Infojustice Roundup

Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

Kenyan High Court Strikes Down Sections of Anticounterfeit Act

Justice Mumbi Ngugi of the Kenyan High Court has ruled that sections 2, 32, and 34 of the Kenya Anti Counterfeit Act 2008 “violate the complainant’s right to life and health as it severely limits access to drugs.” Three petitioners – Patricia Asero, Maureen Murenga and Joseph Munyi – had challenged the law, charging that its overly broad definition of what constitutes a counterfeit product would limit access to generic medicines.  They further argued that this would violate the Kenyan constitutional protection of the right to life, (Articles 70 and 71 of the Constitution).   Click here for more.

Consumers International Publishes 2012 IP Watchlist

Consumers International has published its annual “IP Watchlist,” a report that examines the IP laws and policies of 30 countries, determining which are strongest and weakest at promoting access to knowledge.  The list ranks each country according to 49 criteria, which fall in to four general categories: “scope and duration of rights; freedom to access and use (which is further sub-divided into eight types of use); freedom to share and transfer; and administration and enforcement.” Click here for more.

PIJIP Res. Paper: A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development – A Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age

Author: Rami Olwan.  Abstract: On October 4, 2004, Brazil and Argentina requested that WIPO adopt a development-oriented approach to IP and to reconsider its work in relation to developing countries. In October, 2007, WIPO member States adopted a historic decision for the benefit of developing countries, to establish a WIPO Development Agenda. Although there have been several studies related to IP and development that call for IP laws in developing countries to be development-friendly, there is little research that attempts to provide developing countries with practical measures to achieve that goal. This article takes the copyright law in Jordan as a case study and shows how, in practical terms, a pro-development-oriented approach could be implemented in the copyright laws of developing countries. It provides specific recommendations for developing countries to ensure that their IP laws are aligned with and serve their social and economic development objectives. Click here for more.

Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright in China

This overview on copyright flexibilities in China consists of two parts:  first, answers to a questionnaire on the state of copyright law and second, a table organizing the limitations and exceptions to copyright in China’s laws. The first part includes an analysis of copyright flexibilities and the current political context of copyright provided by Hong Xue.  The second was compiled by PIJIP fellow Marcela Palacio Puerta. The compilation is part of a larger project to map flexibilities in copyright law, and input is appreciated. Click here for more.

Legal Affairs Committee to Vote on ACTA This Week

The European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee will discuss its Rapporteur’s draft opinion on ACTA this Wednesday, and will vote on Thursday on whether or not to recommend that Parliament give its consent to the Agreement.  FFII has written a letter to the members of the Committee, warning that “ACTA’s civil, border and criminal provisions themselves are often disproportional and go beyond current EU law. These provisions lack precise limitations and conflict with the general safeguards. The conflicts will have to be resolved during implementation.”  FFII asks the committee to propose that Parliament withhold its consent to ACTA.  Click here for more.

Public Knowledge’s New Resource on Copyright Issues in the TPP

Last week Public unveiled, created to “provide news, analysis and commentary from our experts and from others around the world about TPP.” Public Knowledge notes that the TPP “suffers from a serious lack of transparency, threatens to impose more stringent copyright without public input, and pressures foreign governments to adopt unbalanced laws. Many of the same special interests that pushed for legislation like SOPA and PIPA have special access to this forum—including privileged access to the text as well as US negotiators.”  Click here to visit