You are on page 1of 3

Balance between Human Rights and Intellectual Property Laws: Human rights and intellectual property protection are

two distinct areas of law but a number of links between the two can be identified. Human rights concerns have been asserted as counter-weights to the expansion of intellectual property rights. While, creators of intellectual property rights are asserting human rights for the protection and expansion of intellectual property. Intellectual property rights relate to public protection of private rights which is the result of the creation of human minds. This creation is intended for commercial and/or industrial applications. It is an asset in intangible form. As the society progresses both commercially and socially, the effort to protect the value and safeguard the originality of its intangible asserts makes the law-enforcing agencies more obligatory towards the development of commerce and industries. Public protection of intellectual property like innovations, trademarks, copyrights, brands, designs, processes etc., is of paramount importance, for a country so as to prevent commercial piracy and to foster sustained economic growth and maintain commercial discipline. After a period of bilateral trade agreements, the first multilateral agreements were concluded namely, The Paris Convention for protection of industrial property in 1883. Technology is expanding to the extent that Microsoft, in 2004, obtained a US patent for transmitting power and data using the human body. Eventually there is an increase in the claim for patents. There is a race among technical companies all over for securing patents. The advantage of having a patent is that when doing business a crosslicensing agreement can be entered into. The turnover for such patented companies is in billions. Members of World Intellectual Property Organization, World Trade Organization and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights not only recognizes the importance of Intellectual Property Rights, but is also committed to its protection. The Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2006 in India is a step to foster sustained economic growth by encouraging private inventions. Information Technology industries are expanding there research and development sector. The race for patenting is slowly set in. A lot more multinational corporations specifically in Pharmaceutical sectors are targeting developing countries as potential destination. The

fear that prevails in the minds of these multinational corporations is the lack of effective patent protection. One of Human Rights major concern is Health Care. Bio-piracy, cost of patented drugs, gene-patenting are challenges to Fundamental Laws. A deal was made on AIDS drug prices between the Brazilian government and Abbott Laboratories, an American pharmaceutical firm. The drug amounted to one third of Brazils budget for AIDS medication, which it provides free of cost to HIV positive citizens. The government asked Abbott Laboratories to cut the price of drugs by 42% or grant a license to the state to produce it. If not Brazil threatened, it would disregard Abbotts patent and use a compulsory licensing procedure sanctioned by the WTO to manufacture the pills without the firms permission. Countries increasingly complain to the WTO and WIPO that the patent system discriminates among them. Developing countries have long complained that America is trying to invade their Intellectual Property protections. The WTO in 1995 laid down an agreement on TRIPS. The agreement aimed to ensure adequate protection and effective enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights to the mutual advantage of both producers and users. [A 7] it prohibits discrimination on the basis of the nationality. The agreement at the national level requires the judicial procedures to be fair and equitable. Agreement provides for international co-operation to fight copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting. The object is to promote long term public interest by means of providing exclusive rights to holders for limited duration time. After the expiration of the term of protection, protected works and inventions fall into the public domain anyone is free to use them without prior authorization by the right holder. Hence in the long term there is no conflict but rather a mutually supportive relation between the interests of promoting creativity and innovation and maximizing access. In 2000 the Sub-Commission on Human Rights declared that since the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement does not adequately reflect the fundamental nature and indivisibility of all human rights, including the right of every one to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress there are apparent conflicts between the intellectual property rights regime and human rights. Hence, the commission requested all governments to take human rights obligations and principles and to integrate into their local legislations. Further encouraged the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to clarify the relationship between Intellectual Property

Rights and Human Rights. Lastly, recommended, to the WIPO, the WHO, the United Nations Development Program, the United Nation Conference on Trade and development, the United Nations Environment Program that they continue and deepen their analysis of the impacts of the TRIPS Agreement. In 2005, WSIS declaration considered that intellectual property protection is important to encourage innovation and creativity. Similarly, the wide diffusion and sharing of knowledge is important to encourage innovation and creativity. Facilitating meaningful participation by all in intellectual property issues and knowledge sharing through full awareness and capacity building is a fundamental part of an inclusive information society. An intellectual property right represents enormous economic value. With an increasing national and international trade in commodities involving copyright, patent or other forms of protection, it is no longer so much as the individual author who enjoys protection, but rather multinational corporations. The intellectual property regime is partly governed by the WTO under TRIPS. Governments are unable to take a balanced decision with regard to the meeting point of intellectual property rights and human rights. From human rights perspective the only legitimate end of rights as granted by the intellectual property laws is to find a balance between legitimate individual claim of authors or inventors and the progress of society as a whole at reasonable social costs. Protection of interest in todays legal regime law must find a balance between the claims of intellectual property holders and public domain. For Property is a legal fiction.

You might also like