It is not today that intellectual property serves as an instrument to secure agreements or business deals. These are laws that involve property over immaterial goods of very high value, generating much discomfort in governments that can not or do not want to control much access to protected intellectual property. The Brazilian case is quite emblematic. And the WTO has been an immense political instrument for such purposes.
In this sense, the United States has created the Special 301 (Section 1303 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988) authorizing the USTR to place a particular country on a watch list, as Had a punishment, an “ill-bred” boy, who does not respect the neighbor’s candy. This means that due to miscreation, it is monitored to see if it can improve its behavior regarding how it respects – or not – property rights – especially Americans. The American demand is that Brazil be more severe in the fight against piracy, this involves more police action and safe and energetic laws. It is not possible to please everyone, so the question remains: who favors this rigor? Certainly who owns it. Who owns proprietary property?
The INPI recently published news on the subject, implying that Brazil would be congratulated (http://www.inpi.gov.br/noticias/states-unidos-mantem-brasil-em-list-of-observacao-sobre -protection-of-rights-of-pi-1 / view). In fact, we seem to have lacked a little more clarity about the meaning of this list for the Americans, and the consquences of Brazil’s permanence in it. Is this a good thing? It seems the news wants to imply that it does. Brazil is undoubtedly an American trading partner, but on the other hand, it is on the list of countries that are not treating piracy as it should be. And in fact, piracy is piracy, an injury to everyone, including the pirate himself, since he has chosen a way to make money that is nothing more than an illicit enrichment, which is not only illegal, it is criminal. What is lacking in Brazil, on the other hand, is to discuss – and not just to Brazil – the very concept of “piracy”, since the United States has made a point – and also the Europeans (read WIPO) – of Concept to any unauthorized copy. Which is already exaggerated. Then there is space to start talking about abuse of rights, monopolies, oligopolies and so on .
KRETSCHMANN, Ângela. Políticas de Inovação: estratégias de crescimento e sustentabilidade. In: KRETSCHMANN, Angela; SILVA, Ricardo Muniz Muccillo da. (Org.). Propriedade Industrial, inovação e sustentabilidade. 1ed.Florianópolis: Conceito, 2016, v. 1, p. 65-90.
KRETSCHMANN, Ângela. O feudalismo no direito autoral: um mal necessário? IN SIMÃO. José Fernando, BELTRÃO, Silvio Romero. Direito Civil: estudos em homenagem a José de Oliveira Ascensão: teoria geral do direito, bioética, direito intelectual e sociedade da informação. v. 1, 2015. p. 169-189.
KRETSCHMANN, Ângela. A transição legal e o desespero enciclopédico da lei autoral brasileira. IN Direito da Propriedade Intelectual: Estudos em homenagem ao Pe. Bruno Jorge Hammer. Juruá, 2014.
KRETSCHMANN, Ângela; SARLET, Ingo Wolfgang. Direitos autorais como direitos fundamentais? Revista Jurídica do Cesuca, v. 1, n. 1, jul/2013. p. 10-21.
KRETSCHMANN, Ângela. Autorschaft, Schöpfung und Originalität: einige Überlegungen aus unterschiedlichen Blickwinkeln. HUMBOLDT FORUM RECHTS, v. 2, p. 4-9, 2016.
In order to publicize the importance of Intellectual Property, during the month of April INPI will seek to encourage reflection on the subject. Next April 26 is considered the day of the IP, and in order to foster this reflection, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), celebrates on April 26, this year, with the theme “Innovation – Improving Lives”. It seeks to disseminate innovation and knowledge for the protection of new intellectual creations. The celebration during the month of April is held in partnership with the WIPO and the Museum of Tomorrow, encouraging the social debate on the relationship of IP and Innovation.
See more details at: