News

Canadian Officials Admit TPP IP Policy Runs Counter To Preferred National Strategy

Today is World IP Day, which marks the creation of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Canadian policy has long preferred the use of international bodies like WIPO to advance its IP objectives, yet the intellectual property provisions in recently concluded trade deals such as the TPP and CETA run counter to Canadian strategy. That isn’t just the opinion of the many critics of those agreements. It is what government officials told International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland as part of her briefing materials.

The briefing document on intellectual property and the trade agenda, released under the Access to Information Act, leaves little doubt that trade officials are well aware that the Canadian position on IP in the TPP is inconsistent with our preferred position and that it will lead to IP trade deficits. The document states:

Canada’s preferred strategy is to establish international IP rules through multilateral forums such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). However, in the context of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Canada negotiated trade obligations that, while reflective of recent domestic reforms, are beyond those standards set through multilateral forums, and which will likely require amendments to domestic practice, such as in the areas of geographical indications (GIs) and patent protection for pharmaceuticals.

April 26, 2016 — 2 comments — News

Get Satisfaction: Tips for engaging citizens in gov 2.0 by opensource.com (CC BY-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/9rjVhc

Intervening at the CRTC: Nothing Encourages Participation Like Background Checks and Legally Mandated Undertakings

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s hearing on basic telecommunications services launched earlier this week with the Commission continuing its effort to engage the public with an open discussion forum that will allow for comments to placed on the record (comments outside of the CRTC universe – op-eds, blog posts or social media comments do not count). While CRTC chair Jean-Pierre Blais has emphasized his interest in hearing from Canadians, the recent experience of Concordia University professor Fenwick McKelvey highlights how more work is needed to remove barriers that may inhibit independent experts from participating in the process.

McKelvey told me he was very happy to participate, yet consider the barriers faced by academics or other independent experts seeking to contribute to the CRTC process. First, McKelvey (along with other academic intervenors) faced questions from Telus about their background, expertise, and funding. Telus demanded that each answer the following questions:

April 13, 2016 — 6 comments — News

Patent by Brook (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/3fKqYy

U.S. State Department vs. USTR on Eli Lilly and Canadian Patent Utility Rules

The Eli Lilly claim against Canada for hundreds of millions due to a court decision involving patent utility has attracted considerable attention with fears that the case foreshadows many more corporate lawsuits if the Trans Pacific Partnership becomes a reality. While the Canadian government has raised doubts about the independence of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce intervention in the case, the government must be a bit confused on where the U.S. stands on the issue. Yesterday, the U.S. Trade Representative issued its 2016 report on foreign trade barriers and stated the following on the case:

With respect to pharmaceuticals, the United States continues to have serious concerns about the impact of the patent utility requirements that Canadian courts have adopted.

That is consistent with the Eli Lilly argument, yet last month the U.S. State Department provided its own submission in the case. The U.S. government appears to undermine USTR arguments, seemingly siding with the Canada on the issue. The U.S. submission states each country has the right to determine how it implements the utility requirement, the possibility of revocation of patent rights, and for its patent laws to evolve:

April 1, 2016 — Comments are Disabled — News

Broadband by Gavin St. Ours (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/6Yzymi

Budget 2016: Is It The End of a Canadian Digital Strategy?

Canada’s experience with a national digital strategy has been marked primarily by delays and underwhelming policies. The Conservatives took years to release their strategy as Industry Minister Christian Paradis did nothing, leaving it to James Moore to ultimately release a digital strategy without a strategy. Those hoping for the rejuvenated approach under the Liberals seem likely to be left disappointed. Indeed, Canada’s long road toward a national digital strategy may have come to an end with Budget 2016. The government has some very modest commitments on the digital front, but the budget appears to signal a shift in approach with the Liberals substituting a digital strategy for one focused on innovation. Addressing Canada’s innovation record is important (I’ll have more to say on the issue in a column next week), but emphasizing innovation is not a substitute for addressing digital policy.

The headline digital policy expenditure in Budget 2016 is a $500 million commitment over five year to support broadband in rural and remote areas. While further details are promised in the future, this commitment comes without any reference to an actual broadband goal or target. A commitment to universal affordable broadband access regardless of location is what is really needed (the CRTC may step in to do so as part of its upcoming basic services obligation hearing) but that is not in the budget. The problem is particularly pronounced within first nations communities, where reports indicate that almost half of households do not have an Internet connection.

March 23, 2016 — 6 comments — News