Attached below are the current proposals on the so called “Berne Gap.”
AF Group: Any Contracting Party which is not a member of the Berne Convention or other relevant international treaties shall ensure consistent with its own legal system and practices, that accessible format copies are not reproduced, distributed or made available to non-beneficiary persons.
On 18 June 2013, 170 Members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama criticizing India for its “intellectual property climate.” In particular, the letter criticizes recent decisions in the Indian courts, including a specific attack on India’s first compulsory license granted on Nexavar/sorafenib. Continue Reading
This was just passed out upstairs. There is now a proposal on TPMs by Australia, Switzerland, Argentina, Ecuador, Canada, Chile, Brazil, Holy See, Japan, India, African Group, Guatemala, Bangladesh, China, Kenya, South Africa, Morocco, to address TPMs with a single sentence, and it is quite good:
Proposal by Australia/Switzerland/Argentina/Ecuador/Canada/Chile/Brazil/Holy See/Japan/India/African Group/Guatemala/Bangladesh/China/Kenya/South Africa/Morocco
The “commercial availability” issue looked like a mess this evening, as delegates emerged from closed* negotiations to provide two pages of proposals for text for Article D(3), which was intended to be a single sentence. I am attaching the text here. Hard to say how this will end up. Now there is some bracketed text that “reasonable terms” will include “interoperability, time and other terms” which I assume also includes prices. Continue Reading
Today NGOs were given 3 minutes for an opening statement. This is the text I used. Jamie
——-
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) is a non-profit organization concerned with human rights. KEI wishes the delegates luck on a successful outcome. We are grateful for the work by the Secretariat on this issue, from top to bottom.
We will discuss our concerns about the negotiations.
There is a disparity between the lofty language in this hall, and the efforts to narrow user rights taking place downstairs, in the closed meeting.
Opening Remarks WIPO DIP Com 18 June 2013
By: Maryanne Diamond on behalf of the WBUThank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak at this most important Diplomatic conference.
Intervention of the Holy See: WIPO Diplomatic Conference on a Treaty for the Blind
The Holy See delivered this statement on 18 June 2013 at the Marrakesh Diplomatic Conference on a WIPO Treaty for the Blind.
Statement by His Excellency Archbishop Silvano M. TomasiPermanent Observer of the Holy See to the UN and Other International Organizations in Geneva at World Intellectual Property Organization Diplomatic Conference to Conclude a Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works by Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities Marrakech (Morocco)
18 June 2013
Mr. President,
Continue ReadingSCOTUS rules in 5-3 opinion that pay-for-delay settlement agreements are not immune from antitrust scrutiny
On Monday, 17 June 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States released its opinion in Federal Trade Comm’n v. Actavis (formerly captioned as FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.). The decision, with a 5-3 split, found that pay-for-delay settlement agreements are unusual, raising concerns of anticompetitive behavior, and are not immune from antitrust scrutiny. Continue Reading
Ambassador Eileen Donahoe explains why United States will not vote for UN resolution on access to medicine
On 13 June 2013, Ambassador Eileen Donahoe delivered the following intervention on resolution L.10/Rev.1 on Access to medicines in the context of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of physical and mental health explaining why the United States called for a vote on this resolution and would abstain.
Explanation of vote, on the resolution entitled “Access to medicines in the context of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”Supreme Court Unanimously Finds Isolated Human DNA is Not Patentable; cDNA patent eligible
On 13 June 2013, the long awaited opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case on whether human DNA is patentable was issued and, the last line of the opinion summarizes, “We merely hold that genes and the information they encode are not patent eligible under §101 simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material.”
Continue Reading