Google blocks several of its internet tools in Cuba

The Cuban newspaper ‘Juventud Revelde’ reports that Google has blocked the webpage navigator Zeitgeist. Added to this, the Cubans Google Earth, Google Destktop Search, Google Code, Google Toolbar and Chrome are also upon those that cannot be accessed from the island.

In May this year, the newspaper criticised Microsoft for blocking MSN Messenger, which was functioning in the island since 1999. According to Microsoft the reason was that its services were limited (as for many other companies) because of the US blockade on Cuba. At that time, the newspaper questioned why after so many years of services they decided to obey such rule.

Today’s measure is again criticised by the newspaper. They rightly mentioned that this new measure “goes against the pronouncements of the current U.S. president, Barack Obama, who said he was committed to facilitate access to new technologies to the Cubans."

I cannot turn a blind eye to this type of news. For the last couple of weeks I have been criticising the administrative procedures and politics of certain countries in Latin America. This time however, I will have to agree with the fact that Google’s measure is out of order. Since 1962, Cuba suffers from a commercial and financial embargo from Washington. The question is: Didn’t Google know about it? Or...?? I honestly cannot think of any reason why after so many years they decided to block those programs.

Malasia reconoce denominación de origen "pisco" a favor de Perú.

Según ha informado el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, la Corporación de la Propiedad Intelectual de Malasia inscribió la denominación de origen “pisco” a favor de Perú.

El registro rige desde el 3 de noviembre y durará 10 años, tiempo durante el cual la denominación tendrá una protección exclusiva contra la utilización de terceros para productos que no sean originarios de Perú.

Me pregunto si el Gobierno de Chile intentará o ha intentado obtener la misma protección para su Pisco.

Mejor no hablar mucho del tema, que los recuerdos que tengo del Pisco Sour en el Chicha me quitan las ganas de seguir escribiendo…

Argentina: modificación del plazo de protección de los derechos de autor

El miércoles 25 de noviembre se dio sanción en la Cámara de Diputados a la modificación de la Ley 11723 de Propiedad Intelectual agregando el art. 5 bis donde en la misma se establece especialmente el aumento del plazo de CINCUENTA (50) a SETENTA (70) años sobre las interpretaciones grabadas en fonogramas así como también el plazo de SETENTA (70) años para los productores de los fonogramas. El el articulo modificado asimismo se verifica que establece la extensión de los plazos para aquellas obras que habían entrado al dominio publico y que recuperan el carácter de exclusivas para quienes eran titulares de los derechos económicos.

La modificación de la ley permitirá entre otras cosas evitar que algunos temas de Mercedes Sosa como por ejemplo el disco “La voz de la zafra” de 1961 pasen al dominio publico.

Otros fonogramas que estaban o que pasaron al dominio público durante el plazo de protección de 50 años, cobrarán nuevamente su vigencia privada por el plazo de diferencia entre 50 y 70. Se pueden citar a los artistas Edmundo Rivero, Aníbal Troilo, Osvaldo Pugliese y Atahualpa Yupanqui entre otros, que en la década del 50-60 realizaron sus grabaciones y que debido a la modificación volverán a disfrutar –sus herederos en estos casos- de los derechos de autor en su fase económica.

Articulo Modificado:
Artículo 5° bis: La propiedad intelectual sobre sus interpretaciones o ejecuciones fijadas en fonogramas corresponde a los artistas intérpretes por el plazo de SETENTA (70) años contados a partir del 1° de enero del año siguiente al de su publicación. Asimismo, la propiedad intelectual sobre los fonogramas corresponde a los productores de los fonogramas o sus derechohabientes por el plazo de SETENTA (70) años contados a partir del 10 de enero del año siguiente al de su publicación. Los fonogramas e interpretaciones que se encontraren en el dominio público sin que hubieran transcurrido los plazos de protección previstos en esta ley, volverán automáticamente al dominio privado por el plazo que reste, y los terceros deberán cesar cualquier forma de utilización que hubieran realizado durante el lapso en que estuvieron en el dominio público.

La modificación ha sido celebrada por algunos sectores y repudiada por otros entendiendo en el sector contrario a la reforma que la misma afecta el acceso a la cultura.

Un dato importante para aclarar es que la ley de Propiedad Intelectual de Argentina sostiene que el fonograma es una “obra” protegida.

Prepared by Guillermo Navarro (Abogado en Argentina), posted by Aurelio

Venezuela to examine all pharmaceutical patents

The forum titled "The patents as element of exclusion and limit to the health of the town", which was lectured in Venezuela, saw the head of different institutions united. Last Thursday, the Venezuelan Minister of Commerce, Eduardo Samán, the Servicio Autónomo de la Propiedad Intelectual (SAPI)’s director Arlen Piñate and the Cámara de Medicamentos y Afines (CANAMEGA)’s president , Jorge Rivas, declared their views regarding pharmaceutical patents.

Eduardo Saman, declared that “all pharmaceutical patents are to be examined to see if they have fulfilled the corresponding proceeding”. To this view, Jorge Rivas added that the SAPI needs to scrutinize all pharmaceutical patents that have been granted under Andean Community (CAN) Decision 311, 313, and 344.

The situation comes after two Bayer’s pharmaceutical patents were annulled by the government. As reported early in this blog here and here, the procedures under which these two patents were annulled caused controversy.

The crucial point of this is based on the fact that there is not clarity on how the examination is going to be done. In one hand, the Industrial Property Act of 1956 prohibits this type of patents. In the other, the Andean Declaration 344 does allow so. Venezuela withdrew from the Andean block in 2006 (a member since 1973). So that, the debate is: will it be scrutinized under the law in force at the time the application was filed or at the time it was examined?

As observed in the Bayer case, the government has a convenient way to declare that certain pharmaceuticals patents are ‘illegal’. Thus, it seems that if a pharmaceutical patent was filled or examined while the Industrial Property Act of 1956 was in force, then the patent will be annulled. From this statement, one can conclude that the Andean Community Declaration appears not to have existed! Or, is it a case that the Venezuelan government is not recognising general principles of law such as ‘non-retroactivity’ and the ‘protection of legitimate expectations’?

Peru: toys that play without a mark

Christmas time appears to be a good moment for the National Institute for the Defence of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) to launch a security check campaign. The institution is working on the street by doing inspections on different shops, specifically those that sell toys. The objective is to check the marks and labelling of these products. The mark is the one needed to identify the product and the latter, involves a sanitary authorisation.

This campaign is a clear reminder of what a mark signifies to consumers. Later on we have been absorbed by so many advertisers that marks have become a social status, a style of living, a representation of what we want to be or are. However, we must not put aside the principal function of a mark, that of origin. While I do agree that today’s function of a mark is more than origin and quality, I cannot stress enough the importance of recognising that a mark tells us that the product comes from a particular manufacturer.

That said, the INDECOPI rightly reports that with a mark, consumers indentify the importer, or manufacturer, or the responsible for the commercialisation of the product and so, the responsible, if a query and/or claim is brought.

Those toys that are found without a mark or labels, can be fined up to 1 million 65 thousand Peruvian Nuevos Soles (approx. 366 thousand American dollars)

To watch the INDECOPI working in this operation click here

Brazilian Government Tailors a Bill on Trade Sanctions

The Brazilian government is under strong internal pressure as the World Trade Organization (WTO) has recently upheld the Brazilian complaint against the United States due to the subsidies granted to cotton producers.

The concern has been the lack of a local law dealing with the applicability of commercial sanctions when Brazil wins complaints in WTO Settlement Disputes. A specific law in this regard has been recognized as of great use, since it will provide the weapons and the criteria to implement the sanctions.

As a result, the government concluded in a rush a draft of proposed law and delivered it to the Parliament on November 23, 2009. In a nutshell, the Bill establishes the weapons that may be used by the government. Among them is the intellectual property rights, which encompasses the suspension of royalty remittances derived from technology transfer and licensing agreement, the grant of compulsory licenses and the importation allowances of drugs and generic drugs still under local patent protection.

To secure the enforcement of the US$350 million in sanctions against the United States, recently issued by the WTO against the subsidies of cotton producers, the government is pressing hard the Parliament for approval of the Bill by Christmas. If Mr Lula feels that it will not get sufficient support in Parliament, he intends to immediately issue a Provisional Measure to make the contents of the Bill immediately enforceable.

For the general knowledge, a Provisional Measure is a type of law coming from an act of the President issued in case of urgency or extreme importance. The publication makes the Provisional Measure immediately effective for a period of 45 days (http://www.v-brazil.com/government/laws/laws.html).

The government is studying the options set by the Bill that may impact the most the American government. The identified preferences of the Brazilian government are as follows: (a) 1st Option – Suspension of intellectual property rights of American companies during the period of the sanction (until the American government phases out the condemned subsidies); (b) 2nd Option – Application of an additional tax or duty to royalty remittances; (c) 3rd Option – Suspension of royalty remittances and (d) 4th Option – Suspension of the internal rule that prohibits parallel importation, thereby allowing the entry of products without the prior and express authorization of the trademark/patent titleholder.

Such IP sanctions will be adopted further to the ‘normal’ commercial sanctions applicable on approximately 220 American products.

The Americans have been reacting against the Bill. They have been alleging that there is no reason for applying the sanctions, since the illegal cotton subsidies will be soon phased out. The Brazilian diplomacy has stated that such promise has been made but not fulfilled since 2005, when the WTO’s condemnation was issued for the first time.

The Bill or Provisional Measure will be posted on IP Tango soon after the final version is disposed to the press.

Instructing your society: how to avoid illegal medicines

Peru - the National Institute for the Defence of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI in Spanish), destroyed almost two tonnes of expired and empty packaging of medicines (click here for the INDECOPI's news).

The campaign started back in 2007 by the INDECOPI together with pharmacies. It consists in installing special containers in pharmacies and chemist’s shops, where consumers can go and dispose of empty or unused packaging of medicines. This is the third time the destruction has taken place and, compared to previous years (1 ½ tonne in 2007 and the same in 2008), it appears that consumers are becoming more aware and involved in the campaign.

This is a cooperative effort that teaches consumers how to safely dispose medications, but to the INDECOPI, it is a situation of avoiding the reuse of packaging and thus counterfeit.

I give INDECOPI’s movement the thumbs up.