material; and (3) promptly takes steps to remove purported infringing material upon receiving notice from copyright owners. To streamline this process, eBay created the Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) program. It allows intellectual property rights owners to request that eBay remove listings that infringe on their intellectual property rights, including copyrights, trademarks, and patents.

With leading-edge, tech-savvy companies in the internet, social networking, and e-retailing space often dominating headlines nationwide, it is easy to overlook the myriad businesses competing in the Fast Moving Consumer Goods (“FMCG”) industry, and to dismiss them as somewhat out-of-touch with the modern consumer. However, FMCG companies have combined revenues nearly on par with those in the more highly-publicized technology-based sectors, and have been thriving in the retail space for decades. IP Rights are critically important in the FMCG industry because businesses operating in this sector rely heavily on brand awareness and brandy loyalty for their success. It makes sense then that IP Rights are pivotal in any FMCG company’s long-term strategy for success.

Donald Trump argued at the New Hampshire debate that our nation’s infrastructure would not happen without eminent domain. While economic development as a justification for eminent domain has been severely criticized, there does not seem to be a similar criticism associated with stripping property rights from patent owners in order to allow technology adopting infringers to distribute what they did not themselves innovate without paying the property owner for the privilege.

Libertarians believe in property rights and government protection of those rights as one of the few necessary requirements of government. Ownership of property and free markets leads to competitive production and trade of goods, which in turn leads to prosperity for all of society. Intellectual property is property like other forms of property, and so government must protect IP as it protects other forms of property because it too leads to competition and trade and prosperity. Libertarians should encourage a strong patent system and object to any “reforms” that limit intellectual property ownership or introduce more government regulation than is required.

Would you consider a business owner who prevented someone from breaking into their store and stealing a tangible product to be a bully? Of course not! They would be taking reasonable steps to protect themselves, and their property, from the thug who was stealing. But if that is the case, why then would you consider a patent owner who protects and defends their rights to be a bully? The truth is you could only consider a patent owner to be a bully if you do not believe patents are a property right. While everyone is entitled to hope and dream, we do have a definitively correct answer. The Patent Act unambiguously says: “patents shall have the attributes of personal property.” See 35 U.S.C. 261. Thus, if a shop owner defending a tangible item against a thief is not bullying then neither is a patent owner defending rights against an infringer.