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.

Photo Credit: (

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

��

In May 2021, of the Centre for Business Research at the Cambridge Judge Business School published a proposing the abolition of the UK’s £1.1 billion per year Patent Box scheme. The UK Patent Box’s so-called “costly failure” may serve as a valuable lesson for Canada.

�������첹�ٳ����ɲ���’s offers eligible corporations a lower corporate tax rate of 6%. Quebec has an that reduces the corporate tax rate from 11.5% to 2% on patent royalties and up to 75% of profits from other specified forms of IP-related income, provided that the taxpayer has carried out research and development (R&D) in Quebec and that the IP being commercialized results, in whole or in part, from R&D carried out in Quebec. Over the years, there has been that other provinces may follow suit. There have even been for the federal government to adopt a comparable policy.

A Patent Box aims to encourage the commercialization of intellectual property within a nation’s borders. In the UK, eligible profits derived from intellectual property are taxed a . Large companies, especially those in the finance and insurance sectors, are the primary beneficiaries of this policy. According to Connell, there is no evidence that the Patent Box benefited the UK economy since it became fully operational in 2017.

By reducing corporate tax on profits derived from UK innovations, as well as spending an estimated £7.3 billion annually on R&D tax credits, the UK government hoped to fuel R&D within its borders. Instead, UK business spending on R&D conducted outside of the UK has roughly doubled since the introduction of its Patent Box. Connell proposes a policy mix to address the UK’s declining trade balance in business R&D funding. Among other policies, Connell suggests abolishing the Patent Box, restricting R&D tax credits to UK expenditure, restricting R&D claims to business enterprise expenditure on R&D (BERD), and taking steps to reduce fraud and error in R&D tax credit claims.

Two UK based companies, Solexa and Cambridge Silicon Radio (CSR), were acquired by San Diego based multinational corporations, and respectively. Connell used these acquired companies to demonstrate that the scale of the Patent Box and R&D tax credit subsidies is not always reflected in companies’ R&D footprint in the UK. Despite Illumina receiving $39.6m in Patent Box receipts in 2019 and Qualcomm Technologies International Ltd (QTI, CSR’s new name) receiving over $24m in combined Patent Box subsidies and R&D tax credits that same year, neither was required to commit significant additional commercialization activities as per the Patent Box policy objectives. Although Illumina Inc’s global R&D spending increased by 126% to $623m in five years, their R&D tax credit receipts reflecting their R&D operations based in the UK remained a modest $1.5m. Qualcomm’s R&D operations based in the UK were similarly modest, as QTI reduced their employee head count from 783 to 692 between 2015 and 2019, with 67 of those laid off involved in R&D.

In Connell’s ranking of total direct and indirect tax support for R&D as a percentage of GDP by country, Canada ranks 8^th at just over 0.2% after France, Russia, the UK, South Korea, Austria, Belgium, and Italy, but ahead of the U.S., OECD, Netherlands, EU, Ireland, Japan, Czech Republic, and China. Canada and Japan appear to be the only countries with subnational tax support for BERD. Connell’s report demonstrates that the magnitude of tax support for R&D does not necessarily determine a country’s R&D footprint, yet it can be tailored properly to encourage growth.

Quebec’s IP box is the first of its kind in North America. Although Quebec has had a Patent Box since 2016, its 2020-2021 announced a shift from the Deduction for Innovative Manufacturing Corporations (DIMC) to the Incentive Deduction for the Commercialization of Innovations (IDCI). Perhaps Quebec’s newly evolved Patent Box will foster R&D within Quebec and stand in contrast to the UK’s failure. Or perhaps it will similarly fail to generate results. Either way, it will likely have important consequences for future Canadian IP taxation policies, at both the provincial and federal levels. ��

The post A Lesson for Canada? New Report Deems UK’s Patent Box a Failure appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Bracing for Impact – The Artificial Intelligence Challenge (A Road Map for AI Governance in Canada)

Date: February 2, 2018

Location: Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. W., Toronto, Canada

Time: Conference (9:00 AM to 4:30 PM); Cocktail Reception (4:30 PM to 6:00 PM)

TO REGISTER CLICK

Registration rates are as follows:
Students: $25+HST
General Admission: $75+HST
Live WebCast: $10+HST

Speakers and Panel Chairs will be registered on a complimentary basis. Please do not register if you are a speaker or panel chair.

Recent developments in artificial intelligence, and especially machine learning technology, automated vehicles, and genetic enhancement pose a challenge to governments in Canada and abroad. At the current stage, government policy regarding the possible technological changes must be studied.

The conference will focus on the following panel topics:

Panel I – AI – IP & Commercialization Issues

Future developments in the field of AI pose a challenge to intellectual property. The current legal regime does not offer protection for AI creations. Thus, registering AI patents and allocate copyright protection for AI inventions and works is not yet possible. Subsequently, AI creations might fall under the public domain. We wish to address these concerns and to offer new insights and suggestions for the upcoming era.

Panel II – AI & Industry

The Path of Law, as Justice Holmes articulated in his seminal paper, is in constant development – like the development of a planet – each generation taking the necessary step forward. Advancements in AI promise to change our society in the years to come and will drastically affect every aspect of our legal norms. It is therefore crucial for us to confront the legal issues that these advancements will doubtless give rise to and to aspire to create guidelines to help us navigate the inevitable changes to our society. In this regard, we hope that Canada can provide a road map for the legal treatment of AI issues in several key areas.

Panel III – Cybersecurity in the AI Era

Cybersecurity is quickly emerging as a crucial component of every nation's security efforts. Recent events around the world have proven the importance of developing the tools needed to face this challenge. AI poses both a risk and opportunity. This Panel will explore the possible changes in modern cybersecurity warfare in the AI era. In doing so, it will bring to the table several experts in the field in an effort to shape a better government cybersecurity policy for the next generation.

Panel IV – AI For Social Good

keeps widening as inequality grows markedly. Artificial Intelligence holds great potential for helping us to lessen these inequalities. While AI is often viewed as a threat to social justice, the opposite may in fact be true. Machine learning in language translation technology can collapse the barriers between third world countries and the West. Algorithmic decision-making can lessen the bias effects toward minority groups. From transportation, healthcare, agriculture to sustainably and governance - the positive applications of AI are unlimited in scope.

The post Registration is Now Open for "Bracing for Impact: The #ArtificialIntelligence Challenge"! appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Two weeks ago, the Secretariat of the United Nations’ Internet Governance Forum (IGF) approved the creation of the (DC PR). This new component of the IGF will provide a discussion arena aimed at the analysis of the relations between internationally recognised Human Rights and online platforms’ Terms of Service (ToS).

The ultimate goal of the DC PR will be to elaborate concrete solutions aimed at promoting responsibility in the adoption of ToS so as to ensure respect for platform users’ human rights. The proposed solutions, to be developed through an open and multi-stakeholder process, will complement initiatives such as the , the , the , the , the and the to the implementation of those principles.

Specifically, the DC PR will aim at developing guidance for responsible conduct by online platforms through the formulation of model contract clauses able to protect the interests of both commercial and non-commercial internet users, in accordance with the existing framework of international law, including human rights law.

The need for a DC PR

Online platforms, such as social networks and other interactive online services, give rise to transnational “cyber-spaces” where individuals can gather and express their personalities imparting and receiving information and ideas. By reason of their transnational dimension as well as of their private nature, online platforms are regulated through contractual provisions, unilaterally established by the platforms’ providers and enshrined in the platforms’ ToS.

Hence it may be argued that, by regulating the use of information within a specific online platform, ToS undertake a normative function that . However, differently from the Law of the Land, the contractual provisions delineated in the ToS can be applied in several jurisdictions, thus affecting platform users in spite of their geographical location. Furthermore, the private decisions that may be taken by the platform provider in order to implement the ToS (e.g. removing content which is not compatible with the ToS provisions) are not subject to the constitutional guarantees that frame national jurisdictions.

In addition, it should be noted that the spectrum of rights and remedies that are granted to platform users through the ToS may be difficult to comprehend or even read in its entirety, and similar platforms may be regulated through very different provisions that might be unilaterally modified by platform providers.

For these reasons, it seems necessary to engage in a common multi-stakeholder effort aimed at producing model contractual provisions, which can be incorporated in ToS in order to provide intelligible and solid mechanisms to protect platform-users’ human rights and foster platform providers’ responsibility.

Such an effort appears necessary to equip platform users with common and easy-to-grasp tools to guarantee the full enjoyment of their human rights. From this perspective, the absence of binding international rules in this area despite the universal nature of human rights represents a real challenge, which can only be effectively overcome through a multistakeholder effort, taking place in accordance with the UN ( by the UN Human Rights Council together with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights). Hence, the concept of “platform responsibility” aims to stimulate behaviour in line with the principles laid out by the UN Guiding Principles, focusing on the responsibility of private corporations to respect human rights and to grant an effective grievance mechanism.

The ability of users to recognize and reward this type of behaviour has the potential to generate a virtuous circle, whereby consumer demand drives the market towards human rights-compliant solutions. Accordingly, the utilisation of model contractual-provisions may prove instrumental to foster trust in online services for content production, use and dissemination, allowing platform-users to directly identify those platforms that ensure the respect of their rights in a responsible manner.

The establishment of the DC PR seems therefore necessary to nurture a multi-stakeholder endeavour aimed at the elaboration of the aforementioned model contractual-provisions.

An Action Plan

The establishment of the DC PR aims at fostering a cooperative multi-stakeholder effort in order to elaborate concrete and interoperable solutions to protect platform-users’ human rights. To that end, the involved stakeholders will interact via the DC PR mailing list in order to jointly delineate a set of model contractual-provisions, defined as Platform-User Protections (PUPs).

While the long-term objective of the DC is to produce several PUPs in order to ensure the protection of individuals’ rights in a range of contexts, the first exercise of the DC will be the definition of a set of PUPs focusing on the specific issue of content removal.

The aforementioned goal will be achieved through several steps:

a)���������� An initial meeting, to be held at the , which will aim at elaborating a�� DC PR roadmap while taking stock of the existent initiatives that may be of interest for the purposes of the DC PR;

b)���������� A consultation period aimed at identifying current best practices, e.g. recognising current contractual provisions/mechanisms utilised by platform providers for content removal and the related remedies to challenge the removal decision;

c)���������� The elaboration of draft PUPs and the circulation of the different draft as Request for Comments on the ;

d)�������� Finalisation of PUPs as soon as the “rough consensus” around the most appropriate wording will crystallise;

e)���������� Definition of appropriate PUP labels (similar to those utilised to characterise the various Creative Commons Licenses) to be associated with each PUP. The utilisation of PUP labels is meant to be instrumental to enable platform providers to signal the inclusion of PUPs in their ToS and help Internet users to easily identify the platform-providers who are committed to securing the respect of human rights in a responsible manner.

In recent years, several initiatives have been taken to scrutinise and assess platforms’ ToS, particularly in the context of intermediary liability. For this reason, the first step of the DC PR will be to take stock of the existing initiatives and assess the potential of building upon prior work in this area for the purpose of putting the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework of the Guiding principles into practice.

Such stocktaking exercise will take place at the first meeting of the DC PR that will be open to all interested stakeholders. Attention will also be put into the mechanisms adopted by search engines for the implementation of the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case, which places these particular platforms in a central position to ensure the effective protection of individual rights.

The post A New Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility within the IGF appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Right from the outset, I was welcomed as a new member of the CTPD team and was exposed to many of the things that they do. If I had to describe the work that I did with the CTPD, I would divide it into three rough categories. First, there is “research work”, where problematic areas of copyright or trade-mark law are identified. Research is undertaken to understand the issues, articulate it clearly, and explore the potential paths which the government could take to address the problem. During my placement, I was able to explore the problems that face the treatment of IP rights in cases of insolvency.

The second could be characterized as “everyday work”. This involves a variety of tasks that the CTPD is responsible for, including the everyday collaboration with other departments who need to understand the nature and status of Canadian IP law. During my placement, I was able to sample a variety of such projects ranging from docket assignments, to the drafting of briefing notes, to the composition of issue summaries, and to meetings with other governmental departments about the nature of Canadian IP law and policy. Especially prominent during my time at Industry Canada was the close collaboration of members of the CTPD with officials from the regarding the (CETA) and (TPP) negotiations.

The final category is best described as “legislative work”. This work must be done to ensure that a piece of legislation that will change IP law moves successfully through Parliament. In this regard, I was fortunate enough to have Bill C-8, the ��(which would amend both copyright and trade-mark law) making its way through the legislative process. Most of my time was spent aiding the progression of the Bill. The challenge provided by working in these three capacities was a large part of what made my experience at Industry Canada so beneficial.

A significant reason why I was interested in participating in this program was due to my observation that I was being taught in class how to approach the law from the vantage point of a lawyer. Especially in such a technical area of law such as IP, it fascinated me to think that the people who developed and adapted the law were not necessarily legally trained, and thus did not necessarily share the view of the law that I was being taught.

My placement definitely gave me some insight on this. One of the biggest challenges that face policy makers, especially those in copyright and trade-mark policy, is finding an appropriate balance in the law. For example, one piece of policy may be very popular among industry groups, while at the same time very unpopular among consumer watchdogs. The role of Industry Canada is to maximize the beneficial economic effects of the IP regime, while also ensuring that it reflects the expectations of all Canadians.

This was a helpful, new lens through which to view the law. I realized that I had become so accustomed to treating the law as a code by which all actions must abide by, or perhaps more cynically as a means to a defined objective. The policy-maker’s view of the law is often very different. Instead of resisting change to long-established patterns or dismissing suggestions as too difficult to fit in the current legal framework, policy-makers must contemplate how to structure the entire legal framework so as to maximize the benefits and minimize the pitfalls. Often this means adopting a more macro view of the law than lawyers are accustomed to.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed my time at Industry Canada. It taught me a lot about IP, and reminded me that the law is more than a language lawyers speak; it is a living reality with real-world effects. Policy-making is the task of ensuring that living reality is one we all can enjoy.

Samuel Johansen is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and was enrolled in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property Law Intensive Program. As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a reflective blog on their internship experience.

The post IP Intensive Program: “Intellectual Property Policy is All IC” Reflecting on a Semester at Industry Canada appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Motivated to compete with Facebook and Google, Bell recently that starting November 16 it will be collecting massive amounts of customer data to deliver targeted advertising. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) that it will be investigating the matter. Canada’s telecom giant is adamant that it will comply with the (PIPEDA), but the extent of its practice raises questions about how PIPEDA’s key concepts should be interpreted and applied.

The extensiveness rather than purpose of Bell’s planned data collection seems to have generated the most controversy. The amount and type of user data that will be are ambitious: Internet history, search terms, location, mobile device type, calling patterns, and television viewing habits. To Bell’s credit, the company has been proactive in informing its customers of the upcoming changes and offers an opportunity to .

At least one academic commentator has about the legality of Bell’s program, focusing specifically on the sensitivity of the information collected. Given how the concept of “sensitive information” has been interpreted under PIPEDA and how Bell treats location data under its own Privacy Policy for location-based services, the reliance on opt-out consent is indeed surprising. that the form of consent must be commensurate with the sensitivity of personal information. Where the information is considered to be sensitive, express consent (i.e. opt-in rather than opt-out) . PIPEDA identifies medical and income records as examples of sensitive information, but otherwise . The OPC has also held that should be considered sensitive. Further, PIPEDA “any information can be sensitive, depending on the context”.

In light of these facts and the amount and type of data Bell intends to collect, it is difficult to mount a persuasive argument that the information proposed to be collected is not sensitive. In fact, there is reason to believe that Bell itself considers location data to be sensitive enough to warrant express consent. Under covering location-based services, use or disclosure of a wireless phone’s location requires express consent. Whether Bell can reconcile the interpretation of “sensitive information” under PIPEDA and its own position on location data to justify the upcoming changes remains to be seen.

Besides consent requirements, PIPEDA : organizations should only collect personal information necessary for the stated purposes (emphasis added). Critically, both the amount and type of information collected, used, or disclosed. A brief survey of PIPEDA complaint investigations reveals that the concept of ‘necessity’ is given its plain meaning. For example, if the purpose is to contact a customer, then only their contact details are necessary and companies should not solicit additional information. While the concept is clear in this simple example, it is severely strained when information is used for purposes that are not well-defined. For instance, for data collected to facilitate targeted advertising, it is exceedingly difficult to determine the scope of what is necessary for that purpose. Presumably, more data allow more precise targeting, which translates into higher advertising revenue. In at least , the OPC has attempted to balance the purpose of collection against the scope of information collected, but it is uncertain how this approach could be applied to targeted advertising. In that case, the OPC held that a full date of birth is not necessary for demographics research and recommended that the company collect only the month and year. The OPC reasoned that marginal gains in accuracy afforded by using the full date did not justify the impact on privacy. It is difficult to predict whether the OPC will attempt to draw a line between financial rewards and privacy, but its investigation should clarify how the concept of ‘necessity’ should be applied.��

In today’s world, businesses like Bell possess a natural data advantage through the services they provide. Since the OPC lacks strong enforcement powers, damage to brand reputation can pose the greatest risk for data gatherers. However, companies with little competition in the marketplace may be little deterred. Given Bell’s position in the Canadian telecommunications industry, we may therefore expect the OPC investigation to be conducted with an increased level of scrutiny.

Anatoly Zhitnik is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and is enrolled in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property Law Intensive Program. ��As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.

The post Targeted Advertising Puts Bell in Sights of the Privacy Commissioner appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Last week, the Secretariat of the United Nations’ Internet Governance Forum approved the creation of the .

Along with a conspicuous number of workshops, dynamic coalitions represent the structural elements of the IGF. Both elements have a heterogeneous multi-stakeholder composition and are aimed at the discussion of “public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance”, as the IGF mandate suggests. (Tunis Agenda, para. 72.a)

On the one hand, IGF workshops are unique events which allow various stakeholders to jointly analyse “hot topics” or to examine progress that such issues have undertaken since the previous IGF. On the other hand, dynamic coalitions are supposed to evolve over the years in a lively fashion and represent an exceptional opportunity to build an enduring and collaborative policy-shaping effort.

The long-term nature of dynamic coalitions is probably better-suited in order fulfil one of the most forgotten subparagraphs of the IGF mandate, according to which the forum shall “[i]dentify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations”. (Tunis Agenda, para. 72.g)

Indeed, IGF workshops are extremely circumscribed events and although the content of their discussion is usually extremely valuable, their 90-minute length does not allow them to generate political momentum around the issues they raise and confines workshops’ debates to a conference-centre room and to a usually un-consulted report. Au contraire, dynamic-coalitions’ activities are supposed to be much broader than a 90-minute-long meeting, which is rather a moment to share the work that has been achieved over the year, discuss it and envisage the next steps.

The Interest of Creating the Network Neutrality Dynamic Coalition

“Network neutrality” is an appealing and multifaceted expression which encompasses several policy areas and may give rise to misinterpretations.

In view of the various approaches to this multi-faceted topic, it is important today to address the question of network neutrality through a multi-stakeholder approach. The purpose of the Network Neutrality Dynamic Coalition, therefore, is to provide a discussion arena aimed at allowing all interested stakeholders to jointly scrutinise the various nuances of the network-neutrality debate so as to ultimately contribute to the circulation of best practices and the elaboration of well-advised policies and regulations.

The idea of a Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality was presented during Multi-Stakeholders Dialogue on Network Neutrality & and Human Rights, organised under the auspices of the Council of Europe. Many of the stakeholders involved in the event have immediately manifested their interest in the initiative, stressing the need to clarify the network neutrality debate and highlighting the interest of a platform aimed at promoting the dialogue on the matter.

An Action Plan

The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality will provide a common platform involving a large variety of stakeholders in a cooperative analysis of the network neutrality debate. Beyond , which will provide basic information on the work done by the dynamic coalition (e.g. publications, events, etc.), the of the coalition will allow all members and interested individuals to discuss in an open and interactive fashion.

The goal of the Dynamic Coalition will be to inform and disseminate information on current trends and policy developments with regard to network neutrality. To this end, an annual report will be produced to provide an overview on Net Neutrality tendencies, policies and draft legislation. The first Annual Report will be dedicated to the relation between network neutrality and human rights and will encompass a selection of position papers that will be presented and discussed at the next IGF.

to the 1^st Annual Report of Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality has been recently issued and all interested individuals and organisations are invited to participate.

Lastly, the Dynamic Coalition will attempt to elaborate a “model framework” on network neutrality, which can be deemed as consistent with international human-rights standards. Such a model framework will aim at providing guidance to national legislators and respond to the growing able to safeguard end-users’ human rights and fundamental freedoms while fostering fair competition and freedom to innovate.

By all means, every interested stakeholder is welcome this collaborative effort.

The post A New Arrival in the IGF Family: the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Originally "Dave Wireless", Mobilicity����to take part in the 2008 Advanced Wireless Spectrum (AWS) auction that reserved portions of the spectrum for bidding to new entrants into the market. As a condition of the reserved auction, these new entrants were restricted from transferring the spectrum to incumbents (groups which previously held rights to portions of the wireless spectrum) for five years. A hallmark of the Federal government's����to increase competition in the wireless industry, the reserved auction was hailed at the time as a����step for consumers.����and�� were two other new entrants as a result of the 2008 AWS reserved auction. The launch of these three companies was seen as a����for consumers by increasing����and ultimately decreasing prices, while improving service.

The reserved auction was only one facet to a Federal Government�� which also included regulating access to incumbent assets, and debate over foreign ownership of telecommunication firms. The initiative was in response to earlier����by consumer advocates that Canadians suffered high costs and low service, allegedly stemming from a lack of competition between the three incumbent firms.

Good Move?

Consumer advocates�� the recent decision as reinforcing the purpose of the reserved auction - that incumbents should not be allowed to acquire parts of the spectrum specifically set aside to spur competition. They also argue that a 4th alternative provider is needed to increase����and bring down prices, and by effectively blocking the deal, the Federal Government is ensuring an additional competitor continues operation. These advocates also believe that new entrants like Mobilicity have fulfilled their purpose, and consequently consumer prices for wireless communications have come��.

Bad Move?

Going forward, we must ask whether blocking the acquisition of Mobilicity by Telus could be detrimental to Mobilicity consumers, if it could deter future investors, and whether it might have an overall negative impact on the industry. Without outside investment, Mobilicity appears to be heading for��, meaning an uncertain future for its 250,000 customers. In the long-term, there is a fear that blocking the sale to Telus will signal to potential investors that a divestment strategy involving incumbents will not be allowed, thereby restricting their ability to get returns on those investments. Without the ability to sell their ventures to the biggest potential customers (the incumbent wireless firms), new potential investors will anticipate lower returns, likely resulting in decreased investments in Canada's wireless industry. Less investment would lower competition, leading to precisely the opposite outcome intended by the Federal Government. If this comes to fruition, it is difficult to see how Mobilicity going bankrupt will benefit consumers either in the near- or long-term.

4th Player Needed?

Given all three new entrants who launched under favorable circumstances are now facing financial troubles and uncertain futures, it raises the question - what is required for a new firm to be competitive? As part of the Government's 2007 strategy, wireless spectrum was����for only new entrants, foreign ownership rules were��, and access to incumbent assets was forced by��. Even with all these favorable concessions, Mobilicity cannot turn a profit and both other new entrants Wind Mobile and Public Mobile are up for��. The failure of all three of these raises the issue that perhaps the wireless market was not as uncompetitive as Canadians were led to believe. If the market was so uncompetitive and consumer prices so high, how could not one of these three become profitable after four years of operating under favorable conditions and with the ability to "cherry-pick" customers in the most concentrated urban markets? Could this be a sign that perhaps the current market is competitive, and prices are not unduly inflated?

Canada currently has three national wireless providers. Much commentary has been written discussing����in Canada, and concerning ��in the telecommunications market. Nobody, however, has been able to explain why having a fourth alternative provider would dramatically lower prices, and improve service. Some have����with the perceived failure of the Federal Government program to spur competition, they should instead focus on regulating the incumbents or utilizing other methods to enforce competition. Either way, the Federal Government will soon be forced to acknowledge that its efforts so far have been insufficient to create a viable fourth competitor in the wireless market.

Alex Buonassisi is an IPilogue Editor and a JD Candidate at Thompson Rivers University.

The post The Future is Unfriendly for Mobilicity Acquisition by Telus appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In the department, policy making is overseen by the Strategic Policy Sector.�� The sector consults stakeholders, academics, and experts in order to determine how existing policies can be ameliorated or enhanced to allow the Canadian economy to adapt to changes in the marketplace.�� The Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate focuses on copyright and international IP issues.�� For the Copyright team – my team – their work this past fall meant assisting the Minister and his staff with the legislation of Bill C-11 (the Copyright Modernization Act), engaging with Canadian Heritage and stakeholders who may be affected by the Bill, and following the Supreme Court of Canada copyright cases that were heard last December.

I began my placement hoping to gain as much exposure to my strongest interest – the process of IP policy analysis and policy development.�� My internship was a roller coaster of experiences, to say the least.�� On the one hand, working with the copyright policy team at the time Bill C-11 was tabled meant that it was an exciting phase for our team.�� On the other hand, it was also a busy and unpredictable phase. My tasks alternated between responding to urgent requests from senior management within 24 hours and having lengths of time to develop policy reports on the side.

Perhaps least surprising, I learned foremost how to think like a policy maker.�� Policy development is about questions and answers.�� Policy makers ask the right questions to lead them to the right answers – the right answer being that policy balance that would treat different stakeholders fairly.�� The Supreme Court cases concerning online music downloading, for instance, touch on more issues than statutory interpretation.�� A policy maker would delve into the purpose of copyright provisions and ask whether online music services ought to compensate copyright owners in a context where the works are not used or altered, merely delivered.�� Similarly, deciding that a cinematographic soundtrack does not include individual sound recordings included in the film could change the way film industries incorporate music into cinematographic works.�� Therefore, policy work involves a close understanding of how industries might react to legal changes, and likewise, how to implement changes to steer that reaction.

My internship with Industry Canada also showed me that policy work consists of translating extensive webs of theoretical concepts into practical solutions.�� In many cases, this means boiling down reams of legal details into high-level, essential points to convey to senior management.�� What I learned is that these skills are not merely germane to policy development but to almost all areas outside of law.�� The law is saturated with details and intricacies which may be important to lawyers but not to those outside our profession.�� Learning to glean the central issues is an important way to ensure that the legal profession is not disengaged from the “outside world.”

Alysia Lau is a JD student at Osgoode Hall Law School. Here, she reports on her experience at Industry Canada, while interning there as part of the inaugural offering of the Intellectual Property Law and Technology Intensive Program (IP Intensive) at Osgoode.

The post Copyright Policy at Industry Canada: More Than a Dilbert Strip appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The Statute of Anne is often referred to in debates about copyright law and policy to suggest that copyright must be fundamentally rethought because society and technology have changed significantly since the days of the printing press.�� What is not nearly as common is a collection of commentary which discusses the Statute of Anne within its broader historical context, extracting lessons that are fruitful for modern copyright policy and reform.

(edited by Professors Lionel Bently, Uma Suthersanen and Paul Torremans), is a book which accomplishes the uncommon and provides the reader with unique insights.

This book is a result of the ALAI 2009 London Congress, which leading copyright experts and scholars from across the globe attended in order to celebrate the 300th anniversary of The Statute of Anne.�� The format of the book is one of multiple authors, each contributing one chapter to the book.�� A quick glance at the list of contributors shows representation from Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Finland, France, Japan, The Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, UK, and the USA.�� A broad range of perspectives are canvassed in the book by experts working in academia, copyright and patent offices, libraries, technology companies, book trade associations, and copyright collectives.

With 300 years to cover since the Statute of Anne, there are many topics that could be covered and it would be easy to get lost in the possibilities, but the book is well organized and divided into three main parts: Part I (The Statute of Anne and its role in the world of copyright), Part II (Digital libraries and online licensing), and Part III (The borderless era: international exhaustion, global administration and formalities).�� Within 522 pages, key global copyright issues are covered in great detail.

Part I (Chapters 1 to 11) begins with the history of copyright and the Statute of Anne.�� In the introduction to Part I, co-editor Professor Lionel Bently notes that the Statute of Anne is often characterized as the world’s first copyright Act, but he warns that this claim should be treated with caution.�� He notes that the Statute of Anne wasn’t the world’s first regulation system for printing and publishing books.�� Additionally, Bently reminds readers that while the Act was influential, there were significant contributions in other jurisdictions (both before and after the Act) to the worldwide development of copyright law.�� This introduction sets the stage for the rest of the chapters in Part I, which outline historical research that provide insights that a strict legal analysis of contemporary legislation alone could not possibly uncover.

Part II (Chapters 12-21), starts the book’s coverage of the digital age.�� Co-editor Professor Uma Suthersanen provides an introduction to digital libraries and online licensing.�� As part of laying out some background thoughts for the Chapters in Part II, Suthersanen states that the zeitgeist of this and the coming centuries is that the growing power of custodians of information must be regulated (along with the power to grant access to works and to remunerate authors).�� In Chapter 13, Dame Lynne J. Brindley succinctly summarizes many of the challenges that libraries now face, as they strive to rise (like the Phoenix) into new purveyors of knowledge in the Internet era. ��Underpinning these strategic challenges for libraries are broader copyright, information management, cultural and public policy issues which are discussed and analyzed throughout the chapters in Part II.

Three specific themes are covered in Part III (Chapters 22-32), all relating to the “borderless era”: international exhaustion, global administration and formalities.�� This third part of the book is introduced by co-editor Professor Paul Torremans, who stresses the fundamental and global nature of the issues addressed within these chapters.�� Two differing perspectives on the potential benefits of copyright formalities in the digital era are offered in Chapter 29 (by Stef van Gompel) and Chapter 30 (by Jane Ginsburg). Various aspects of copyright exhaustion are covered in Chapters 23 to 27, and the contributors must be commended for providing in depth and valuable commentary on a topic that might have been treated very narrowly in the hands of others.

Global Copyright: Three Hundred Years Since the Statute of Anne, From 1709 to Cyberspace is a fascinating read and a rich reference resource.�� Throughout the book, there are many cross-references to other chapters, as authors make note of intersecting discussions existing in the rest of the book.�� Additional online supplementary materials for the book exist on the .�� The website currently includes translations for several of the chapters into French and/or Spanish.�� The website also hosts copies of expert responses (from 21 different jurisdictions) to a questionnaire that covered topics such as copyright history, on-line exploitation, international exhaustion, and formalities.

This book is ideal not only for legal scholars and students, but also for anyone with a desire to better understand the past, present and future challenges of copyright law and policy.

The post Book Review — ­Global Copyright: Three Hundred Years Since The Statute Of Anne, From 1709 To Cyberspace appeared first on IPOsgoode.