Access to essential technologies: The role of the interface between intellectual property, competition and human rights1

This article develops arguments made in my doctoral thesis (2009) ‘A legal solution for a real problem: the interface between intellectual property, competition and human rights’. This is available from the library of the University of Edinburgh. This thesis considers mainly the use of the three fields in court actions in the UK and the possible impact of regional and international courts.

Abstract

Intellectual property (IP) can stimulate innovation but it can also impose restrictions on the wider development of and access to essential technologies. Yet IP should be viewed within the context of a larger legal framework, which includes the laws of human rights and competition. This article introduces these laws into this larger framework and explores their relationship with IP. The article reviews steps which have been taken at policy level to manage the impact of IP, notably the draft Access to Knowledge Treaty, and the new contribution which could be made using human rights and competition law. It then proposes further amendment of TRIPS (the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) as the most effective approach to securing a new place for IP and discusses the challenges which may be encountered.

Keywords:

• intellectual property
• competition
• human rights

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the Christie Law Research Fellowship and to Oriana Farley for research assistance. All weblinks were accurate as of October 2009.

Notes

This article develops arguments made in my doctoral thesis (2009) ‘A legal solution for a real problem: the interface between intellectual property, competition and human rights’. This is available from the library of the University of Edinburgh. This thesis considers mainly the use of the three fields in court actions in the UK and the possible impact of regional and international courts.

If they are WTO members, states are subject to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization 1994 which incorporates the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Annex 1C) (‘TRIPS’). See also P. Drahos, ‘Negotiating Intellectual Property: Between Coercion and Dialogue’, in Global Intellectual Property Rights. Knowledge, Access and Development, ed. P. Drahos and R. Mayne (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002) 161. Regarding philosophy, see J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government (New York: The Legal Classics Library, 1994),169, 185–8 and W.J. Gordon, ‘A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property’, Yale Law Journal 102 (May 1993): 1533.

See Locke, Two Treatises of Government; J. Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (New York: Hafner, 1963); R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (London: Duckworth, 1977); and J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). For the Draft Asian Charter of Human Rights, see http://www.ahrchk.net/charter/ and for the Internet Rights Charter, see http://www.apc.org/en/news/governance/world/apc-updates-groundbreaking-internet-rights-charter and http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/node/226

See the webpage ‘Competition Law and Policy’ at http://www.unctad.org/Templates/StartPage.asp?intItemID=2239&lang=1. See P. Marsden, A Competition Policy for the WTO (London: Cameron May, 2003), Decision of General Council, 1 August 2004, WT/L/579 at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/draft_text_gc_dg_31july04_e.htm and the WTO webpage ‘Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy’ at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/comp_e/comp_e.htm. For examples of legislation, see Articles 81 and 82 EC Treaty (now Articles 101 and 102 Treaty on Functioning of the European Union), Sections 75 and 78 et seq, Competition Act 1998 (Canada), Sections 45 and 46, Trade Practices Act (Cth) 1974 (Australia), and Sections 1 and 2, Sherman Act 1890 (United States), and Sections 5 and 8, Competition Act 1998 (South Africa).

Regarding competition, see the consideration in H. Hovenkamp, M.D. Janis and M.A. Lemley, ‘Unilateral Refusals to License’, Journal of Competition Law and Economics 2, no. 1, 1–42 and H. Ullrich, ‘The Interaction between Competition Law and Intellectual Property Law: An Overview’, in (2007) The Interface between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy, ed. S.D. Anderman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Commission Notice Guidelines on the application of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to technology transfer agreements O.J. C 101, 27 April 2004, pp. 2–42 and US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (1995). See also Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights ‘The right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he or she is the author’ General Comment No. 17 (2005), at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/E.C.12.GC.17.En?OpenDocument and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Intellectual Property and human rights, Sub-Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2000/7 and 2001/21 regarding the implementation of TRIPS and human rights.

Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142 [2002] Ch. 149, and see P. Johnson, ‘The Public Interest: Is it Still a Defence to Copyright Infringement?’, Entertainment Law Review 16, no. 1 (2005), 1–6 and M.D. Birnhack, ‘Acknowledging the Conflict Between Copyright and Freedom of Expression under the Human Rights Act’, Entertainment Law Review 14, no. 2 (2003), 24–34. For other jurisdictions, see Cie Generale Des Establishments Michelin – Michelin & Cie v. CAW – Canada (T.D.) T-825-94 [1997] 2 F.C. 306 1996 F.C. LEXIS 199; Rowling v. Uitgeverij Byblos BV [2004] E.C.D.R. 7 (Netherlands); Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises 471 U.S. 539 (United States); cf. Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257 (United States); in the Netherlands, J. Krikke, ‘Netherlands – Infringement by Quotation – Confidentiality of Documents – Freedom of Speech – Human Rights’, European Intellectual Property Review 26, no. 4 (2004), N50-1, and ‘Final Victory! XS4ALL and Spaink Win Scientology Battle’, 16 December 2005, available at http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/bericht.php?msect=nieuws&id=706&taal=en; Laugh it Off Promotions CC v. South African Breweries International (Finance) BV T/A SAB International, CCT42/04, available at http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/0/0/5/0 (South Africa); Societe Gervais Danone v. Societe le Reseau Voltaire [2003] E.T.M.R 26 Tribunal de Grande Instance (Paris) (2001)).

Volvo AB v. Erik Veng (UK) Ltd (238/87) [1988] E.C.R. 6211. Re: licensing, see Radio Telefis Eireann v. Commission of the European Communities (C-241/91 P) [1995] E.C.R. I-743 (re: TV listings); IMS Health GmbH & Co OHG v. NDC Health GmbH & Co KG (C418/01) [2004] All E.R. (EC) 813 [2004] E.C.R. I-5039 (re: data sets); Microsoft Corp v. Commission of the European Communities (T-201/04) [2007] 5 C.M.L.R. 11 (re: interoperability). See e.g. E. Derclaye, ‘The IMS Health Decision and the Reconciliation of Copyright and Competition Law’, European Law Review 29, no. 5 (2004): 687–97; H. Meinberg, ‘From Magill to IMS Health: The New Product Requirement and the Diversity of Intellectual Property Rights’, European Intellectual Property Review 28, no. 7(2006): 398–403: D. Ridyard, ‘Compulsory Access Under EC Competition Law – A New Doctrine of Convenient Facilities and the Case for Price Regulation’, European Competition Law Review 25, no. 11 (2004): 669–73. Re: action, see Decision of EC Court of First Instance ITT Promedia NV v. Commission of the European Communities (T111/96) [1998] ECR II-2937[1998] 5 C.M.L.R. 491 paras 30, 55, 56 and English decision SanDisk Corp v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV [2007] EWHC 332 (Ch) [2007] F.S.R. 22 paras 43–5 and 60. A more fluid approach is supported by IMS para 38, Volvo AB v. Erik Veng (UK) Ltd (238/87) [1988] E.C.R. 621; and Commission Decision relating to a Proceeding Under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft), March 2004. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/decisions/37792/en.pdf (‘Commission Microsoft’), paras 555–8 and Intel Corp v. VIA Technologies Inc [2002] EWCA Civ 1905; [2003] F.S.R. 33, paras 48–51. Regarding the USA, see Verizon Commc'ns, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP 540 U.S. 398 New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 323 F. Supp. 2d 559. See The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission ‘Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition’ 2007, available at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/innovation/P040101PromotingInnovationandCompetitionrpt0704.pdf. Regarding actions, see Federal Trade Commission Staff Report ‘Enforcement Perspectives on the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine’ at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/P013518enfperspectNoerr-Penningtondoctrine.pdf

Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization, available at http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/futureofwipodeclaration.html and ‘The 45 Adopted Recommendations under the WIPO Development Agenda’, available at http://www.wipo.int/ip-development/en/agenda/recommendations.html and see generally http://www.wipo.int/ip-development/en/agenda/; draft A2K Treaty, available at http://www.cptech.org/a2k/a2k_treaty_may9.pdf; Adelphi Charter, available at http://sitoc.biz/adelphicharter/adelphi_charter.asp.htm; World Trade Organization ‘Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’, DOHA WTO MINISTERIAL 2001: TRIPS. Adopted on 14 November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2, 20 November 2001, available at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm; World Trade Organization ‘Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’ Decision of the General Council on 30 August 2003 WT/:/540 and Corr.1, available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/implem_para6_e.htm, and Chairperson's statement of 13 November 2003, WT/GC/M/82, available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/gc_stat_30aug03_e.htm; World Trade Organization Decision of General Council, 1 August 2004, WT/L/579, available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/draft_text_gc_dg_31july04_e.htm; and World Trade Organization, Decision of the General Council, 6 December 2005, ‘Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement’, WT/L/641, available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/wtl641_e.htm and Chairperson's statement, available at http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news05_e/trips_319_e.htm and the WHO's Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health, available at http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/en/; World Summit Information Society outcomes, available at http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html.

There is a wealth of material. For daily updates regarding the world of IP see http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog. WIPO standing committee on the law of patents, available at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=17448; IGF, available at http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/igf/index.html; Climate Action Network, ‘International Submission to UNFCCC Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Regarding Technology Cooperation and Sharing’, 24 April 2009, available at http://www.ciel.org/Publications/CAN_Position_Tech_24Apr09.pdf, see p. 5; WTO/UNEP, ‘Trade and Climate Change’ 26 June 2009, available at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/trade_climate_change_e.pdf and for details of the work see UN Framework Convention on Climate Change's ‘Contact Group on Enhanced Action on Development and Transfer of Technology’, available at http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/technology29091009v03.pdf; World Health Assembly 2009, available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/2009/wha62/en/index.html; WIPO SCCR 18 documents, available at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=17458 and see also James Love, ‘Final Conclusions of WIPO SCCR 18’, 29 May 2009, available at http://www.keionline.org/blogs/ and the conclusions of the December 2009 SCCR 19 meeting, available at http://keionline.org/node/736; and the Resolution of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue on the enforcement of copyright, trademarks, patents and other intellectual property rights of 18 June 2009, available at http://tacd.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=234&Itemid=40, in particular sections (b) and (d)

P. Drahos, ‘The Global Intellectual Property Ratchet: Why it Fails as Policy and What Should be Done About It’, Paper for the Open Society Institute (2003), available at http://cgkd.anu.edu.au/menus/PDFs/IPRatchet_Drahos.pdf; and S.K. Sell, Private Power, Public Law. The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

D. Gervais, ‘Knowledge Creation Systems on the International Stages: Of Clusters and Assumptions: Innovation as Part of a Full TRIPS Implementation’, Fordham Law Review 77 (April 2009): 2353.

A2K Treaty Article 3-1 to 3-5; Article 4-1; part 5; Article 6-3, 4 see also 7-3; and part 7. Part 12 is the enforcement section. For details of the WTO dispute resolution, see Article 64(1) TRIPS. See e.g. United States – Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act DS160, available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds160_e.htm and Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, DS 114, available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds114_e.htm (considering the place of Articles 7 and 8, TRIPS). Re: remedies, see H. Grosse Ruse-Kahn, ‘A Pirate of the Caribbean? The Attractions of Suspending TRIPS Obligations’, Journal of International Economic Law 11, no. 2(2008): 313–364.

The Parties involved in negotiating the terms of ACTA include: Australia, Canada, the European Union and its 27 Member States, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland and the United States. See ‘Obama Administration Denies Request to Release ACTA Docs’, Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, 13, no. 10 (18 March 2009), available at http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridgesweekly/43452/; Summary of ACTA, available at http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2009/april/acta-summary-key-elements-under-discussion and Press Release, ‘Joint statement: anti-counterfeiting trade agreement’, dated 12 June 2009, available at http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/fo/press-release-communique.aspxa; regarding non-disclosure, see material at http://www.keionline.org/node/666

E.g. agreement between the United States of America and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area, available at http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/us-jrd/GTSUS.asp. See C.M. Correa, ‘Pro-Competitive Measures Under TRIPS to Promote Technology Diffusion in Developing Countries’, in Global Intellectual Property Rights. Knowledge, Access and Development, ed. P. Drahos and R. Mayne (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 40. This could in turn lead to all countries increasing their own levels of IP protection: see P. Drahos, ‘BITS and BIPS: Bilateralism in Intellectual Property’, Journal of World Intellectual Property 4 (2001): 791–808. Section 301, Trade Act 1974, and Section 1303, Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 1988; S. Ghosh, ‘Comment II: Competitive Baselines for Intellectual Property Systems’, in International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, ed. K.E. Maskus and J.H. Reichman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 793; and sets of reports on the Knowledge Ecology International website at http://keionline.org/ustr/special301

See In the Matter of Rambus, Inc., Docket No. 9302, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/060802commissionopinion.pdf (decision of the Federal Trade Commission); Rambus Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, 522 F.3d 456, Case number COMP /38.636 and EC Commission Press release available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/273&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en, MEMO/09/273, 12 June 2009. Compare, however, a 2009 decision from Germany, reviewed in P. Treacy and S. Lawrance, ‘Doing Things by the (Orange) Book: How to Avoid an Injunction for Unlicensed Use of Standard/Essential Patents’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 4, no. 9 (2009): 607–8. Re: human rights, Anheuser-Busch Inc v. Portugal (73049/01) [2007] E.T.M.R. 24 (2007) 45 E.H.R.R. 36 and Levi Strauss & Co v. Tesco Stores Ltd [2002] EWHC 1625 (Ch) [2002] 3 C.M.L.R. 11 [2003] R.P.C. 18. For wider discussion of the combination of legal fields and the challenges this can pose, see L.R. Helfer, ‘Regime Shifting: The TRIPS Agreements and New Dynamics of International Intellectual Property Lawmaking’, Yale Journal of International Law 29, no. 1 (Winter 2004): 307–15; M.P. Puwatch, ‘The Process of Intellectual Property Policy-Making in 21st Century – Shifting from General Welfare Model to a Multi-Dimensional One’, European Intellectual Property Review 31, no. 6, (2009): 307; A. Kapczynski, ‘The Access to Knowledge Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual Property’, The Yale Law Journal 117 (2008): 804 and V. Vadi, ‘Sapere Aude! Access to Knowledge as a Human Right and a Key Instrument of Development’, International Journal Communications Law and Policy, 12 (Winter 2008): 345.