Write On! Gender, culture, IP

(Write On! is an occasional item about notable calls for papers)

Organizers are seeking papers on "gender and the production of traditional cultural knowledge" for the 8th Annual Symposium on IP/Gender: Mapping the Connections, to be held in D.C. on April 1, 2011, by the Program on Information Justice & Intellectual Propert, the Women and the Law Program, and the Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, all at American University Washington College of Law. The special theme for this year's symposium is Gender and Traditional Cultural Expressions.

The full call for papers takes note of a relevant, 2010 initiative by the World Intellectual Property Organization, then states that such

developments have given new prominence to the question of what useful role intellectual property may play in correcting underlying historical imbalances. In many places, women are deemed to be the most important practitioners and custodians of certain old arts, with many cultural 'traditions' being passed primarily or exclusively from one generation of women to the next. Therefore, the consequences of introducing IP regimes in this area may have special significance for women and their communities, or may reflect underlying assumptions about gender, women's proper role in decolonization and development, and the distributive consequences of IP regimes. This workshop seeks to examine those questions in the context of the larger discussion about propertization of traditional cultural expressions.

The deadline for submission of 500-word abstracts, outlining papers or works in progress in line with the topics set forth in the full call, has been extended to February 18, 2011.

Details, including the full call for papers and a submission form, are here.

Guest Blogger: Estelle Derclaye

It's IntLawGrrls' great pleasure to welcome Dr. Estelle Derclaye (left) as today's guest blogger.
Associate Professor and Reader in Intellectual Property Law at the School of Law of the University of Nottingham in England, Estelle earned her 1st degree in law from the University of Liège in Belgium, followed by an LL.M. from George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and a Ph.D. in law from the University of London.
Before joining the Nottingham faculty in 2006, Estelle had practiced intellectual property law at the Brussels office of Covington & Burling LLP, and been a lecturer at the universities of Leicester and London. She has been a visiting lecturer at the universities of Liège, Brussels, Turin, Montpellier, Paris-Sud and King's College London, and was a scholar at the Munich-based Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law in 2002 and 2004. In 2008, she was appointed as a member of the Copyright Expert Panel of the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy, which advises Britain's Intellectual Property Office.
Estelle’s scholarship focuses on intellectual property law; in particular, copyright and designs law. She is the author of The Legal Protection of Databases: A Comparative Analysis (2008) and Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright (2009), and co-author, with Alain Strowel, of Droit d'auteur et numérique: logiciels, bases de données et multimédia - Droit belge, européen et comparé (2001).
Estelle discusses her scholarship in her guest post below; specifically, she analyzes linkages between climate change and patent law, and sets out recommendations for the use of patent law to help cool the planet.
Heartfelt welcome!

Patent law & climate change

Many thanks to IntLawGrrls for this giving me this opportunity to appear as a guest blogger especially on a topic that is close to my heart – finding solutions to global warming.
I am an intellectual property lawyer, and in the course of my research I wondered whether intellectual property law can do something to alleviate the global warming problem. It has now almost become trite to say that this is one of the most pressing problems we are facing. Very few would also now deny that humans are the cause of this greenhouse effect and the correlated climate change. What has not been much noted so far is that this extraordinary release of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere may be due in major part to our patent laws.
Indeed, the main goal of patent laws is to incentivise industrial and technological development. This, in turn, creates pollution, including the release of greenhouse gases. (photo credit) The question underlying my scholarship, therefore, is whether patent law should play a role in the protection of the environment and, more specifically, in the cooling of the planet.
The question itself raises questions:
► 1st, Do patent justifications accommodate this goal? This is the subject of an article of mine, “Patent's role in the protection of the environment: re-assessing patent law and its justifications in the 21st century,” that recently appeared at 40 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 249 (2009), a publication of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, based in Munich, Germany.
My article reveals that despite outwardly neutrality, patent laws in fact already cater to some extent for the protection of the environment, through Article 53(a) of the European Patent Convention and corresponding national provisions. That provision in the 1973 regional treaty states as follows:

Exceptions to patentability
European patents shall not be granted in respect of:
(a) inventions the publication or exploitation of which would be contrary to "ordre public" or morality, provided that the exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation in some or all of the Contracting States; ....

My research further shows that current justifications do not prevent taking environmental concerns, and more particularly climate change, into account. Some seem even amenable to such concerns. In this light, I submit that patent justifications and laws should be re-thought to include environmental goals.
► 2d, Notwithstanding this conclusion, should patent law be fulfilling this role, in addition to environmental law? If so, what role -- modest or more pronounced -- should patent law play in the prevention of pollution, and the reduction of greenhouse gases in particular? How should this role be implemented in practice? Seeking answers to this set of questions is another article of mine, “Should patent law help cool the planet? An inquiry from the point of view of environmental law,” published in 2 installments, Part 1 in issue 4 of volume 31 European Intellectual Property Review (2009) beginning at page 168, and Part 2 in issue 5 beginning at page 227.
This article shows that whatever the position of positive patent law and its philosophical justifications may be, in the European Union, patent laws must take account of environmental laws, because the European Community Treaty forces them to. Part 1 reviews general environmental principles as they apply to the issue of climate change, as well as specific rules relating to global warming, in order to discover the impact of environmental laws on patent laws. Part 2 analyses how patent law can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere over and above the standard now set by environmental laws. It reviews the different possible systems that can be put in place and recommends a method to ascertain the eco-friendliness of an invention and who should bear this burden of proof. Concluding that patent laws urgently need to address environmental concerns and, more particularly, the problem of climate change, the article advocates the adoption of a mixed system.
To date my research focuses on European and national patent and environmental laws, with respect to a specific problem, global warming. Many of the conclusions might also apply to environmental protection in general, but more research would need to be carried out to make such general extrapolation.

On September 5

On this day in ...
... 1899 (110 years ago today), Helen Creighton was born into "a very socially prominent family" in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. Contrary to what was expected of "young ladies" of the day, she earned a music diploma a McGill University and later graduated from Halifax Ladies’ College. After a brief stint as a social worker, she went to Mexico to teach in the American School in Guadalajara, then returned to Canada and became a writer and radio-reader of children's stories. "In 1928, she started on the most important work she would eventually be known for": collecting 40,000 items of Nova Scotia's folklore. Walking through the province, she gathered stories and songs from the Gaelic, Acadian, Mi'kmaq, English, German, French, and African-Nova Scotia cultures. (credit for 1954 photo of Creighton, center, in process of recording) Her methods varied from using a melodeon to recording via wax cylinders, acetate disks, and, eventually, audio tapes. The author of 13 books, Creighton received many honors and honorary degrees in recognition of her work, which she continued until her death on December 12, 1989.

(Prior September 5 posts are here and here.)

On May 5

On this day in ...
... 1809 (200 years ago today), inventor Mary Dixon Kies became the 1st woman to receive a U.S. patent. Kies patented a method of weaving straw with silk, which enabled her to make hats like that at right. Though conceivable since passage of the Patent Act of 1790, this had not been achieved by women, according to the Library of Congress, "because in many states women could not legally own property independent of their husbands," so that "many women inventors didn't bother to patent their new inventions." "Today," it is written, "hundreds of thousands of women apply for and receive U.S. patents every year, with more than 12 percent of all patent applications including a woman inventor."
... 1955, occupiers withdrew from the western part of what once had been a single country, thus establishing the sovereign state of the Federal Republic of Germany (left). "The end of the Allied occupation of West Germany meant a full recognition of the republic as a member of the western alliance against the Soviet Union." Reunification of Germany's 2 parts would not occur until 1990.

(Prior May 5 posts are here and here.)

Guest Blogger: Mira Burri

It is IntLawGrrls' great pleasure today to welcome Dr. Mira Burri (left) as a guest blogger.
Mira is a Senior Research Fellow at the World Trade Institute, an interdisciplinary research center in Bern, Switzerland, and is also an adjunct lecturer in international media law at the University of Bern. Since 2005, she has served as the Alternate Leader of the research project 'eDiversity: The Protection of Cultural Diversity in a Digital Networked Environment' (IP7), which is part of the umbrella project of NCCR Trade Regulation.
She received her law degree from the University of Sofia and a Master of Advanced European Studies from the European University Institute of the University of Basel. Her doctoral thesis, published in 2007, dealt with the electronic communications and competition law of the European Communities; it was awarded the Professor Walther Hug Prize for one of the best doctoral theses in law in Switzerland.
Prior to joining the eDiversity project, Mira was a research fellow at the University of Lucerne and contributed actively to establishing i-call, a research center on International Communications and Art Law in Lucerne. She is a member of the editorial board of the International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, of the Association of Internet Researchers, and of the Law and Society Association.
As her SSRN author page indicates, Mira's scholarship focuses on trade and culture. She is a co-editor of Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions in a Digital Environment (2008), Free Trade versus Cultural Diversity: WTO Negotiations in the Field of Audiovisual Services (2004), and Digital Rights Management: The End of Collecting Societies? (2005).
In her guest post below, Mira draws upon her paper, entitled "Trade and Culture: Keep the Border Fuzzy, Please," to examine paths to (re)conciliation between global trade and culture.
She dedicates her post to Dr. Emilie Kempin-Spyri (below right), about whom Mira writes:

Emilie Kempin-Spyri (1853–1901) was the first Swiss woman to study law. She was also the first to become a professor in the German-speaking part of Europe and had been a pioneer in promoting women’s rights. Thanks to her ardent efforts, in 1898 the law of Canton Zurich was amended to allow women to be admitted to the bar, despite the fact that they did not possess the right to vote at the time (this rule was implemented nationwide only in 1923).
Kempin-Spyrie has been credited with the formation and the success of the New York University's first woman's law class, held on October 30, 1890. Along with Mrs. Fanny B. Webber, Dr. Kempin also founded a legal aid society to assist the poor. Her influence on future generations of women in the legal profession, both as academics and as practitioners, is undoubtedly great and it is worth to pause a minute and think of her example.
Dr. Kempin was recently celebrated at the University of Zurich, where she had studied and taught, with the installation of an oversized chaise longue depicted below, made by the Swiss avant-garde artist Pipilotti Rist.

Today Kempin-Spyrie joins IntLawGrrls' other transnational foremothers in the list below our "visiting from..." map at right.

Heartfelt welcome!

On March 20

On this day in ...

... 2009 (today), is celebrated World Storytelling Day, set aside to encourage the sharing of stories not frozen by the written word. Share some good yarns with some good friends.

... 1883, the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property was signed at Paris, France. Among the 1st intellectual property treaties it made patents more accessible across borders.

(Prior March 20 posts are here and here.)

Guest Blogger: Molly Beutz Land

It's my pleasure to welcome Molly Beutz Land (left) as our guest blogger today. Molly is an associate professor of law at New York Law School, where she teaches Civil Procedure, Conflict of Laws, International Intellectual Property, and International Human Rights. Drawing on her human rights expertise and background as an IP litigator, Molly's scholarship focuses on access to knowledge and the intersection of intellectual property and human rights, as exemplified by her blog today, in which she discusses her forthcoming article, Protecting Rights Online.

I first met Molly when she was awarded the Robert L. Bernstein Fellowship in International Human Rights in 2002. After completing the fellowship, which she spent at Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, Molly was a visiting lecturer in law and the Robert M. Cover/Allard K. Lowenstein Fellow in International Human Rights at Yale Law School. Her interest in access to knowledge grows out of her work on economic rights and gender issues while co-teaching the Lowenstein Human Rights Clinic and at Minnesota Advocates, which included filing amicus briefs in cases challenging sexual harassment in schools and discrimination based on sexual orientation before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and leading fact-finding teams reporting on domestic violence against immigrant women in Minnesota, HIV/AIDS and women's rights in Zambia. After graduation from Yale Law School in 2001, Molly clerked for the Honorable Denise Cote in the Southern District of New York. Between 2003 and 2005, she litigated copyright, trademark, and patent cases with Faegre & Benson LLP.
Molly has chosen Clara Barton, the humanitarian, feminist, and founder of the American Red Cross, as her transnational foremother. Barton, born in 1821, performed her first nursing role at the tender age of 11, when she nursed her brother David through a serious illness. Six years later, she became a teacher, founding her own school at the age of 23.

Following her studies, Barton opened a free school in New Jersey. The attendance under her leadership grew to 600 but instead of hiring Barton to head the school, the board hired a man instead. Frustrated, she moved to Washington D.C. and began work as a clerk in the U.S. Patent Office; this was the first time a woman had received a substantial clerkship in the federal government.
With the emergence of the Civil War, Barton refused to take a salary from the government's treasury and dedicated herself aiding soldiers on the front. Never before had women been allowed in hospitals, camps or on battlefields; initially, military and civil officials declined her help. Eventually, she gained the trust of these officials and began receiving supplies from all over the country. As a result of her untiring work, she became known as the "Angel of the Battlefield." Officially, she became the superintendent of Union nurses in 1864 and began obtaining camp and hospital supplies, assistants and military trains for her work on the front. She practiced nursing exclusively on battlefields, experiencing first-hand the horrors of war on sixteen different battlefields.

After learning about and observing the Red Cross while travelling in Europe, Barton learned that the United States had not signed the Treaty of Geneva establishing the institution. After campaigning for the U.S. to join the treaty, which it did in 1882, she became the President of the American National Red Cross, a position she held for twenty-two years until she retired at the age of 83. Barton's work in the United States included humanitarian assistance in peacetime, leading to the "American Amendment" to expand the Geneva Convention to include this concept.
Barton was also a passionate suffragist, working with Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone and others. She received many awards, including the Iron Cross, the Cross of Imperial Russia and the International Red Cross Medal. Heartfelt welcome!

Protecting Rights Online

My thanks to IntLawGrrls for inviting me to blog about my article, Protecting Rights Online, forthcoming in the Yale Journal of International Law this winter. The article examines the relationship between the emerging “access to knowledge” or “A2K” movement and the human rights movement. (For a discussion of the A2K movement and its intellectual origins, see Amy Kapczynski’s article, The Access to Knowledge Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual Property.)
The two movements have collaborated in important ways, including in advocating for increased state authority to make available essential medicines in public health emergencies. In the context of Internet regulation, however, they have tended to emphasize very different issues. The A2K movement has focused on the way in which intellectual property rights limit the ability of individuals to take part in cultural life. (See, for example, the Draft Treaty on Access to Knowledge.) Human rights advocates, in contrast, have emphasized state censorship. (See, for example, Human Rights Watch’s report on censorship in China.) In part, this reflects the way in which each discourse arose – one as a response to undue limits placed on national authorities’ ability to protect human welfare, the other from a need to impose limits on how states treat their citizens. These historical contingencies have led the movements to conceptualize the nature of the problem, and therefore the solution, in very different ways.
On a practical level, this indicates that future collaborative efforts should be directed to areas of commonality – namely, situations in which the state is unable to protect the human rights of those within its jurisdiction, either because of lack of resources or commitment or as a result of the state’s international obligations. For example, areas of possible collaboration might include access to healthcare information, access to educational materials, access to legal materials, or Internet censorship that limits the ability of individuals to participate in culture. Work that is currently being done to develop standards that can be used to measure progress on access to knowledge will also help provide a basis for collaboration between A2K and human rights advocates. In terms of institutional design, however, the challenge is in developing regulatory models that both limit how states treat their citizens and protect necessary state authority. I argue that binding but imprecise norms –often seen in the context of environmental regulation – can provide a means for achieving both of these objectives.
Binding but imprecise norms are only a first step toward negotiating what I think is a deeper ambivalence on the international level regarding the relationship between states and international institutions. Although some institutions resolve this problem through doctrines such as the margin of appreciation, what is needed is a much more rigorous theory for how much deference international institutions should assume with respect to domestic authorities and in which situations. This issue presents itself most starkly in the context of intellectual property and investment law, where states are called on to balance multiple sets of international obligations. (For example, there are several steps states might need to take to protect both the right to participate in cultural life and the moral and material interests of authors.) In our decentralized international system of multiple overlapping authorities, such conflicts must necessarily be resolved by individual states. Future collaborative efforts between the human rights and A2K movements may provide opportunities to articulate principles that appropriately delineate between the authority of international institutions and the discretion that should be left to individual states in resolving conflicts between rights.

WTO law and India's patent limitations

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to guest post on our research concerning the relationship between free trade and intellectual property rights, set forth in our paper entitled How Innovative is Innovative Enough? Reflections on the Interpretation of Article 27 TRIPS from Novartis v. Union of India. The case studied is relevant, first, for understanding how developing countries can implement the law of the World Trade Organization (logo below right) in a way that is not harmful to their economies; second and more generally, to defy the misconception that WTO law demands the implementation of ‘pro-patents’ patentability standards.
In 2006, a major lawsuit was initiated by the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis AG. It targeted Section 3(d) of India's Patents Act. As amended in 2005, states:

(3) The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act, --
(d) The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

In its lawsuit Novartis petitioned the High Court of Madras (left) to declare that Section 3(d) did not comply with the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, better known as the TRIPS Agreement. On August 6, 2007, all the petitioner's requests were rejected by the High Court of Madras. The Court did not enter into the merits of the compatibility question, however, as it ruled that it had no jurisdiction on that issue.

Our analysis begins where the verdict of the High Court of Madras ends, as we study the compatibility question in substantive terms. The core of the question relates to the interpretation of Article 27 of TRIPS, which sets out the criteria for patentability (i.e. an invention should be non-obvious, novel and useful). Section 3(d) of India's Patents Act, which identifies cases of inventions that are non-patentable, can be conceptualized as a rule establishing heightened patentability standards. This makes it more difficult for a patent applicant to be granted patents.

Are the standards endorsed by Section 3(d), we ask, compatible with Article 27 TRIPS?

We conclude that they probably are. Our conclusions are derived from the analysis of the economic effects of the disputed rule. This analysis is due because the TRIPS Agreement lists among its purposes the promotion of social and economic welfare (Article 7 ). Customary rules of interpretation of public international law provide that the purposes of the Agreement are to be taken into account in order to clarify the wording of ambiguous rules; in this case the rule set out in TRIPS Article 27.

To assess whether Section 3(d) may contribute in achieving greater welfare, we reviewed a number of economic studies. Some focused on the general effects of a heightened nonobviousness standard; others, on the more contingent issue of the welfare effects of stringent patent regimes on the post-2005 Indian market for pharmaceuticals. Most of these studies suggest that Section 3(d) may contribute to promote welfare. Accordingly, it is likely to be compatible with the TRIPS Agreement.

Our analysis has a number of interesting implications. Most crucially for a general understanding of Article 27 TRIPS, we have shown that the degree of stringency of the patentability standards is far from obvious! ‘Pro-patents’ patentability standards do not necessarily enhance innovation; to the contrary, in many circumstances they can stifle it. This means that the belief that in the post-2005 regime India ought to adopt ‘pro-patents’ patentability standards is misguided. The standard carved into Section 3(d) appears legitimate, therefore; other developing countries may decide to follow suit.

(More WTO news below)

On April 26

On this day in ...
... 1998 (10 years ago today), 75-year-old Juan Gerardi Conedera, a Roman Catholic Bishop, was fatally bludgeoned in Guatemala City, Guatemala. His death occurred 2 days after he issued Nunca Más (Never Again), his "scathing report on human rights violations committed during the country's 36-year civil war." In June 2001, a Guatemalan court sentenced to 30 years in prison the retired colonel, the captain, and the sergeant whom it had convicted of the murder. (photo credit: Bishop Gerardi's funeral procession)
... 2008 (today), is celebrated the 8th annual World Intellectual Property Day. It was founded by the group responsible for monitoring global developments in intellectual property, aptly named the World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO. Its Director General, Kamil Idris, states, with good reason:

The man or woman in the street might wonder just what makes intellectual property worth all this effort. What, they might ask, do the workings of copyrights, patents, industrial designs or trademarks have to do with the really big issues, like how to stop global warming; or with the things that add spice to life, like watching their favorite athletes perform in this year’s Olympics?

His answer:

The answer is that, without intellectual property rights, many new technologies developed to tackle global problems would never see the light of day and the great sporting events, which entertain and unite us, would not be broadcast into homes across the globe.

And for that reason, he concludes:

[O]n World Intellectual Property Day, we pay tribute to the inventors and artists, great and small, who enrich our existence with the fruits of their innovative thoughts and creative vision.

Making an IMPACT against fake malaria pills

In the past few years, panics about pet food, beef, and toys from China have occupied popular discourse — garnering attention from all media outlets. About a year ago, a single article appeared in the New York Times, buried in the health section, on the problem of counterfeit malaria pills. Evidently in some regions, more than half the available malaria medicine is fake. Perversely, this phony malaria medication often contains a small amount of active ingredient, which suppresses symptoms. Doctors and patients alike think the treatment is working, until it is too late. Carried by anopheles mosquitos (below right), malaria, a completely curable disease with proper medication, kills 1 million people a year, the continued lack of attention to this problem is striking. (credit for photos of pills with phony hologram and of mosquito)
Counterfeit pharmaceutical production is an attractive industry that will account for $75 million in annual global sales by 2010. There is an almost endless market for fake malaria pills, created by the sheer number of people affected by the disease and coupled with the high price of pharmaceuticals. It’s also less expensive to enter than, say, the illicit drug industry, because of a lack of local or international laws directly targeting fake drug production. Further, fabrication of counterfeit malaria pills only requires making a product that looks real — there’s no burden to make a pill that actually does anything measurable to the body. There’s also little resistance on the part of local governments to establish manufacturing centers because the industry creates much-needed jobs and because of corruption that allows officials to turn a blind eye. (See also Maria Nelson et al., Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals: A Worldwide Problem, 96 Trademark Reporter 1068 (2006)).
One great place to look for potential solutions to the problem is the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT). Founded by the World Health Organization (WHO) in February of 2006, it is comproed of all of the major anti-counterfeiting players: international organizations, NGOs, enforcement agencies, associations of pharmaceutical manufacturers, and drug and regulatory authorities. IMPACT’s biggest project so far has been the creation of guidelines for states to combat the problem of counterfeit drug production. The guidelines stress that states need to strengthen and enforce local laws, including those related to intellectual property rights and to criminal laws defining manslaughter and murder. IMPACT further encourages the creation and support of regulatory agencies to oversee the safety of pharmaceuticals consumed by their citizens. The guidelines also advise states on the need to address socioeconomic conditions by taking steps including: lowering prescription drug costs, increasing information to patients about diseases like malaria (as with its brochure depicted below), and building more comprehensive local health care industries.
There is clearly no quick fix to such a pervasive transnational problem. However, we expected that because of the gravity of the problem, in a year, the international community would be considering the issue more seriously. Sadly, that hasn’t been the case. While IMPACT has been working on localized projects, we think it should be aiming high by drafting a protocol or convention that would bind state parties — similar to the successful conventions relating to drug trafficking or money laundering.
China has been making changes, however. Likely as a result of last year’s media coverage, just a few weeks ago Chinese authorities announced that they arrested four people involved in a counterfeit malaria pill distribution ring. The manufacturer, however, is still at large. But even as China responds to international pressure to clean up its exports, just this week the New York Times published an article quoting a malaria expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as saying that eradication of malaria is “a pipe dream.” Citing obstacles such as poverty and civil strife, public health specialists appear pessimistic about the possibility of eradication. This negative outlook, while potentially demoralizing, isn’t necessarily bad. If countries worked to fix these bigger issues, as IMPACT advises, the market for counterfeit malarials will decrease, and lives will be saved.

On this day

On February 22, ...

... 1819, in Washington, D.C, U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams and his Spanish counterpart, Luis de Onís, signed the "Treaty of Amity, Settlement and Limits Between the United States of America, and His Catholic Majesty," a pact better known by its signers' names. In the Adams-Onís Treaty (right), which helped to define what is now the U.S.-Mexico border, the United States purchased Florida, renounced any claim to Texas, and agreed to a fixed western boundary for lands it had obtained from France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Spain kept not only Texas, but western territories that today comprise much of the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

... 1774, in London, England, at the conclusion of 2-1/2 weeks of proceedings in the case captioned Donaldson v. Beckett but frequently known as The Question of Literary Property Case, the House of Lords "ended perpetual copyright, and established a limited copyright of fourteen years."

On November 27, ...

... 1999, Helen Clark was elected Prime Minister of New Zealand. On December 5 of the same year Clark (right), born in 1950, was sworn in to the office that she holds to this day. The eldest of 4 girls who grew up on the family sheep ranch, Clark eventually studied and became a lecturer in politics at the University of Auckland. Inspired by issues such as the Vietnam War and South African apartheid, she was elected a Labour Party member of Parliament in 1981. Eventually Clark was dubbed "Mother of the House" as the woman who'd served the longest time in that legislative body. She served in a number of Cabinet ministries before becoming Prime Minister.
... 1963, the Convention on the Unification of Certain Points of Substantive Law on Patents for Invention was signed in Strasbourg, France. Number 47 in the European Treaty Series of the Council of Europe, this Strasbourg Patent Convention, which entered into force on August 1, 1980, helped harmonize patent laws throughout the region.

Go On! "IP and Traditional Knowledge"

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia of interest.) "IP Protection for Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions" is the topic of the day at a conference set for November 9, 2007, at California's Santa Clara University School of Law. (Register here.) To be discussed in addition to intellectual property concerns are global legislative efforts and indigenous rights, all as they relate to traditional knowledge.
An international lineup of panelists, drawn from nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations as well as from academia, will be on hand. Included: Deepa Badrinarayana, Chapman University School of Law; Valerie Phillips, University of Tulsa College of Law; Aroha Te Pareake Mead, University of Victoria, New Zealand, a founding member and Co-Chair of the Call of the Earth Steering Committee; Angela R. Riley, Southwestern University Law School, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation of Oklahoma; and Suzan Shown Harjo, President of the Morning Star Institute.
Kudos to organizer Elizabeth Chien-Hale, whose Institute for Intellectual Property in Asia is a cosponsor along with ASIL-West, the regional project of the American Society of International Law for which yours truly serves as co-chair.