Peru: IP cares about the cultural expression of a country

Peru: IP cares about the cultural expression of a country

Patricia Covarrubia   December 13, 2015   No comments:

The Peruvian National Institute for the Defence of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (Indecopi) recently stated actions against national and local clubs, recreation centres, karaoke, clubs and restaurants, among others.

Indecopi through the Directorate of Copyright, brought, ex officio, actions against 36 centres due to illegally disseminating musical works. The said complaints were noted when the specialized staff from the Directorate of Copyright was making routine inspections in different locations nationwide. The staff found that some of these places did not have proper authorization to play certain music.




Public communication (diffusion) of musical works that do not have prior written authorization of the authors or collective management society representing them are prohibited. This type of infringement may be sanctioned by a fine up to 180 UIT (tax units) and a penalty of up to 8 years of prison.

Facts: The collective society in Peru is called Peruvian Association of Authors and Composers (APDAY). Copyright law follows a common IP system, through CAN Decision 486 – the Andean Community.

The news were published in the new and improved Indecopi web portal. At the end of the news, Indecopi reaffirmed its interest in promoting the protection of IP but in general it notes that “intellectual property helps to improve the competitiveness of our country” adding that IP supports “the work of creators and artists whose art serve as a means of expression of our cultural identity.”

Read More

INPI: patents disseminate information

INPI: patents disseminate information

Patricia Covarrubia   January 31, 2013   2 comments:

I read with attention some information posted by the Brazilian Instituto Nacional da Propiedade Industrial (INPI) regarding patents. The news broadcast educates the readers about the justification of patents. While the report is quite short – just a couple of paragraphs, it does indeed mentions the 3 functions of patents i.e. to stimulate inventive activity; to encourage investment (and so recovering the investment) and; to disseminate information.

Yet, the info focus more on the latter one, and this can be perceived by INPI's chocen title – ‘Patents provide fundamental information for research’. Then, it explains that a “patent reveals everything that has been invented and thus, allows to depart from the prior art i.e. no need to reinvent the wheel”.

The reason for my consideration in this [perhaps no so fashionable] information is that I have later on noticed how much we are focusing on the economic rights of a patent. At the moment I am revisiting the specs of the IP module that I run and I am making sure that I do spend a little more time in this issue – not just in the introduction of the course but in every single IP right. For example by reading INPI’s report I learned that 70% of the information that is disclosed in a patent are not to be found in any other source – did you know that?

The full report can be read here.

Read More