Nigel D’Souza is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

I have finally returned home to Toronto after spending three difficult months in India. I have travelled to India before but never during the summer. Unfortunately, there was a drought during my stay in Delhi, with temperatures hovering around fifty degrees celsius on a daily basis. Despite the heat and other obstacles I encountered, the experience was still memorable. During my tenure at the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), I experienced firsthand the meaning of fighting a legal battle at a grassroots level. The lawyers’ efforts were inspiring and I will forever be grateful for how they helped me grow both personally and professionally. The most important lesson I learned during my term at HRLN is that if you maintain commitment and passion during your work, you can achieve great legal feats.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Cross Border Issues, General, Patentability, Patents, Pharmaceutical Drugs
Comment: 1

Nigel D’Souza is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

I have been researching at Human Rights Law Network for over a month now and my findings are quite concerning. In terms of patent law, a skeleton based on international standards is in place but clarity is lacking. As mentioned in my previous post, there were numerous amendments made to the 1970 Patent Act to become compliant with TRIPS and WTO standards. One outcome is the inability to simply reverse engineer drug products and provide generic versions at cheaper prices. Another outcome, as of now, is the higher threshold that needs to be satisfied to achieve patentability. This disallows simple modifications or combinations of existing drugs. However, many NGO’s fear this threshold will not remain stagnant and will likely lower since many pharmaceutical multinationals oppose it. With their resources and legal teams, they will likely explore all options to lower this standard. To understand the “efficacy standard” that was inserted into the reformed Patent Act and its implications, it is vital to decompose s.3(d). Precedents established dealing with this provision will ascertain the patentability threshold for future applications. For the remainder of my tenure at HRLN, case law primarily encompassing s.3(d) will definitely be incorporated into my research.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Cross Border Issues, Patentability, Patents, Pharmaceutical Drugs
Comment: 1

I am currently working at the Human Rights Law Network, located in Delhi, India. My experience here has been just phenomenal. I am extremely excited to share with all of you what I learn during my tenure at HRLN.

Upon arriving, I attended the HIV/AIDS Conference, initiated and organized by HRLN. My involvement in the conference sparked anger, passion and hunger, emotional elements advocated during teachings to initiate change. It was strikingly apparent that access to ARV medication for treatment of HIV/AIDS is a prevalent field pertaining to human rights and patent law. It is a field in desperate need of activist support within India. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Cross Border Issues, General, Innovation, Patentability, Patents, Pharmaceutical Drugs
Comments: 0

Free downloading, via the Internet, is no longer a secret and has become commonplace, resulting in immense profit losses and copyright infringements. Established torrent websites and shareware programs, operating without license or authorization, knowingly allow full copies of musical work to be downloaded. These unfortunate circumstances resulted in Jim Griffin, consultant for the music label Warner, to delve into the problem of functionally voluntary music. This propagated the proposed goal of monetizing the digital music market. In collaboration with music labels, blanket licenses would be issued and sustained by collecting societies, providing unlimited music on the internet, for a fee. Griffin suggests by possibly using his proposed bandage, ramifications similar to Chernobyl, a severe Russian nuclear accident, could be avoided. 

It’s debatable but many stipulate current financial ramifications, spawned by free downloading, is due to lack of vigilance and excessively high prices charged by music titans such as Warner. Lack of initiative to streamline high cost productions and lower inflated profit margins equated towards high prices. On the opposite side of the spectrum, users have not morally abided to copyright stipulations, resulting in infringements. By downloading and initiating unmerited distribution, they have disregarded moral and legal rights for authors of music. The copyright regime exists to assure authors that creative work is rewarded justly. It is fair to say both sides are at fault!

Initially, I perceived the practicability of attaining music label collaboration as difficult. This was supplemented knowing this proposition endorses and finally succumbs to free downloading, an outcome avoided by music labels. However, initial steps have already been taken. Imeem, a social utility tool, allows listening and sharing of music for free! Major labels, including Warner, have provided a blank license and royalties are attained through a percentage of advertising revenue. Inadvertently, Warner became a collecting agency itself by accordingly taking the royalties and distributing them to the artists. By digitally monitoring the number of downloads and accordingly distributing profits to labels, would eradicate the need to utilize third party governmental agencies such as SOCAN, to distribute royalties. Expanding the scope of royalty distribution to record companies and artists, has been advocated by proposed amendments in Bill C-32 and the Copyright Act. These outcomes substantiate the fluid possibility of Griffin’s proposal being achieved. 

Despite this transitional proposition being minimally frictional, the germane question is whether the general public will accept it? Griffin suggests downloaders voluntarily pay established fees for unlimited song accessibility from collecting societies. Taking human nature into consideration, despite vast pools of music being available through the collection society, would this option actually hinder taking opportunities to download music for free? Personally, I would opt for the free option. Unless ISP providers mandate the incorporation of a progressive fee into their monthly charges for all users, varied based on demographical statistical sampling, internet surfers will likely look for cheaper options. This seems plausible since royalties from the mandatory fees can be distributed to collective agencies, free downloading hindered, and music authors receiving compensation.

Posted in Uncategorized
Comments: 0