TRIPS and plant varietal protection : economic analysis and policy choices

This paper reviews the economic aspects of the options facing developing countries in implementing intellectual property right protection for agricultural plant varieties under the WTO TRIPS agreement (Article 27(3)b). The various provisions possible in a sui generis system of plant varietal protection (PVP) are summarised, including those specified in the existing Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) treaties of 1978 and 1991. The paper then examines the limited economic research that has been conducted on the impacts of PVP and that may be of use to policy makers faced with current decisions. This review finds that the research to-date has not yet demonstrated overwhelming net benefits from PVP. The evidence so far is weakly supportive of positive contributions by PVP to agricultural productivity. The paper concludes further research on this issue is necessary given the ongoing review of the TRIPS agreement and the efforts underway in many developing countries to implement such systems. The paper also identifies some of the key topics forming a research agenda of interest for developing countries. Further research should focus on the impacts of specific provisions, in particular, that of farm-saved seed, as opposed to the effects of PVP as a whol

Third-party copyright and public information infrastructure/registries: How much copyright tax must the public pay?

In a case currently before the High Court of Australia (Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) v NSW ) the fundamental question at issue is whether the owner (in this case surveyors) of copyright material (in this case land survey plans) that is submitted as part of a public register (in this case the land titles registry) with all the benefits that entails, should nonetheless have the right to charge the government and end users every time they reproduce or communicate that material to the public. This book chapter examines the merits of this claim

The shock of the real: Psychoanalysis, modernity, survival

The contemporary relevance of psychoanalysis is being increasingly questioned; Off the Couch challenges this view, demonstrating that psychoanalytic thinking and its applications are both innovative and relevant, in particular to the management and treatment of more disturbed and difficult to engage patient groups. Chapters address: Clinical applications in diverse settings across the age range the relevance of psychoanalytic thinking to the practice of CBT, psychosomatics and general psychiatry the contribution of psychoanalytic thinking to mental health policy and the politics of conflict and mediation. This book suggests that psychoanalysis has a vital position within the public health sector and discusses how it can be better utilised in the treatment of a range of mental health problems. It also highlights the role of empirical research in providing a robust evidence base. Off the Couch will be essential reading for those practicing in the field of mental health and will also be useful for anyone involved in the development of mental health and public policies. It will ensure that practitioners and supervisors have a clear insight into how psychoanalysis can be applied in general healthcare

Content and Context: The Contributions of William Van Alstyne to First Amendment Interpretation

Not available

\u3ci\u3eEldred\u3c/i\u3e and \u3ci\u3eLochner\u3c/i\u3e: Copyright Term Extension and Intellectual Property as Constitutional Property

Since the ratification of the constitution, intellectual property law in the United States has always been, in part, constitutional law. Among the enumerated powers that Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress is the power to create certain intellectual property rights. To a remarkable extent, scholars who have examined the Constitution\u27s Copyright Clause have reached a common position. With striking unanimity, these scholars have called for aggressive judicial review of the constitutionality of congressional legislation in this area. The champions of this position--we refer to them as the IP Restrictors--represent a remarkable array of constitutional and intellectual property scholars. In this terms\u27s Eldred v. Aschroft, leading IP Restrictor Lawrence Lessig, representing petitioner Eric Eldred, sought to convince the Supreme Court that the IP Restrictors\u27 view of the Copyright Clause was the correct one. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court rejected Eldred\u27s claim and upheld the statute. But while the Court rejected the IP Restrictors\u27 vision, it did not offer a satisfactory competing conception of the Copyright Clause and how the courts should construe it. Critically, even though the standard of review was of central significance, the Court applied a deferential form of rational basis scrutiny without explaining why this was the appropriate standard. This paper develops the case for deferential review of congressional legislation in the area of intellectual property and, at a deeper level, offers a new paradigm for understanding the Copyright Clause. We propose that from the vantage point of constitutional law, intellectual property should be treated as a form of constitutional property. Deference to congressional judgments is warranted because congressional legislation affecting intellectual property is analytically similar to congressional legislation affecting other forms of property. Courts subject congressional legislation affecting traditional forms of property to deferential review because of concerns about institutional competence and respect for majoritarian decisionmaking. These two concerns in conjunction with proper regard for holistic constitutional interpretation should also lead courts to deferential review of congressional legislation affecting intellectual property.In developing our position, we draw on constitutional history and, in particular, the lessons of Lochner v. New York. In defense of their vision of the Constitution, the IP Restrictors and the dissenters in Eldred make claims about the original understanding that, to an astonishing extent, echo those made by proponents of Lochner-era jurisprudence. We argue, however, that these claims fail for two reasons. First, the IP Restrictors and the dissenters disregard the limited scope of judicial review at the time of the Founding. Additionally, the IP Restrictors and dissenters disregard the range of views among the Founders about monopolies

Editorial: Feminism, women’s movements and women in movement

Introduction to Special Issue that engages with the increasingly important, separate yet interrelated themes of feminism, women’s movements and women in movement in the context of global neoliberalism

Feminism, women’s movements and women in movement

Non peer reviewedPublisher PD