National laws. The USA and Japan adopted, as mentioned, sui generis legislation on inte- grated circuits. Other developed and developing countries (e.g., Australia, Sweden, Austria, Poland, South Korea, Taiwan Province of China, Trinidad and Tobago and Mexico) also followed this approach. Many developing countries have not yet im- plemented any form of protection on this matter.
National laws. Each Member of the WTO takes into account the provisions of Article 70 in the implementation of its TRIPS obligations, and we will not undertake to review that panoply of Member action. However, it may be useful to consider an example of 147 United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 Panel Report, adopted 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345 (U.S. – Section 337). 148 Japan-Measures Concerning Sound Recordings, Request for Consultations by the United States, WT/DS28/1, 14 Feb. 1996; and Japan-Measures Concerning Sound Recordings, Request for Consul- tations from the European Communities, WT/DS42/1, 28 Feb. 1996.
National laws. The interface between intellectual property protection and competition rules re- lating to restrictive business practices is a matter of primary concern in most countries having and actually enforcing competition law. In general, the concern is more with technology-related intellectual property rights (patents, trade se- crets, copyright for computer programs and copyright-protected databases) than with distribution-related trademark protection (the matter is largely covered by general antitrust rules on vertical restraints regarding the various forms of distri- bution systems), or with copyright in general (though there are problems in the media industries and as regards the dominant position of collecting societies). Moreover, the concerns have varied over time, and so have the economic and le- gal analyses of restrictive practices and the resulting terms of the competition rules. These developments are bound to continue as economic insights evolve and technology advances, in particular in the information-based society.87 In addition, 83 For the historical development see the “Chronology” in Xxxxx, Xxxxx, Xxxxx, at p. XXVII, and Sell, Negotiations on an International Code of Conduct for the Transfer of Technology, ibid. at 151 et seq.; Xxxxxxxxxxx, et al., The Draft International Code of Conduct on the Transfer of Technology, Weinheim 1980, 5 et seq. [hereinafter Fikentscher]. 84 See references in the last footnote, and UNCTAD, Secretary-General, Negotiations on an Inter- national Code of Conduct on the Transfer of Technology, Doc. TD/Code TOT/60 of September 6, 1995. 85 For the text of the Draft Code and commentaries relating to Chapter 4 see Xxxxxxxxxxx, at 39 et seq., 64 et seq., 151 et seq.; Xxxxx, Roffe, Xxxxx, Xxxxx XX (p. 417 et seq.); Xxxxxxxx, Overview of the Draft Code, in Xxxxx, Roffe, Xxxxx, at 51, 62 et seq. 86 See UNCTAD Secretariat, The Status of Negotiations: A 1990 Evaluation, in Xxxxx, Roffe, Xxxxx, at 139, 146 et seq.; Xxxxx, Tesfachew, The Unfinished Agenda, in Xxxxx, Roffe, Xxxxx, at 381 et seq.; Xxxxxxxxxxx, at 22 et seq. 87 These new issues are discussed, inter alia, by Church, Ware, Network Industries, Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy, in Anderson, Gallini, at 227 et seq. [hereinafter Church, Xxxx]; Xxxxxxxx, 655, 669 et seq.; Xx Xxxxx, Xxxxx, Competition to Innovate: Strategies for Proper Antitrust Assessments, in Xxxxxxxx at 317 et seq. [hereinafter Xx Xxxxx, Xxxxx]; Xxxxxxx, Intellectual Property, Access to I...
National laws. Article 1.1 addresses the method of implementing the Agreement. Since all WTO Members were required to implement at least certain parts of the Agreement upon its entry into force on 1 January 1995, a large body of national experience has already accumulated. Additional implementation obligations arose on 1 January 1996 and 1 January 2000, depending on the level of development of Members.56 Inquiry regarding national experience in the implementation of TRIPS should include studying the means by which Members have chosen to give effect to the flexibility inherent in the rules, for example, in the adoption of exceptions to gen- eral obligations. Such exceptions have already been the subject of WTO dispute settlement in the fields of patent (Canada-Generics) and copyright (U.S. – Copyright (Homestyle Exemption)).57 There have been notable instances of Members being challenged in national courts regarding compliance with TRIPS Agreement obligations. The most signif- icant and widely reported was the case brought by 39 pharmaceutical companies against the government of South Africa regarding the Medicines and Related Sub- stances Control Amendment Act of 1997. The legal arguments of the pharmaceu- tical companies included that parallel importation of medicines was not allowed 54 United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, Report of the Panel, WT/DS160/R, 15 June 2000 (“U.S. – Copyright (Homestyle Exemption)”), at para. 6.189, note 167. 55 Id., Annex 2.1, First Written Submission of the United States, 26 Oct. 1999, para. 21. 56 For details on the TRIPS transitional periods, see Chapter 33. 57 There is limited discussion of the trademark exceptions in U.S. – Havana Club, but that treatment was not a significant element in the AB decision.
National laws. There have been a considerable number of national and regional court decisions on the subject of exhaustion of rights since the entry into force of TRIPS.
National laws. The overwhelming majority of national laws adopt the scope of copyrightable works provided under the Berne Convention and TRIPS. Some countries have included additional categories of works, such as folklore, in their copyright laws.
National laws. A large cross-section of countries had already extended copyright protection to computer programs prior to the negotiation of TRIPS. Consequently, many coun- tries were already in compliance with Article 10 with respect to the availability of copyright protection for computer programs. However, differences in protec- tion remain, as is particularly evident in the scope of exceptions or limitations to protection. For example, judicial decisions in the United States suggest that soft- ware structure, sequence and organization are protectable under copyright law.84 Other countries have not clearly determined that this is the case under their legisla- tion. In addition, TRIPS requires that computer programs be protected as literary works for a term of the life of the author plus 50 years.85 Those countries which, prior to TRIPS, accorded a lesser term of protection for computer programs must modify their laws to be compliant with the term requirements of TRIPS. An issue not addressed under TRIPS is the use by copyright holders of encryp- tion technologies.86 In this context, it is noteworthy that the U.S. 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), implementing the WCT, makes illegal those acts circumventing encryption technologies, even in cases traditionally consid- ered legal under the fair use exception.87 This kind of approach to encryption is by no means mandatory either under TRIPS or under the WCT. Developing coun- tries are free to deny protection to encryption technologies when these are used to prevent certain public policy goals, such as distance learning. In addition to the move to support encryption practices through copyright, some industries in certain countries are pressing their governments to pass legislation even requiring computer manufacturers to integrate into their products particular devices technically preventing the copying of protected works without the author’s consent.88 However, no such legislation has so far been enacted.
National laws. PARTNER shall comply with all regulations and government discretions prevailing in Indonesia as stated in the regulations.
