Egin Kongoli is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Innovation Program.

Canada is getting serious about consumer privacy, or so our lawmakers claim.

Parliament has recognized the public’s need for a data framework that ensures proper transparency and accountability.[i] Ottawa’s response is and the proposed Consumer Privacy Protection Act��(CPPA), meant to govern the future collection, use, and disclosure of personal information for commercial purposes. However, while the law modernizes elements of the privacy framework, it leaves out exceptions for de-identified data practices that undermine the very trust the legislation is meant to foster. Standing tenuously on technological assumptions, the exception creates a wild-west scenario ripe for harmful data practices.��

Under the CPPA, organizations are not required to obtain user consent to de-identify, a process that modifies data so that “an individual cannot be directly identified.”[ii] The legislation creates an offence for re-identification and, as such, seems aware of the risk.[iii] Nonetheless, further exceptions are made for data anonymization, by which an organization “irreversibly and permanently modif[ies] personal information… to ensure that no individual can be identified from the information, whether directly or indirectly, by any means.”[iv] The CPPA excludes the anonymized data from its purview because, by their definition, there is no reasonable prospect of re-identification.

This logic rests on several problematic assumptions. First, the line which separates de-identified and anonymized data is vague and rarely obvious until re-identification occurs. De-identified data is by its nature not meant to be re-identified, and thus anonymous by the government’s definition. Moreover, the law assumes organizations have the technological capabilities to ensure irreversible and permanent anonymization. While identifiers may be removed, many other seemingly innocuous data points can be used to . Research from Oxford recently found that . One might imagine many disturbing consequences, from identity fraud to the cancer patient whose allegedly-anonymous data is used to change their insurance coverage and rates.

How can the disclosure and use of data be monitored if the law excludes anonymized data from regulation? Privacy enforcement may require individuals to come forward with complaints about the misuse of their data.[v] The system thus asks users to not only be aware of their data anonymization (which they never consented to) and its subsequent disclosure (kept secret from them) but to catch the bad actors re-identifying information the regulators turned a blind eye to. Our framework’s release-and-forget de-identification model thus opens the door to potential misuse of personal information that will remain altogether hidden from the regulator’s or public’s view. Where is the transparency or accountability?

While the anonymized exception answers the growing demands of businesses seeking to use personal data, the current state of de-identification practices does not satisfy the standards of the CPPA. The European GDPR includes data that does not contain direct identifiers but is capable of re-identification, “,” as within the scope of the law. That our lawmakers decided against regulating allegedly-anonymous data begs whether their priorities indeed lay with the needs of the public or of commerce.

[i] Bill C-27,��An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts,��1st Sess, 44th Parl, 2022, preamble, para 8.

[ii] Ibid at s 2(1).

[iii] Ibid at s 128.

[iv] Ibid at s 2(1).

[v] Ibid at s 107.

The post Anonymous for Now: Demystifying Data De-Identification appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Alan de la Cruz ()

Tianchu Gao is an IPilogue Writer and a 1L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School

On December 10, 2021, New Zealand launched the Indigenous Peoples Economic and Trade Cooperation Arrangement (“”). This is an initiative under the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) that aims to unlock the economic potential of Indigenous communities across the Asia-Pacific region. As the New Zealand government pointed out, the Asia-Pacific region contains about 70 percent of the world’s 475 million Indigenous population.

IPETCA strives to raise awareness to the value of Indigenous economies within APEC and increase trade and economic cooperation with Indigenous peoples. was closely involved in the design of IPETCA through the Indigenous Working Group on Trade Policy, a branch under Global Affairs. Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development Mary Ng announced Canada’s endorsement of IPETCA on the same day it was launched.

IPETCA looks to stimulate development across a wide range of sectors and areas—including responsible business conduct, entrepreneurial opportunities for small to medium sized businesses, digital trade and e-commerce, and many more. One particular objective set out by IPETCA was protecting and monetizing Indigenous traditional knowledge (“TK").

refers to “knowledge systems, creations, innovations, and cultural expressions which have generally been transmitted from generation to generation,” pertaining to a particular people or territory. Examples include arts and culture, land management, food and medicine, and more. Indigenous traditional knowledge contains great economic potential. According to a report published by in 2019, traditional knowledge has great economic potential if sufficient legislative protection is realized. In Canada, by the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business (“CCAB”) shows that traditional knowledge is widely used by Indigenous businesses. In fact, approximately one in five Indigenous businesses hold intellectual property. CCAB suggests that a better understanding of IP among Indigenous peoples may protect traditional knowledge and boost their economy.

So far, existing Canadian legislation that could be leveraged to protect Indigenous knowledge and cultural expressions include the��Patent Act, the��Copyright Act,���ٳ����Trademarks Act,���ٳ����Industrial Design Act,��and the��Plant Breeders' Rights Act. The larger challenge lies in the different understandings of knowledge and innovative creation between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian legal system. Western conceptions of IP law are largely based on protecting the rights of individual creators. This cannot be easily adapted to protect collectively-owned TK and thus has created many in effectively protecting Indigenous knowledge and cultural expressions.

To ameliorate the situation, Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, in spring 2018, announced the . This included aiming at reforming Canada's IP system to be more inclusive and reflective of the needs and interests of Indigenous peoples. The program also grants support for IP awareness-raising and capacity-building among Indigenous communities. APEC was aware of these structural challenges in finding for IP policy. The for IPETCA highlights the importance of exploring and exchanging “mechanisms to promote Indigenous arts and traditional cultural expressions.” Hopefully, more fundamental reforms are soon to come to reconciliate the gaps and barriers in Canada’s IP system.

The post Indigenous Traditional Knowledge in the Indigenous Peoples Economic and Trade Cooperation Arrangement (IPETCA) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Pixabay ()

Jasmine Yu is an��IPilogue��Writer and a��1L JD Candidate at the University of Toronto.

��

After numerous delays over two years, amendments to the Patented Medicines Regulations, which governs Canada’s Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (), is finally set to come into force this year, on — at least for now.

Who is the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board?

The PMPRB is a Canadian that regulates the prices of patented pharmaceuticals to avoid excessive pharmaceutical prices. The board’s objective is to balance encouraging pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) investment with the public health interest of reducing pharmaceutical prices for consumers.

The PMPRB derives its legal authority partly from the , which specifies the information and documents patentees must provide to the Board, price requirements for drugs sold in Canada, and more.

Why Amend?

The PMPRB saw it fit to introduce changes to its legal framework because it was under the current scheme — Canadian patented drug prices were the third highest globally, while pharmaceutical R&D investment has declined.

The Amendments

The PMPRB first published the amendments on . The first substantive revision to the Regulations since the Board’s establishment in 1987, it will bring major changes to the PMPRB’s current legal framework.

There are :

First, the amendments added three new price regulatory factors to consider whether a patented drug’s price is excessive.

Second, the amendments updated the list of comparator countries, whose drug prices serve as a “benchmark” to establish the range of prices that the pharmaceutical companies find acceptable for their patented medicines. According to the PMPRB, the updated countries have similar consumer protection policies, economic wealth, and marketed medications as Canada. The United States, for example, was removed for having vastly different consumer protection priorities — its drug prices are 247% higher than Canada’s.

Third, there were changes in patentees’ pricing and sales reporting requirements. For instance, the reporting requirement was reduced for medicines at a low risk of excessive pricing, such as veterinary drugs and generics.��

The amendments, once in effect, will apply to all drugs issued a drug identification number (DIN) on or after the amendments’ publication — August 21, 2019. Those that received a DIN before this date must still comply with certain other provisions.

A double-edged sword?

The PMPRB views that these amendments will have a and decrease total spending on patented medicines by 5.8% over the next 10 years. These changes are perhaps much needed, as Canada is the only developed country in the world with universal healthcare that . Meanwhile, Canadians pay the highest price for generic drugs in the world and the second-highest prices per capita for prescription drugs — after the US. en Canadians cannot afford their prescription drugs.��

However, there are also opposing voices. Lobby groups, such as , argue that these amendments will have significant negative impacts R&D investment in Canada and on the number of new drugs available to Canadians and on R&D investment in Canada.

IMC and several Canadian pharmaceutical companies brought a judicial review application to challenge numerous provisions. The Federal Court of Canada, in Innovative Medicines Canada v Canada, , struck down subsection 3(4) of the amendments as it was ultra vires the . In a separate case, the Quebec Superior Court declared section 4(4) invalid and unconstitutional.[1]

A group of physicians also voiced their opposition in an . Their arguments mirror that of IMC: the proposed regulations will make Canada an unattractive market for companies launching new drugs, resulting in medications that could alleviate suffering being denied access to Canadians.

Conclusion

Much like how the original intentions of the PMPRB did not actualize into tangible results, and hindsight revealed flaws in its original policy, the actual consequences of these new amendments may not surface immediately. Canadian Pharmacare policy certainly seems to require an iterative process, as numerous stakeholders and market factors are at play. We perhaps need to examine the faults in Canada’s current patchwork system of private and public insurance plans for potential solutions — to strike a balance between affordable medicine and a vibrant R&D environment.

[1] Merck et al, c Le Procureur Général du Canada,��Québec Superior Court File No. 500-17-109270-192.

The post The Final Countdown? The Upcoming Changes to the Patented Medicines Regulations appeared first on IPOsgoode.

This semester, I had the opportunity to participate in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property (IP) and Technology Law Intensive Program. The program involves a 10-week placement as a legal intern to gain real-world experience in IP law. I had the opportunity to be placed at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO). CIPO is a special operating agency of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada (ISED) and is responsible for the administration of intellectual property in Canada.

As a student, I worked with the Policy, International Affairs, and Research Office (PIRO), which is part of the Corporate Strategies and Services Branch (CSS) at CIPO. PIRO provides advice and guidance on policy, regulatory, international, and economic issues to CIPO’s Executive Office and the Deputy Minister and Minister of ISED. PIRO is divided into three teams: Policy and Regulatory Affairs Office (PRAO), International Relations Office (IRO) and the Economic Research and Strategic Analysis Unit. If you didn’t already notice – yes, the federal government has an affinity for acronyms; I learned this on day one of my placement!

My main role was to conduct research to support the PIRO team. I researched intellectual property trends in free trade agreements and identified areas where negotiations are focused. While my main focus was on trade agreements which Canada is party to – including Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) – I also learned about the negotiations and IP standards set in other regions of the world by other agreements such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the recent African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

My research was also related to meetings that I attended throughout the semester, where I was not only exposed to various areas in international intellectual property law but also to issues the Canadian government is facing regarding implementation of recent trade agreements. For example, I had the opportunity to learn about the process CIPO is taking to implement patent term adjustment obligations as required under Article 20.90 of the CUSMA. It was fascinating to sit-in on discussions of the most current issues that the office is facing as well as being introduced to topics that would never be discussed in the classroom.

I further had the opportunity to attend various meetings on behalf of CIPO’s PIRO team. This includes those held by the Intellectual Property Centre of Expertise (IPCE), an organization established as part of Canada’s national IP strategy in order to provide IP advice and educational support across the federal government. Discussions included considerations that need to be taken when conducting research and the role of federal servants in federal research as dictated by the Public Servants Inventions Act (PSIA). Not
only was this an opportunity to learn about a career of IP in the public sector, but I was also given hands-on experience on how to create effective memoranda when communicating information to the chief executive officer – something that is done regularly as a CIPO analyst.

Working as a student at CIPO has been an incomparable experience. Not only was the work unique, but it was a great skill-building challenge to work independently in areas where I am inexperienced – especially in the remote environment. I want to thank my supervisors, Shawn Tippins and Zorn Pink, who provided me with numerous opportunities to engage with the department. In addition to what I learned from the work, I have gained valuable mentors and lasting relationships. Although I wasn’t able to meet them in person, the team provided a warm and welcoming environment where I felt comfortable asking questions and participating in discussions. I look forward to applying the skills I’ve learned into my career and hope future students will take advantage of this opportunity as well.

The post A Semester at CIPO - My IP Intensive Experience appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Everything breaks eventually.

It sounds bleak. But when it comes to the devices, machines, and tools we use every single day, it’s true. You’ll push down the lever on your toaster, but your bread won’t magically change into toast. Parts inside your car will wear out, even if you only do things the average driver does. The device you’re using to read this blog post likely has a battery or drive that will fail.

We’ve all encountered objects that stop functioning. When they do, we act, whether it’s getting the object serviced, fixing it ourselves, or even replacing the whole thing. But some manufacturers intentionally limit what people can do to get their stuff working again, even if you technically have the ability to try and repair your own things. Some manufacturers include . They might hoard proprietary parts and threaten third party part manufacturers. Some companies . Manufacturers can also make their devices without breaking them further. A right to repair can alleviate consumers of some of these restrictive practices and give them more options.

Manufacturers likely find it valuable to monopolize repairs. It’s questionable whether they are obligated to help anyone break into their products for repairs, considering that it might lead to piracy. Companies may arguably make higher-quality repairs on their own products, and worth the price. The device manufacturer should know how to diagnose and fix your device better than anyone. If a device cannot be fixed, manufacturers can even replace them.

However, it doesn’t make sense to restrict competition in the repair market just because a manufacturer can make quality repairs, or for fears of piracy. Even if we accept that third parties can’t meet the manufacturer standard, this fact will likely be reflected in the prices consumers pay third party repair choices. A lack of a right to repair isn’t preventing anyone from pirating either. Consumers should at least have the option to choose, and a right of repair could help them do so.

The US is taking steps towards giving consumers these options to anti circumvention exceptions in section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Consumers in the US have been given extended to “break in” to consumer software-enabled devices for diagnostics, repair, and maintenance. Consumers will be able to use software tools or enable third parties to use tools to repair devices, where previously this access may have been. There are still limits, in that these , among others. The changes also cannot stop a company from sealing their device in such a way that makes it difficult to access for repair. But it does expand and get in. It’s a nice addition to a consumer’s right to repair their own things.

Canada should follow suit, potentially by adding “repairs” as a category to the Fair Dealing exceptions to copyright. Using software tools to repair a device might , which is prohibited in , likely due to piracy concerns. But, repair exemptions could benefit Canadians, and seems to already have . Additionally, codifying existing common law rights to repair one’s property sends a clear message that Canada is dedicated to protecting the rights of consumers.

A right to repair could help make our society less wasteful. It will give consumers more options to fix their stuff instead of going to the manufacturer to fix things. It could stoke competition in the repair market, which may lower prices. It may also convince more consumers to try the do-it-yourself route, saving costs on simple repairs, and allowing people to learn more about the devices they use every day. With all the potential a right to repair regime might bring, it would be unwise to ignore what the US has done and act on our end.

The post Canada Should Not Be Left Behind as the US Moves Towards a Right to Repair appeared first on IPOsgoode.

On September 22, 2021, Quebec’s major privacy reform bill,��An Act��to modernize legislative provisions as regards the protection of personal information��(Bill 64), received����after being adopted by the Quebec National Assembly the day before.

Bill 64 is set to dramatically change Quebec’s current framework for the protection of personal information by amending existing legislation to impose new obligations on regulated private and public sector entities, as previously reported by the E-TIPS® Newsletter��. By passing Bill 64, Quebec becomes one of the first Canadian jurisdictions to introduce such a substantial privacy overhaul and likely will lead the trend across Canada, with provinces like Ontario currently considering updating its own privacy regime.

The adopted amendments will not take immediate effect, with most of Bill 64’s provisions set to come into force on September 22, 2023 and a few provisions coming into force a year earlier, on September 22, 2022. Those provisions that will become law on September 22, 2022 include new breach notification requirements that will mandate private sector organizations to notify impacted individuals and the Commission d’accès à l’information of cybersecurity incidents. The gradual implementation of Bill 64 offers regulated entities the opportunity to update their operations and systems to ensure compliance with the province’s new privacy landscape. ��

The post Bill 64 Receives Royal Assent And Signals Major Reform For Quebec’s Privacy Landscape appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photos from and , created on .

Shawn Dhue is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

In anticipation of Canada’s federal election on September 20, 2021, it is relevant to research the federal parties’ platforms as they relate to intellectual property (IP), innovation, and technology. In this post, I will look at the of the Liberal Party of Canada (“Liberal Party”) and the Green Party of Canada (“Green Party”). Make sure to check out my colleague ’s post investigating .

��The Liberal Party of Canada’s 2021 Federal Election Platform

Three main points involving technology and intellectual property stick out in the Liberal Party’s platform for the upcoming election:

1.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has yet to confirm if he supports the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Waiver.

As push to support and request that wealthier countries relax their IP protection laws to ensure the COVID-19 vaccine is shared globally, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has yet to comment. In May 2021, Trudeau said that he supports sharing vaccines globally and that he . However, this was the last time Trudeau spoke publicly about the matter, and he has yet to acknowledge it while campaigning. Three days after his comment, published a to the Prime Minister, urging him to support the waiver and help countries like India and South Africa combat their COVID-19 outbreaks.

2. The Liberal Party plans to create , an initiative “to help innovators access expert intellectual property services, with $90 million over two years, and another $75 million over three years for a similar Industrial Research Assistance Program for high-growth firms.”

The Liberal Party sees this investment as supporting small businesses, innovators, tech start-ups, and more. The Liberal Party acknowledges the value of IP and states that they would love to see the economy use the IP community for growth opportunities. As such, they plan to support ElevateIP with a Strategic Intellectual Property Program Review, which will assess this initiative and help programming from the start of research to near-commercial projects. This initiative is said to ensure Canadians reap the benefits from the IP and tech industry. ��������������������

3. The Liberal Party plans to renew the .

In 2017, the Canadian government for the world’s first nationwide Artificial Intelligence (AI) strategy. The strategy aims to foster a more collaborative AI environment by attracting AI researchers to the country. Additionally, the Liberal Party hopes to advance national initiatives in the AI community to help society better understand the implications of AI. Renewing this strategy would bring Canada to the forefront of the global AI community.

The Liberal Party’s platform includes a few more noteworthy points. The Liberal Party hopes to provide to support small business technology needs and connect those small businesses with younger people looking for tech careers over four years. The platform also speaks to helping large-scale energy technology projects by providing them with $1 billion over five years. Lastly, the Liberal Party plans to create the Centre for Innovation and Clean Energy in British Columbia during their next term, with an estimated cost of $35 million.

The Green Party of Canada’s 2021 Federal Election Platform

The Green Party has yet to release a full election platform. Leader Annamie Paul says that circumstances are different this election and anyone who wants to see the Green Party’s platform can “.” For the party known to be environment-focused, Paul states that not much has changed since the 2019 election. Paul reiterated this when British Columbia’s heatwave claimed multiple lives earlier this summer.��

With this, three noteworthy points emerge from the Green Party’s platform as they relate to IP, innovation, and energy:

1.The Green Party plans to in First Nations communities, aligned with the .

This point intersects with several issues, including economy and affordability, Indigenous affairs, and energy. The Green Party hopes to partner with Indigenous communities to revamp the east-west electricity grid to transmit renewable energy from one region to another. This will create renewable energy for First Nations communities at a lower cost than building a new grid in areas without access to these energy sources.

2. The Green Party plans to invest in comprehensive training programs to repurpose the skills of industrial trades workers for jobs in the renewable energy sector.

The Green Party hopes that this plan will provide skilled workers in Canada with secure employment opportunities.

3. The Green Party hopes to implement an energy efficiency retrofit program for all buildings.

“Energy efficiency retrofitting” upgrades a building’s energy-consuming system. Retrofitting could involve improving light fixtures, windows, doors, ventilation, or insulation to make ��buildings more energy and economically efficient. The Green Party hopes to create a program to make sure buildings around Canada can help fight the climate crisis.

The Green Party still has time to release a new, expanded platform within the coming weeks.

The post The Parties’ Plans for IP: Liberal Party & Green Party appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Screenshots from and .

Claire Wortsman is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

As the election nears, my colleague Shawn Dhue and I are looking at the major parties’ plans for Canada in IP-related areas. This article will cover the platforms of Erin O’Toole and the Conservative Party of Canada as well as Jagmeet Singh and the New Democratic Party. For information on the Liberals and Green Party, check out Shawn’s article. Below are select pieces of and that address the CPC and NDP’s plans for Canadian IP and related areas respectively.

COVID-Related Trade Policy

• Reinstate the tariff on imported PPE.
• Support the Trade-Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights Waiver (TRIPS) to waive IP rights for COVID vaccines and ensure technology transfer between nations.

Media Policy ��

• Introduce a digital media royalty framework to ensure platforms like Google and Facebook compensate Canadian media outlets for the sharing of their content. This will include a robust arbitration process and the creation of IP right for article extracts shared on social media platforms.����
• Make sure that Netflix, Facebook, Google, and other digital media companies play by the same rules as Canadian broadcasters.

Privacy Policy

• Pass strong legislation to protect privacy more effectively.
• Work to strengthen privacy protections for Canadians by updating privacy legislation to include a digital bill of privacy rights and boost the powers of the Privacy Commissioner to make and enforce orders, as well as levy fines and penalties.

Data Policy

• Create a technology task force within the Competition Bureau to examine whether dominance and anti-competitive behaviour of big tech is damaging to Canadian industries.
• Examine how algorithms and data give big tech an advantage over Canadian businesses, as well as how fintech and new technologies could foster competition.
• Prioritize the collection of race-based data on health, employment, policing and more with the goal of improving outcomes for racialized communities.

Innovation Policy

• Launch a review of innovation programs at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and across the government and, among other things, implement requirements:
  • All recipients demonstrate that IP, production, ownership, and profits are likely to stay in Canada; and
  • All IP developed with the support of the Canadian government is held by a Canadian entity and that recipients agree to pay back the subsidy if they sell the IP to a foreign buyer.
• Invest $5 billion over the next 5 years to fund programs in: Use of hydrogen; Small Modular Reactors; Private sector innovation in the space sector; Electric vehicle development and manufacturing, including electric trucks, micro-mobility, batteries, and parts manufacturers; and pharmaceutical research and production.
• Restore the Automotive Innovation Fund and make contributions to automakers tax-free.

Jobs/Labour Policy

• Pay up to 50% of the salary of new hires for 6 months following the end of the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy
• Invest in forestry innovation and support value-added Canadian wood products – and the good jobs that go with them.
• Support more options for women to build careers in the trades and other non-traditional fields like agriculture, innovation, research, and STEM.
• Support paid sick leave and prescription drug coverage.

Environmental Policy

• Implementing an affordable carbon price: Starting at $20/tonne and increasing to $50/tonne but no further.
• Work with the provinces to implement a national Personal Law Carbon Savings Account that consumers can pay into each time they buy hydrocarbon-based fuel. They can then put this money towards things that help them live a greener life (e.g., buying a transit pass or bicycle).
• Make Canada an innovation leader on methane reduction in areas such as:
  • Real-time monitoring for a leakage detection;
  • Ensuring that provincial methane regulations are genuinely equivalent with the federal regulations; and
  • Increasing the ambition of those targets in the 2025-30 period.
• Create a National Crisis Strategy to help communities reduce and respond to climate risks, as well as a new Climate Corps of young workers to respond to climate impacts and build an equitable clean-energy economy.

Foreign Policy

• Protect Canadian IP with a strengthened that includes, among other things:
  • A presumption against allowing the takeover of Canadian companies by China’s designated state-owned entities; and
  • A reformed “net benefits” test to better account for the potential effects of a transaction on the broader innovation ecosystem with a particular focus on protecting IP and human capital.
• Revoke visas of Chinese nationals identified by national security agencies as conducting espionage or stealing IP.
• Adopt measures to stabilize the Canadian steel market and protect the sector from predatory practices of foreign producers who are shut out of other markets.

The post The Parties’ Plans for IP: CPC & NDP appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The following job opportunity was shared with us by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. IP Osgoode is not involved in the hiring process, but we hope to reach eligible and interested members of our community.

Do you have knowledge and experience in the intellectual property (IP) field? Are you interested in helping federal organizations maximize benefits from IP through a range of programs, initiatives and policies?�� If so, then Innovation Canada’s IP Directorate might be right for you!

Who we are:

The IP Directorate in Innovation Canada is home to three IP-focused programs created under the and .�� We are specifically looking to hire for the IP Centre of Expertise (IP CoE), a team of IP experts that provide strategic IP advice, training and collaboration support to federal organizations and officials.��

We are a growing and dynamic directorate, with teammates from varied backgrounds and experiences who have been brought together to address a variety of federal IP challenges.

Who we are looking for:

We are looking for exceptional teammates who will assist us in developing and delivering our programs.�� Note that this is anticipatory hiring. In particular, we are seeking candidates for the following roles:

IP Experts (EC-06 or equivalent), IP CoE: We are looking for bilingual (BBB) individuals with a deep knowledge of IP and significant and recent experience providing IP-related advice, who can:��

• Provide IP expertise, advice, guidance and information to federal organizations
• Draft IP-related documents in order to provide advice, guidance, expertise
• Help federal officials consider and address IP business challenges and opportunities
• Build a network of stakeholders across government departments
• Report to management on the status of your projects

Junior IP Analysts (EC-02 or equivalent): We are looking for bilingual (BBB) individuals with some IP knowledge and a strong interest in IP, who will:

• Work with the IP experts to deliver IP expertise, advice, guidance and information to federal organizations
• Draft IP-related documents in order to provide advice, guidance, expertise
• Conduct research and analysis to inform the work of the IP CoE
• Support in the delivery of IP training and collaboration initiatives, including the Federal Intellectual Property Partnership community of practice
• Report to management on the status of your projects

What do we need from you?

If any of this has piqued your interest, please send your CV and a short summary (no more than 150 words) outlining how you would be an ideal candidate for a role in the IP Directorate to Rami Farah, Administrative Assistant, at rami.farah@ised-isde.gc.ca by September 7, 2021, 10am EST. Please clearly indicate the position(s) for which you are interested in applying.

Please feel free to share with colleagues who may be interested in this position.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Avez-vous des connaissances et de l’expérience dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle��(PI)? Aimeriez-vous aider des organismes fédéraux à maximiser les avantages de la PI grâce à un éventail de programmes, d’initiatives et de politiques?�� Si c’est le cas, la Direction de la PI d’Innovation Canada serait peut-être le milieu de travail idéal pour vous!

Qui sommes-nous?

La Direction de la PI d’Innovation Canada regroupe trois programmes axés sur la PI créés dans le cadre de la et du . ��Nous recherchons spécifiquement à embaucher pour le Centre d’expertise en PI (CE en PI), une équipe d’experts dans le domaine de la PI qui offre des conseils stratégiques, de la formation et un soutien à la collaboration aux organismes et aux fonctionnaires fédéraux.��

Nous sommes une organisation dynamique et en pleine croissance, composée de coéquipiers aux parcours et aux expériences variés, qui ont été réunis pour relever une vaste gamme de défis en matière de PI au niveau fédéral.

Qui recherchons-nous?

Nous sommes à la recherche de collègues compétents qui nous aideront à élaborer et à mettre en œuvre nos trois programmes. Notez qu'il s'agit d'une embauche anticipée. Nous recherchons des candidats pour les rôles suivants��:

Experts en PI (EC-06 ou équivalent), CE en PI : Nous recherchons des personnes bilingues��(BBB) ayant une connaissance approfondie de la PI et une expérience appréciable et récente de la fourniture de conseils en matière de PI, qui peuvent��:��

• fournir une expertise, des conseils, des orientations et des renseignements en matière de PI aux organismes fédéraux;
• rédiger des documents relatifs à la PI afin de fournir des conseils, des orientations et une expertise sur le sujet;
• aider les fonctionnaires fédéraux à examiner et à aborder les défis et les possibilités d’affaires liés à la PI;
• créer un réseau d’intervenants à l’échelle du gouvernement fédéral;
• rendre compte à la direction de l’état d’avancement de leurs projets.

Analystes subalternes de PI (EC-02 ou équivalent)��: Nous recherchons des personnes bilingues��(BBB) ayant une certaine connaissance de la PI et un intérêt marqué pour la PI, qui devront��:

• travailler avec les experts en PI afin de fournir une expertise, des conseils, des orientations et des renseignements en matière de PI aux organismes fédéraux;
• rédiger des documents relatifs à la PI afin de fournir des conseils, des orientations et une expertise sur le sujet;
• effectuer des recherches et des analyses afin d’éclairer le travail du CE en PI;
• soutenir la mise en œuvre d’initiatives de formation et de collaboration en matière de PI, notamment la communauté de pratique sur le Partenariat fédéral en matière de propriété intellectuelle;
• rendre compte à la direction de l’état d’avancement de leurs projets.

Qu’attendons-nous de vous?

Si ce qui précède a suscité votre intérêt, veuillez envoyer votre CV et un bref résumé (maximum 150��mots) expliquant en quoi vous seriez le candidat idéal pour un poste au sein de la Direction de la PI à Rami Farah, adjoint administratif, à rami.farah@ised-isde.gc.ca ��’i���� le 7 septembre 2021, 10h HNE. Veuillez indiquer clairement le ou les postes pour lesquels vous souhaitez postuler.

N’hésitez pas à diffuser cette information à des collègues qui pourraient être intéressés par ces postes.

The post JOB OPPORTUNITY – Innovation Canada’s IP Directorate / Possibilité d'emploi - la Direction de la PI d’Innovation Canada appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Ryan Abbott is Professor of Law and Health Sciences at the University of Surrey School of Law and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

The past few years have witnessed some astounding advances in artificial intelligence, with high profile breakthroughs, such as software now in use , , and . As AI continues to improve, it is going to take over an ever-increasing number of tasks that were once only performed by people. This is going to have profound consequences socially, economically, and legally.

explores the legal implications of AI stepping into the shoes of people and doing human sorts of tasks. It finds that laws written with people in mind often give an unintentional preference to either human or AI activity. In turn, this tends to result in negative and unintended outcomes. The Reasonable Robot proposes that the solution to this problem is for the law not to discriminate between AI and human behavior—a principle of AI legal neutrality. This will ultimately result in more benefits for people.

To illustrate, consider how the law taxes activity by a person and a machine differently. Take the example of the AI used in health care for diagnosis mentioned briefly above. The FDA authorized an autonomous that provides point of care assessment for certain eye diseases. If a hospital or medical group needs to hire a human eye doctor to evaluate emergency room patients, in addition to what they have to pay the doctor, they need to pay additional payroll taxes to the government based on the doctor’s wages. However, if the hospital or medical group can use the AI system instead of the human doctor, it does not have to pay any payroll taxes. As a result, if the person and the AI cost about the same and generate a similar level of productivity (often a complex, or at least not a 1:1, comparison), businesses will be incentivized to automate to save on taxes. In addition to avoiding payroll taxes, automation has other tax benefits, such as accelerated tax depreciation.

The gist of this is that the tax system is not neutral between human and AI activity, and the law pushes businesses to automate—even if it is only to save on taxes. The solution to this problem is to eliminate human-centric employment taxes to level the playing field. This will help ensure that businesses are only automating when it results in genuine efficiencies.

To take another example, AI has been generating creative and inventive output for years that, if that output had been made by a person, would be protected by intellectual property rights. However, the United States has not clarified whether a creative work made without a traditional human author, or an invention generated without a traditional human inventor, could receive copyright or patent protection. That is going to be a major problem if AI-generated works become a major source of commercially valuable creative content or socially valuable innovations, because it will mean that the right incentives will not be in place for people to make, use, and develop AI that can generate socially valuable outputs.

The Reasonable Robot argues that the solution to this problem is to ensure IP protection for AI-generated works, with the owner of the AI as the owner of the AI’s output. As with the tax solution above, this would level the playing field and allow businesses to generate creative output or innovate using either people or AI when one or the other (or both), is more effective.

This argument is being put into practice with (AIP) which involves a series of legal test cases brought in various jurisdictions to obtain protection for AI-generated inventions without a traditional human inventor. The AIP recently obtained the for an AI-generated invention in South Africa, as well as a holding that an AI-generated invention is patentable. Litigation is currently ongoing on these patents in the United States, United Kingdom, EPO (Europe), and Germany.

The post “The Reasonable Robot” tackles AI’s impact on the economy, intellectual property rights, and more appeared first on IPOsgoode.