Background of World Conference of International Telecommunication (WCTI-12)

International Telecom Union (ITU) convened a meeting from 3rd to 14th December 2012, at Dubai to review the draft International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). The purpose and the scope of the draft resolution is to find out a better communication system in today’s world. The main focus will be on the modern communication tools like internet, phone and the computer. In 1988, 178 member countries of ITU agreed to ITR at Word Administrative Telegraph and Telephone conference in Melbourne. The Melbourne Regulation came into force in the year of 1990. The main object of the ITR treaty was to provide a smooth communication system to the international community. ITR provided the guidelines on the tariffs exchanged between different carriers, the method of calculating the charges and the procedure of dispute settlement. ITR laid down the foundation of privatization of telecommunication sector and encourage the competition among the service providers. The net result of their approach is efficient communication at a lower cost.
From the beginning of the twenty first century, the communication technology was changed significantly. The increase use of network, inexpensive communication through mobile phones and new technology creates a huge market of telecommunication industries. In this environment, the main concern of the industry is the privacy of the customer. Industry also has to built an infrastructure to cope with the enormous growth of the market.
In this scenario, the member countries felt the need of revamping the old ITR. All the countries agreed in the point that International co-operation is required to face the challenge of current situation. It is not possible for the Government alone to solve the problem. Government can play the regulatory roles and the required investment will come from the private investment. The public and private partnership can only provide the satisfactory services to the customers and maintain the security and privacy of the customers. To meet the objective, ITU includes the members from the private companies, scientific and industrial organizations, financial institutes and telecom industries. About 200 academic institutes also participated in the activities.

A working group was formed to chalk out a draft resolution for changing the old regulation. The draft resolution has proposed some changes and included some new suggestions. Major propose changes and the additions were recommended in the following fields:

• Human right of access to communications
• International frameworks
• Interconnection and interoperability
• Security in the use of ICTs
• Protection of critical national resources
• Convergence.

ITU convened the World Conference of International Telecommunication (WCTI-12) to introduce a new binding regulation on the basis of draft resolution submitted by the working group. WCIT Chairperson Mohamed Al Ghanim mentions that the draft resolution is a major breakthrough. The final treaty will ensure the equitable and affordable access the communication to all sections of people.
For more information on copyright, patent and intellectual property rights, please contact: Lex Protector
By Aurobinda Panda
Founder & C.E.O of Lex Protector International Law Office
Ph: +91-9658577326
Email | Website | Facebook | Twitter | Blog

How the Trade Secret is protected in India

A Trade Secret is a practice to keep secret the information about the practice, process, design and formulas from which an establishment can get financial benefits. The unauthorized use of the trade secret is a legal offence. The trade secret of the establishment is protected by the law of the country. There are some differences between the patent and trade secret protection. As for example, trade secret can be protected for an unlimited period, in contrary to the limited period of patent protection. Article 39 of the "Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)"has provided a general guideline of trade secret protection.

The main features of the guidelines are:-

• Undisclosed information which has a commercial value should be protected from unfair practices. The unfair practices include the illegal acquisition of manufacturing process, technical data and business strategy for commercial gain.
• When a secret data is submitted for the approval, it should be protected from the leakage .

Trade secret is a self-administered process. There is no procedural formality of protecting Trade secrets. Manufacturers prefer trade secret protection than patent due to its hustle-free formalities. Individual country has made the trade secret law following the guidelines of "TRIPS Agreement".

There are no specific laws of trade secrets in India. In India, the concept of trade secret protection is not so popular like patent, copyrights and trademarks. Therefore, the concept of trade secret has not been developed. But, in the digital age, the competition has been stiff and the business has to be more vigilant to protect the business secrecy from the competitors. Unlike India, the contractual nations of "TRIPS Agreement" have enacted law for protecting the trade secret according to the guidelines of "TRIPS Agreement". In India, the only statutory provision is section 27 of Indian Contract Act to protect the trade secret. The current process is not enough for the protection of trade secrets. Therefore, Indian manufacturers and the producers felt the need of another convenient tool. In this context, they appealed the Central Government to enact a new law to protect the trade secret in the line of "TRIPS Agreement".

In the meantime, Department of Science and Technology (DST) has introduced the National Innovation Act, 2008 (the Draft Act) drafted by Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and the Industry (FICCI). The chapter VI of the draft proposed a guideline of the trade secret act. However, a section of experts have alerted the Government that the introduction of the trade secret law is okay, but if the proper care is not taken in promulgation of the law, it would open the floodgate of litigations. The Government wants a comprehensive analysis on the impact of the laws. They have sought the opinions of the experts. Whatever may be the consequence, the Government has to enact the law within a short period.

For more information on copyright, patent and intellectual property rights, please contact: Lex Protector

An analysis of the patient assistance program launched by the big pharmaceutical companies of India

The latest decisions of the "Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB)"to revoke the patent protection of Gefitinib, the cancer drug patented by AstraZeneca; Pegasys, hepatitis drug patented by Roche and Nexavar, the cancer drug patented by Bayer are the major setbacks of big pharmaceutical companies of India. In the above cases, the Indian generic companies have challenged the patent of these big multinational companies. The multinational drug manufacturers not only lost the legal battle, they also lose the support of Indian people. The main allegation of the general people is that they are selling the patented drug in Indian market at an exorbitant rate and making a huge profit from India. The big companies have rejected the accusations. The spokesperson of these companies said that a major portion profit made by them is use for the patient assistance program in India. Patient assistance program is earmarked for the patients who cannot afford the high cost treatment for the critical diseases. 

Now, it is the time to verify the truth behind the claimsof patient assistance scheme of big pharmaceutical

companies. There is no reliable information about the patient assistance program in India. The only exception is Glivec, a HIV drug by Novartis has a website that gives the detail information about their activities through "Arogya Parivar". Therefore, nobody can assess the claim of assisting the poor patients. Therefore, there is a doubt about the authenticity about the company's welfare program. 

However, these companies follow a clear policy in America and European countries to inform the public about their patient assistance scheme. The information includes the eligibility criteria, application procedure, the amount of help and the contact address of the company. Anyone can get the information from the website of the company. Why the big pharmaceutical companies maintain the double standards? The double faced policy of the companies has raised the doubt about their claim on the utilization of excessive profit in patient assistance scheme. 

Another point is if a company claims for this type welfare program in the court, the company should file an affidavit testifying the oath through its managing director. In the affidavit, the company will mention how many patients have been benefited by the scheme and effectiveness of the program. As far as I know, only Novartis have filed the affidavit in the case of Glivec. No other companies have filed the affidavit. 

Recent verdict against the big pharmaceutical companies have proved that Indian generic companies have the power to fight against the monopoly of the big pharmaceutical companies acquired by patent of a specific drug. Now, the generic companies can manufacture and sell the drugs at a lower cost. India is now going to implement the rights of medical treatment to all. 

For more information on copyright, patent and intellectual property rights, please contact: Lex Protector

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons may solve the territorial issue of Patent Exhaustion

Patent Exhaustion is also known as first sale doctrine. Under the doctrine, the rights of the patent holders become exhausted after the sale. Therefore, the patent holder cannot sue anyone for the infringement for the sold patent. The drawback of the doctrine is that it did not clearly define the territorial status of the doctrine. Even the Court delivers the conflicting rulings in the territorial dispute. Therefore, the doctrine should be analyzed to set up a standard of territory status in patent exhaustion case. However, the recent arguments in the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. may find out permanent solutions on the territorial issue of Patent Exhaustion.

Kirtsaeng, a Thai national resold some books in the USA and earned millions of dollars. These books were purchased by his family from the Thailand bookstore.   When these activities of Kirtsaeng were detected by John Wiley & Sons, a reputed textbook publisher of the USA, Wiley filed a suit against Kirtsaeng on the ground of copyright infringement. Kirsten defended him arguing that the books that he sold in America were published under the license of John Wiley & Sons to its Asian subsidiary. Therefore, John Wiley & Sons could not sue anyone for reselling the text books under 106(a), 602(a) and 109(a) of the US copyright acts. The case raised two issues related to provisions of US copyright acts. The first one is whether a copyright owner can file infringement of copyright suit against anyone after the legal sale of his work to another one. The second one is whether the permission is required to import the material in US if anyone legally acquires abroad the copyright of a material from US.

Both the parties seek the justice under the provision of section 109 of copyright act. The section 109 has mentioned the limitations on exclusive rights of copyright owners. According to the section 109, “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord”. Kirtsaeng argued that as the books were published abroad under the license from John Wiley & Sons to its Asian subsidiary, reselling of the books in USA are exempted from punishment. In their counter argument, Wiley & Sons rejected the claim of exemption from punishment mentioning that the US Copyright Act is not applicable in Asia. Therefore, Kirtsaeng will not get impunity under the section 109 (a) of US Copyright Law. The District Court gives its verdict in favor of John Wiley & Sons imposing a damage charge of $600,000. The second circuit also affirmed the verdict.

Now, Supreme Court has heard the oral arguments of the case. The case has attracted the attention of the people related to copyright and patent acts. Both the parties had cited the examples of previous judgments of similar type of cases. The center of the attraction was the financial importance of 109(a) section; the rights of copyright holders to sell the copyrighted work at lower price in the foreign countries in the regime of globalization. A decision explicitly authorizing the importation into this country of low-cost foreign versions of copyrighted works would directly undermine the ability of content providers to maintain high prices for domestic versions of the works.

<p> For more information on copyright, patent and intellectual property rights, please contact:  <a href="http://www.lexprotector.com/blog/2012/09/20/trademark-protection-in-india/">Lex Protector</a></p>

International Humanitarian Law Student Writing Competition

Sponsor: American University Washington College of Law Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and the American Society of International Law's Lieber Society
Deadline: January 31, 2013

Essay Topic: This competition aims to promote interest and enhance scholarship in international humanitarian law among students as well as deepen their understanding of this important area of international law.
Prize Information: The two winning authors will present their papers at an expert conference at American University Washington College of Law in Washington, DC, with travel and accommodation expenses covered. Winners will also receive a complementary registration at the ASIL Annual Meeting on April 3-6, 2013 in Washington, DC, and will receive a one-year student membership with ASIL.
Notes:
Students must currently be enrolled in a law degree program at a U.S. or foreign law school as of the sumbission deadline. Students may choose a topic within the scope of international humanitarian law. Submissions must be unpublished academic papers written solely by the candidate in English. Articles should be submitted online, as Microsoft Word attachments, to teachingihl@wcl.american.edu.

The deadline for submissions is Thursday, January 31, 2013, by 12 PM Noon (EST).
For detailed competition rules, please visit www.WCLCenterforHR.org

Contact:
Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law
American University Washington College of Law
4801 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20016
Tel: 202.274.4180
Fax: 202.274.0783
teachingihl@wcl.american.edu


Competition Website: www.WCLCenterforHR.org

IEL Hartrick Scholar Writing Compeition

Sponsor: Institute for Energy Law
Deadline: January 15, 2013
Essay Topic:

The general subject for this year's competition is any topic related to energy development. This includes, for example, topics concerning oil and gas law, alternative energy resources, energy regulation, and environmental regulation of energy industries.
Prize Information:
The Hartrick Scholar(s) selected by the Judging Committee will be notified on February 15, 2013. The Scholar(s) will receive a $2,500 cash award at the Institute for Energy Law's 64th Annual Oil & Gas Law Conference to he held February 21-22, 2013, in Houston, Texas. The Hartrick Scholar(s) also will be recognized for their work at the Career Paths for Young Attorneys in the Energy Sector Symposium to be held on March 1-2, 2013 at The University of Tulsa College of Law. Selection as a Hartrick Scholar includes, in addition to the $2,500 cash award, the cost of travel to attend the Conference in Houston and the Symposium in

Tulsa.
Notes:
Students enrolled in law school as of December 2012, and seeking a juris doctor degree, are eligible to submit an article for consideration in the IEL Hertrick Scholar competition.
The article can be any work prepared by the student while enrolled in law school and can include prior works prepared for law journal or a law school course, so long as the submitted version complies with the submission guidelines. The Hartrick Scholar Judging Committee will select one or more outstanding submissions that they deem worthy of recognition.
The article must be submitted to the Hartrick Scholar Judging Committee, at the address listed below, on or before January 15, 2013. The article should not exceed 8,000 words including footnotes (this approximates 40 double-spaced pages of text and footnotes or 25 printed pages). Footnotes should be in Blue Book format and placed at the bottom of the page where the footnoted text appears. The article should be submitted in pdf or hard copy accompanied by a cover email message or letter than contains the following information: (1) the title of your article; (2) the law school where you are currently enrolled; (3) your mailing address; (4) your telephone number; and (5) your email address. The article should not contain your name, law school, or any other identifying information.

Contact Information:-
The Center for American and International Law lhogarth@cailaw.org
5201 Democracy Drive
Plano, Texas 75024-3561
lhogarth@cailaw.org

Hogan/Smoger Access to Justice Essay Contest

Sponsor:

Public Justice Foundation
Deadline: March 31, 2013
Essay Topic: The topic for the 2013 Hogan/Smoger Access to Justice Essay Contest: Is Democrazy for Sale? Have Citizens United's Holding Run Amok? Legal Challenges Left to Super Pacs? Can Funding Disclosure Be Required?
Prize Information:
The Hogan/Smoger Access to Justice Essay Contest is a $5,000 cash award given to the author of the winning essay.
Notes:
Any student currently enrolled in an accredited American law school may submit a legal essay for the competition. Essays can only be written during the academic year covered by the competition and may not be prepared as part of paid legal work outside of law school.
Additional information about this contest is posted on the Public Justice website www.publicjustice.net/news-events/awards.
All entrants must fill out and submit the "intent-to-enter" form by January 31, 2013. To download the intent-to-enter form, visit out

website www.publicjustice.net.
For more information, contact Cassandra Goings at (202) 797-8600, ext. 244 or cgoings@publicjustice.net.

Competition Website: http://www.publicjustice.net/What-We-Do/Awards/Law-School-Essay-Contest.aspx