South Africa’s Copyright Amendment Bill – Five Years On
[Denise Nicholson] … On 16 June 2020, the President elected to refer the Bill back to Parliament on the grounds of “constitutional concerns”. What is very disappointing and surprising is that the President ignored a Senior Counsel’s Opinion on the Bill, sent to his office, as well as hundreds of submissions, letters, messages, and public presentations in favour of these exceptions throughout the legislative process. Instead, and perhaps under pressure, he sent the Bill back based purely on one submission to Parliament made by a Senior Counsel on behalf of his client, the Copyright Coalition of South Africa. He failed to give his own presidential reasons or opinion as to why issues raised were likely to be “unconstitutional”. Click here for more.
An Open Letter to the Government of South Africa on the Need to Protect Human Rights in Copyright
[Cory Doctorow] Five years ago, South Africa embarked upon a long-overdue overhaul of its copyright system, and, as part of that process, the country incorporated some of the best elements of both U.S. and European copyright. From the U.S.A., South Africa imported the flexible idea of fair use — a set of tests for when it’s okay to use others’ copyrighted work without permission. From the E.U., South Africa imported the idea of specific, enumerated exemptions for libraries, galleries, archives, museums, and researchers. Both systems are important for preserving core human rights, including free expression, privacy, education, and access to knowledge; as well as important cultural and economic priorities such as the ability to build U.S.- and European-style industries that rely on flexibilities in copyright. Click here for more.
See also:
– Sean Flynn. South Africa: Parliament Moves Up Copyright Hearing to Tuesday, August 18. Link.
– Electronic Information for Libraies. On A Knife Edge? South Africa’s New Copyright Law. Link.
Expanding Access to Patents for COVID-19
[Jorge L. Contreras] Abstract: Two competing and linked sets of goals must be addressed when considering patent policy in response to a public health emergency. First is the allocation of existing resources among potential users (hospitals, patients, etc.); second is the creation of new technologies over time (innovation). Click here for more.
New Paper by Prof. Phillips: Sea Change – The Rising Tide of Pro Bono Legal Services for the Creative Community
[PIJIP] A new paper by Victoria Phillips, Director of the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic, has been published by the journal IP Theory. The paper argues that the relatively new growth and success of intellectual property law clinics has led to ” a rising tide in the availability of pro bono expert legal assistance for the creative community throughout the wider legal marketplace.” Click here for more.
The TRIPS Agreement Article 73 Security Exceptions and the COVID-19 Pandemic
[Frederick Abbott] Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused Governments to contemplate measures to override patents and other intellectual property rights (IPRs) in order to facilitate production and distribution of vaccines, treatments, diagnostics and medical devices. This paper discusses whether the COVID-19 pandemic may be considered an “emergency in international relations” and how WTO Member States may invoke Article 73 (“Security Exceptions”) of the TRIPS Agreement as the legal basis for overriding IPRs otherwise required to be made available or enforced. It concludes that the pandemic constitutes an emergency in international relations within the meaning of Article 73(b)(iii) and that this provision allows Governments to take actions necessary to protect their essential security interests. Click here for more.
Webinar: Presentation of the MedsPal Database by Amina Maillard, Medicines Patent Pool
[Webinar – Sep 15, 2020; 10:00am EST] MedsPaL is the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)’s patents and licenses database, a free resource provides information on the intellectual property status of selected patent essential medicines in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The database includes patent and licensing data covering over 8,500 national patent applications on 110 priority medicines (220 formulations) in more than 130 LMICs. In March 2020, it was expanded to provide patent information on treatments currently being tested for COVID-19. Click here for more.
From Struggle to Surge: China’s TRIPS Experience and Its Lessons for Access to Medicines
[Peter Yu] Abstract: The WTO TRIPS Agreement has imposed unprecedented burdens on countries in the developing world. Although many developing and least developed countries continue to struggle with the Agreement’s high intellectual property protection and enforcement standards, large or populous emerging economies, such as Brazil, China, India, South Africa, Thailand, have managed to adapt the Agreement with some success. As economic and technological conditions improved, these emerging economies began to secure even greater benefits from the TRIPS-based intellectual property system, thereby initiating a self-reinforcing virtuous cycle. Out of all emerging economies, no country provides a better illustration for a complete transformation of its intellectual property system and pharmaceutical landscape than China. Click here for more.
Uneducating Copyright – Member States Can Choose Between ‘Full Legal Certainty’ and Patchworked Licensing Schemes for Digital and Cross-Border Teaching Activities
[Bernd Justin Jütte] Abstract: The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market supplements the existing exception for teaching of the Information Society Directive. The new exception focuses on digital and cross-border teaching, but fails to provide a legal framework that ensures full legal certainty and addresses the concerns of those engaged in teaching. Click here for more.
Médecins Sans Frontières Feedback on the European Commission’s Roadmap for an Intellectual Property Action Plan
[MSF] The European Commission (EC) roadmap for an intellectual property (IP) action plan lays out the need for a well-calibrated and balanced IP policy, yet it fails to recognise that granting more exclusive rights does not necessarily lead to more innovation but unambiguously discourages it. MSF has witnessed first-hand how monopolies granted to pharmaceutical corporations result in high prices negatively impacting patient access in different countries. Click here for the full document.
See also: KEI Europe feedback. Link.
