The answer to this question is complex, and its ramifications are difficult, if not impossible to predict so close to the entrance of this partnership. There is no doubt, however, that the TPP will affect many areas of the Canadian economy – from agriculture, to foreign competition, to intellectual property rights. The exact provisions negotiated by the TPP are not known, though the draft versions of the intellectual property chapter are worth noting.

While there are numerous differences – here are the major highlights (courtesy of ):��

Canada: Sound recordings' term of copyright last 50 years from recording. TPP: 95 years from recording in most cases.

Canada: Copyright Act criminalizes certain types of copyright infringement for profit. TPP: Criminalization would extend to cases without any direct or indirect motive for financial gain, including cases of aiding and abetting, which would apply to internet service providers (see on IPOsgoode).

Canada: contains restrictive provision on technological protection measures, but includes the ability to identify new exceptions (C-11 § 41.21(2)). TPP: Increases penalties for circumventions and prevents new exceptions.

Canada: C-11 distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial infringement. TPP: Requirements apply to both.

Canada: C-11 requires a service provider to retain records of individuals against whom they have received notice of infringement. TPP: Allows identifying information to be turned over to copyright holders “expeditiously” upon “effective notification of claimed infringement”.

Canada: C-11 creates a notice-and-notice system for online infringement. TPP: Requires a notice-and-takedown system similar to American DMCA.

There is little doubt that the TPP’s intellectual property provisions will likely increase the restrictions and level of enforcement when dealing with copyright infringement. Furthermore, legal experts have criticized the US of forcing many of these excessively restrictive provisions on behalf of the copyright owners that largely reside in the US. These differences have far-reaching – the TPP significantly by which content owners are allowed to access sensitive and private information on Internet users. Upon “effective notification” of a claimed infringement, ISPs would be placed under obligation to the content owner.

While there are issues of privacy at stake, partners also have concerns over the effect on global healthcare and pharmaceuticals. to the US Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, five members of the US Congress stated their concerns over the TPP undermining other countries current or prospective non-discriminatory drug reimbursement policies (ex. Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs). ��have questioned TPP’s stringent patent protection provisions – at the expense of previous agreements (ex. TRIPS Agreement) that have attempted to balance IP interests with global public health concerns. This may not affect Canada directly, but it is important to understand that by becoming a member of this partnership, Canada is explicitly accepting these provisions as well.

Negotiations within the TPP have been criticized as . that the Office of the United States Trade Representative has been responsible for this, as they have lobbied for talks hidden under a shroud of secrecy in order to impress many US-biased provisions upon TPP members.

As a new member entering a partnership that has been largely negotiated, Canada’s membership comes with one hand tied behind its back, these provisions are expected to be accepted without question. completed in near-silence, and only draft versions of two chapters (investment and intellectual property) leaked, one has to wonder what Canada has signed onto.

Byron Tse is a JD candidate at the Western University Faculty of Law.

The post Desperate for a Partnership? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Briefly, TPB is a Swedish website that hosts links to provide its users access to millions of ��that allow the uploading and downloading of copyrighted software, films, music, and other forms of media. According to the Internet traffic ranker , it is the 80^th most popular website in the world. By comparison, Netflix is the 96^th��most popular website and New 91��ɫ Times is 112^th). The site’s overwhelming popularity has not gone unnoticed – with governments and companies across the world (, , , , , , , , , , and the pressured heavily by media corporations to shut down or limit access to the site.

Thus, we arrive at the High Court ruling that the UK’s ISPs must block TPB’s IP address – a block that encompasses approximately 19 million users, representing 94% of��. The reasoning behind this decision was centered on section 97A of the , which states, “The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright.” Furthermore, the court ruled, there was no question that the Defendants (ISPs) satisfied the definition of service providers, that the users and operators of TPB use the Defendants’ services to infringe copyright, and that the Defendants have actual knowledge of this infringement.

There is little issue with the reasoning behind the High Court’s decision; however, the legislation itself raises questions. In my opinion, there are two issues with the legislation. The first issue is a jurisdictional problem. TPB is a website whose servers are , and is granted network connectivity through a Swedish company, Serious Tubes Network. Thus, British companies are being held responsible for content over which they wield no control because it is��created by foreign companies. By requiring British ISPs to block such IP addresses, the courts are effectively limiting the companies’ consumer bases. This intervention in restricting which services these commercial entities are allowed to provide is unwarranted; since the goal of these companies is to provide access to the Internet, not monitor its content.

The second issue with the legislation is that it is difficult to logically assign fault to the ISP – for it is neither responsible for hosting, nor downloading the content. Rather, it is the hosting company that simply enables the Internet user to perform the actual acts of hosting and downloading pirated content. While the ISP is the easiest target, ease of accusation does not translate to culpability. It is one thing to its users’ actions on the Internet, but an entirely different and unjustified matter to hold them responsible for the actions of their users.

As an aside, while the IP block comes as the court’s latest method of restricting access, TPB has a reputation of circumventing both restrictions and attempts to physically shut down its servers with astonishing ease and efficiency. In response to the UK IP address ban, of its website with a new IP address that is unblocked from the aforementioned ISPs, thus allowing UK users full access to its site.

In a move that almost mocks international authorities’ attempts to bring down their servers, to use GPS-controlled, low-orbit aircraft containing microcomputers to store and transmit it server data. In doing so, TPB would severely complicate efforts to locate and shut down their servers. Perhaps it truly lives up to its reputation as “the world’s most resilient BitTorrent site”.

Byron Tse is a JD Candidate at Western University, Faculty of Law.

The post UK's (Losing) Battle with Pirates appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The recent case of Occlutech GmbH v AGA Medical Corporation & Ors in the highlights this conflict. This patent infringement case had extended to trials in , the , and the Court of Appeal of the Hague in the . At the heart of the case lay the accusation that Occlutech had infringed upon one of AGA’s patents relating to a dumbbell shaped collapsible medical device for delivery through a channel of the body. Occlutech specifically manufactured these medical devices to help treat septum defects, while AGA sought an injunction for these devices (click to read more). In the final judgment from the courts, all four nations had come to the consensus that Occlutech’s device did not infringe upon AGA’s patent – however, the bulk of the decision rested upon the definition of a term, “clamp”, in AGA’s patent application.

The case highlights a problem that plagues the patent system in its application to public health. Smaller, more specialized companies that do not possess the assets to purchase licensing agreements to utilize patents filed by larger corporations may see their practice or ideas shut out of the market through injunctions. In effect, the availability of potentially life-saving technologies may be delayed or prevented from reaching the market simply because of patent infringement. The court must balance the interests of companies to ensure there is an incentive to continue research, with the protection and promotion of public health. We have seen a similar instance in India, where the government issued its first compulsory license to a local pharmaceutical (Natco Pharma) for a foreign company’s drug (Bayer’s Nexavar) (For more information on the Natco case, click ). Briefly, the government chose to air on the side of public health – by respecting the patent that has been filed but forcing the company to allow a local company to synthesize the drug at a more affordable cost. In the case at hand, Occlutech was a smaller company that specialized in the production of occlusion devices for septum defects – their technology allowed doctors to fix this heart defect in a manner that was . There is little doubt that in reducing the need for surgery, such a technology would be greatly beneficial for the public.

On the other hand, the patent system has valuable uses. Just as larger companies are allowed to profit, smaller companies often rely on patents for profit as well – profit that is much more vital for the company’s stability and viability. The development of new drugs and technologies from conception to clinical use is extremely expensive and time-consuming, and without an exclusive right conferred by the patent, such costs would be insurmountable.�� Furthermore, the patent system , as patent information is made public. This allows information to be made public to researchers and additional companies, allowing them improve on existing technologies. With that said, such reasons do not amount to an appropriate justification for denying public access to more beneficial technologies. I do not believe that had Occlutech infringed upon AGA’s patent, that an injunction (thereby denying the technology from reaching the market) would have been an appropriate response to protect AGA’s intellectual property rights.

I believe the ideal method is one that strikes a middle ground. This may take the shape of (as seen with Natco), research exceptions, or parallel imports. What the courts ought to consider, however, is the implications of its decision on public health. Though commercial interests are vital, it cannot come at the expense of delaying or denying medical treatments for society.

Byron Tse is a JD candidate at the Western University Faculty of Law.

The post Protection From Harm? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In an from Wired Magazine, RCM’s Chief Financial Officer Marc Brule defends MintChip as a novel path in the realm of digital currency. The exact path has not be thoroughly defined, as the RCM is still in the early stages of research and development. Instead, they have issued a Developer Challenge to the public in order to gather new ideas and directions (a video of the challenge can be seen ). However, stated within the rules of the Developer Challenge – any submission must be the original work of the developer, and cannot violate any intellectual property, proprietary, privacy, or moral rights or another person/entity (for the complete rules click ). And this is where the question arises of whether such a submission would be copying the idea of Bitcoin.

Firstly, the two concepts differ in how transactions are controlled. The driving force behind Bitcoin, , was to create a form of money that was “convenient and untraceable, liberated from the oversight of governments and banks.” The creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, ensured that bitcoins would remain decentralized and out of government (or third-party) control by publicly distributing a real-time ledger of all transactions called a ‘block chain’. The public distribution ensured that all transactions were broadcasted to the network of bitcoin users to ensure legitimacy and prevent duplicate transactions. It was very clear that Nakamoto intended bitcoin to be an alternate form of currency – one that co-existed as a more attractive alternative than printed currency. On the other hand, the RCM’s intention is to create a centralized system of digital currency. In fact, the purpose of MintChip is not an alternative to printed dollars, but a substitute – Brule was quoted by saying, “MintChip could be the digital equivalent for cash for online transactions.”

Secondly, the concepts differ in how currency is made. The Bitcoin economy relies on the network of its users’ computers. The release of bitcoins is predetermined – an algorithm releases new bitcoins into the network at preset intervals to ensure that the monetary supply grows proportionately with the number of users. Around the year 2140, the currency would reach its prescribed limit of 21 million bitcoins. Though Brule did not comment specifically on the creation of new currency, the system appears to retain the status quo – in which the Bank of Canada would be responsible for maintaining the monetary supply. Therefore, both the control and creation of currency differs.

It is, however, possible to argue that the bottom line is the creation of a digital currency. Each system intends to bypass a printed form and utilize a system of currency in digital form that would be used to purchase and sell goods and services. Though the bitcoin concept is a community-driven open source project, problems would arise governing the intellectual property rights. In reviewing the MIT License, permission is granted free of charge to any person obtaining a copy of bitcoin and its associated files to deal in the software without restriction or limitation with the condition that all subsequent copies of the software must contain the Open Source Initiative. This would run contrary to the rules in the MintChip Developer Challenge, whereby it states that any submission will forfeit all intellectual property rights to the RCM in perpetuity. The challenge would lie in determining whether the software submitted had copied the bitcoin system in any meaningful fashion.

However, there is a further complication. The problem lies in the creator of the bitcoin system itself - Satoshi Nakamoto. Since April 2011, he had claimed he had "moved on to other things", and has not been heard since. All other attempts of ascertaining his identity through his posts in forums, email addresses, and website have failed (more on the identification of Nakamoto ). And while his legacy continues with the use of the currency, his identity remains a mystery.

Despite its infancy, I believe MintChip possesses fundamental differences from bitcoin - differences that mean it is unlikely to infringe upon the Open Source Initiative's intellectual property rights. However, because of its infancy, it remains difficult to predict its outcome, and should be closely followed as it develops.

Byron Tse is a JD Candidate at the Western University Faculty of Law.

The post Who Coined It First? The Advent of Digital Currency appeared first on IPOsgoode.