To: Vishnu Prakash , Ambassador of India to South Korea

To: Tomasz Kozlowski , Ambassador of EU to South Korea

STOP EU-India FTA
We all safeguards for ‘Pharmacy of the World’, against EU-India FTA negotiations

1. EU-India ministerial level meeting supposed to be held in Brussels on Apr 15 will make a decision on how the future of EU-India will be. Should think about how many heads a 10% of world population will be before tapping on a calculator for the balance of trade. The lives of a 10% people of world population will be imperatively influenced by today’s decision.

2. India is called ‘Pharmacy of the World’. The Indian generic occupies up to 20% of total sales volume of world generic drugs and approximately 10% of world population depends on the Indian generic medicines. Especially, 90% out of total generic AIDS medicines provided into more than 120 developing countries are from India where is expected to provide about 50% of world AIDS medicines. Moreover, 50% essential drugs supplied by UNICEF to the developing world are made in India. Many developing countries like Thailand, Lesotho and Zimbabwe have been sustaining their public healthcare system by counting on the Indian generic drugs.

3. EU-India FTA has a destructive provision to shut down ‘Pharmacy of the World’. ISD(Investor-State Dispute Settlement) empowers investors to file a suit against Indian government when the Indian government creates any policies and/or laws which may cause profit damage to European transnational pharmaceutical companies. Back in Apr 1, the Supreme Court of India gave an historical ruling that significant improvement in treatment allows patent eligibility. All patients and activists around the world defended Section 3(d) of Indian Patent law, blocking Patent ‘Ever-Greening’. However, when ISD is adopted, the Section 3(d) will be paralysed. As seen from a real case in Nov 2012, Eli Lilly, transnational pharmaceutical company, asked for arbitration to Canadian government by claiming that they suffered at the very least CDN $100 million worth of a loss by reason of an invalidity decision on the use patent for Strattera, ADHD medicine by the standards of patentability in Canada.

4. Enforcement provisions of Intellectual Property Rights, which will urge Indian Executive and Judiciary to prioritize the enforcement of private patent rights and which will inhibit generic competition. Above all, Border measures will make export of medicines from India to many other developing countries difficult. We already went through the Border measures in 2008. There were at least 17 cases where generic medicines by India, exporting to South America were confiscated in process of transshipment in the Netherlands, Germany and France as per the request by pharmaceutical giants; Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis and Eli Lilly. According to Art 22.3, EU-India Agreement Draft, ‘Provisional and Precautionary Measures’ states ‘In the case of an infringement committed on a commercial scale, the Parties shall ensure that, if the applicant demonstrates circumstances likely to endanger the recovery of damages, the judicial authorities may order the precautionary seizure of the movable and immovable property of the alleged infringer, including the blocking of his/her bank accounts and other assets’. If the seizures are not alleged infringement but “suspicious” infringement and thus properties and assets of the infringer are seized, to transnational pharmaceutical companies, ‘Provisional and Precautionary Measures’ will be a mighty grounds which paralyses export of Indian generic medicines. ACTA compelling the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights did not win ratification in the European Parliament by protests all over European countries and was thrown out at the end. How absurd it is that the Novel Peace Prize winner of 2012, the EU forces the developing world to abide by the agreements which had been already dumped into the garbage.

5. We all set ourselves up as Safeguards for ‘Pharmacy of the World’. EU-India FTA is not a matter on which EU Cabinet members can make a decision but a critical issue that all patients around the world should decide, who maintain their life with depending on Indian generic medicines. All the safeguards of ‘Pharmacy of the World’ throughout the world will keep moving forward Anti EU-India FTA protests started on 9 Apr staging till 15 Apr. The World should bear their voices in mind!

April 15, 2013

Health Right Network
Intellectual Property Left
Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet
People’s Solidarity for Social Progress
Korean House for International Solidarity (KHIS)
CHANG: Korea Human Rights Research Centre
Seoul Human Rights Film Festival
The Daegu-Gyeongbuk HIV People Self Supporting Community Haemail
Korea leukemia patient Group
Korea Organization For Patient Group
Korea Alliance Defeat AIDS
Mapo Rainbow Residents’ Solidarity
Solidarity for Queer Liberation at Sogang University
Jeju peace & human rights center
Korean Professors Union
Korea Progressive Academy Council
Solidarity for HIV/AIDS Human Rights Nanuri+ [ Korean Pharmacists for Democratic Society/ CHINGUSAI-Korean Gay Men’s Human Rights Group/ Public Pharmaceutical Center/ Solidarity for LGBT Human Rights of Korea(DongInRyun)]
Korean Federation of Medical Groups for Health Rights [ Association of Korea Doctors for Health Rights/ Association of Physicians for Humanism/ Korea Dentists Association for Health Society/ Korea Health and Medical Workers Union/ Korean Pharmacists for Democratic Society]

Na-yeon Kim, Rang, Deokhee Yi, Heesob Nam (Executive Director, OpenNet), Jang HyeYeong, Jang HyeWon, Jang HyeJeong, Wheea Jeong, GwangHun Park, HeonKyu Jin, Myung Hee Cha, Ji young Kim

1. The protracted Novartis’ appeal from 2006 for a patent to Gleevec (Leukemia medicine), and against Indian Patent law has finally reached a conclusion. On Apr1, Indian Supreme court dismissed Novartis’ appeal. The Supreme Court of India has given the reason for rejecting Novartis’ argument by holding that the physio-chemical properties of the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate i.e. flow properties, decreased hygroscopicity and thermodynamic stability may be beneficial for patients in some manner but they do not meet the standard of efficacy required by Section 3(d). In a word, Gleevec is not qualified for a patent because the active ingredient of Gleevec (beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate) is no better than imatinib(free base) and imatinib mesylate in terms of effectiveness.

2. The ruling of the Supreme Court is not simply confined to whether to give a patent to Novartis, and has emblematic features of deciding what kind of invention is eligible for a patent in India. In 2005 when the Indian patent law was under revision, many activists and patients inserted various safeguards into the law for protecting public health and health right through joint actions with their solidarity. The very examples of the safeguards are compulsory licensing, pre, post-grant opposition, and section 3(d). The section 3(d) states that unless newly invented medicine, compared with the ones invented before 1995, does prove significantly enhanced efficacy, even if the invention is composed of a new form and/or a new composition, and has a new use, that is not patentable. That is all about obstructing ‘ever-greening’. The patent for PEGASYS, medicine for Hepatitis C and B, became invalid in Nov 2011 by the reason of that does not meet the conditions of section 3(d) of Indian Patent law. A patent application for IRESSA, lung cancer medicine, was dismissed for the same reason. HIV/AIDS movement groups are also taking full advantage of section 3(d) in order to block issuing a patent to HIV/AIDS medicine. The ruling of the Supreme Court of India will have an impact on those medicines.
3. The reason why the world pays attention to the Novartis patent case is that this legal battle is not merely restricted to the struggle in between Novartis and Indian cancer patients but the struggle to protect ‘Pharmacy of the World’, and the fight of world patients and activists against the patent-exclusivity of a transnational pharmaceutical company. Not only Novartis’ appeal but Bayer’ appeal against the decision of Indian Patent Office approved the first-ever compulsory licensing on medicine and India-EU FTA has oppressed India, and now India are facing more pressures from the outside world powers like transnational pharmaceutical companies, the USA, EU and etc. Novartis case is a symbolized case riddled with many issues reflecting the conflicts in between the patent right of a Transnational pharmaceutical company and the health right of a patient. Accordingly, patients of the developing world, who need Indian generic medicines, public health NGOs, HIV/AIDS human rights groups, and other groups related to intellectual property has organized international campaigns and engaged in protesting against Novartis. The ruling of the Supreme Court of India is a triumphant victory of all patients and activists’ struggle and solidarity.

4. The Supreme Court’s ruling would have an effect on other neighboring countries to take Indian patent law as a model. WHO/UNDP/UNAIDS mentioned the compulsory licensing of Thailand and the section 3(d) of Indian patent law as success stories in ‘Using TRIPS flexibilities to improve access to HIV treatment (2011)’. Several countries are modeling after the Indian patent law. In May 2005, Argentina announced a new patent-guideline inclusive of strict patentability standards similar to the section 3(d) of Indian patent law. South Africa Treatment Action Campaign and MSF are organising ‘Fix the Patent Laws’ campaign by modeling after the Indian patent law.

5. The Supreme Court of India has addressed how harmful indiscreetly issuing a patent is to people. However, we should not stay on this stage and should move forward further. Once product patent is instituted, Indian people cannot block all patents. The utilization of compulsory licensing is a critical way to secure public health as universal right and sustain ‘Pharmacy of the World’. Moreover, India-EU FTA that is more likely to damage ‘access to affordable medicines’ by ISD, border measure, and IP enforcement should be withdrawn. Indian government has announced to provide free medicine to all patients visiting National medical facilities from Oct 2012. 22% of Indian population benefits from healthcare services by the public sector. The Indian government should increase essential drugs list more and expand the population receiving free-supply. In order to bear the financial burden, purchasing generic drugs is inevitable. On Mar 12 2012, first-ever compulsory licensing of India was permitted, and Indian pharmaceutical company BDR filed compulsory licensing application for Sprycel (Dasatinib), leukemia medicine in 2013. Media has announced that Indian government has been under consideration to compulsory licensing for 3 anti-cancer medicines. Indian government should be expanding compulsory licensing rather than counting on pharmaceutical pricing negotiation.

6. We, Korean activists all welcome the ruling of the Supreme Court of India and very happy to hear it as have been engaged in the struggle for access to medicine. But, on the other hand, this victory does sound regretful to us that is not able to model after the Indian patent law. Many poisonous clauses beneficial to pharmaceutical companies, like ISD and patent-approval linkage have been adopted in S. Korea because of KORUS FTA. Furthermore, Korean government does not take any steps to obstruct unjust actions of the patentees to block the release of generic drugs. Fair Trade Commission of S. Korea has surveyed about the present condition of intellectual contract/dispute (document investigation on the condition of dispute-contract and patent application for main prescription drugs that was applied for approval to Korea Food and Drug Administration, or came into the market from 2000 till 2009). The result of the investigation on 429 contracts obtained showed that ‘trade-in ban for competitive product’ clause and ‘Sales-target limit’ clause by patentee pharmaceutical companies, oppressing generic pharmaceutical companies occupied nearly 55%. However, the Korean government did not take any actions against the revealed situation no other than simply released ‘Guidelines for fair trade of pharmaceutical sector’.

April 2, 2013

Korea Leukemia Patient Group
The Daegu-Gyeongbuk HIV People Self Sopporting Community HAEMAIL
Health Right Network
Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet
Intellectual Property Left
People’s Solidarity for Social Progress
SARANGBANG Group for Human Rights
Korea Alliance Defeat AIDS
Solidarity for HIV/AIDS Human Rights Nanuri+ [ Korean Pharmacists for Democratic Society/ CHINGUSAI-Korean Gay Men’s Human Rights Group/ Public Pharmaceutical Center/ Solidarity for LGBT Human Rights of Korea(DongInRyun)]
Korean Federation of Medical Groups for Health Rights [ Association of Korea Doctors for Health Rights/ Association of Physicians for Humanism/ Korea Dentists Association for Health Society/ Korea Health and Medical Workers Union/ Korean Pharmacists for Democratic Society]
Rainbow Action Against Sexual-Minority Discrimination [ CHINGUSAI – Korean Gay Men’s Human Rights Group/ Collective for Sexual Minority Cultures PINKS/ GongGam Human Rights Law Foundation/ Korean Sexual-Minority Culture and Riughts Center(KSCRC)/ LGBTAIQ Crossing the damn world <Wanbyun> (It means Totally Queer)/ LGBT Human Rights Committee in HanYang University/ Lesbian Counseling Center in South Korea/ Lesbian Human Rights Group ‘Byunnal’ of Ewha Womans University/ Sexual-Minority Committee in The Unified Progressive Party/ Solidarity for HIV/AIDS Human Rights Nanuri+/ Solidarity for LGBT Human Rights of Korea (DongInRyun)/ the Korean lesbian community radio group, Lezpa/ Unninetwork ]

For more information Contact
Name: Jaecheon Kim
Position: Director of international solidarity
Organization: Nanuri+-Solidarity for HIV/AIDS Human Rights
Email address: jaekim@gmail.com
Cellphone: 82-10-8238-9057

However, with the signature of the India-EU FTA and the advent of data exclusivity, India will have much difficulty in developing, producing and exporting generics. Those who have depended on generics made in India will be pushed to the brink of death. The India-EU FTA is a deal with the lives of patients spread over 120 countries.

Data exclusivity refers to the exclusivity given to original medicines by delaying the marketing of generics by preventing source information on safety and efficacy, given to generics manufacturers on market approvals. When this is given, even unpatented medicines or those with lapsed patents are given sales exclusivity, preventing their production and export, or even for public use of patents such as through compulsory licensing. Whether its through patents or data exclusivity of original medicines, patients will suffer the same. While data exclusivity has a shorter time period than patents, it can be obtained through a much simple process. What the multinational drug corporations are after is to obtain higher profit by more easily obtaining monopolies on new drugs which neither adhere to India’s patent standard or are more clinically effective.

India provides for 20% of the world generics market. In particular it provides 90% of the developing world’s AIDS medicine supply and 50% of the world’s AIDS medicine needs. Analyzing AIDS medication supply in 115 countries by The WHO, Global FUND and UNITAID, India took up over 80% of the provision for generic AIDS medications for these international organizations(donor-funded purchase) since 2006, with the number at 87% in 2008. If adding Indian AIDS medications provided by public medical organizations in Thailand, Brazil, South Africa and Nepal(government-funded purchase), the proportion exceeds 80%. Pediatric AIDS medication is also largely provided by India, at 91% of the market.

Koreans also need Indian generics. We have experienced firsthand the harsh reality of being pushed into the streets because of the price of medicine. Leukemia medication Glivec is available in a generic India-produced version called Veenat at a twentieth of the cost. A first antiretrovirals costing a million to a million and a half won (900~1400 dollars) a month in Korea costs less than a hundred dollars in its generic Indian version. Even today there are patients who are buying generic Indian medicines because the cost of originals are too high. Can we truly comprehend the desperation of a patient who, when confronted with the refusal of a doctor to prescribe medication because of restrictions on import, thinks of resorting to drug smuggling?  India is a last safe haven for Korean patients.

Our constitutional rights, as with the Korea-US FTA, will fall into the hands of multinational corporations, as they have with this Korea-EU FTA. The Korea-EU FTA has opened the area of public service to multinational corporations. With this FTA, post offices and waterworks, broadcasting and telecommunication companies are opened for multinational corporations’ profit. It goes without saying prices in these areas will rise. Intellectual property rights will strengthen and copyright extends for twenty more years, and there will be no way to shorten medicine patents or terms for data exclusivity. Access to information will be restricted and medicine prices will be difficult to maintain. Aside from this, the FTA with EU also resembles that with the US, making it possible for the former to enable the import of European beef from the very source of mad cow disease. The fall of Korean agriculture is inevitable. European agricultural products are kept artificially cheap through high government subsidies, and their Korean equivalents will suffer. When the Korean countryside has shown to be devastated by foot-and-mouth disease, signing this agreement is to sign the death warrant for our farmers.

The Korea-EU FTA must be dismantled. And the lives of patients in over 120 countries are on the line regarding the India-EU FTA. What will devastate the Pharmacy of the World must also be stopped.

March 2nd, 2011

April revolution society

Center for Health and Social Change

Dary

Democratic Labor Party Sexual Minor Committee

FOR PWLH GROUP, LOVE4ONE

Health Right Network

Intellectual Property Left

Korean Alliance against the Korea-US FTA

Korea GIST Patients Group

Korea HIV/AIDS Network of Solidarity

Korea Leukemia Patients Group

Korea Progressive Academy Council

Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet

Korean Urban Poor Association (KOSC, Union liberated the poor squatters)

Korean Womenlink

Korean Federation of Medical Groups for Health Rights[Association of Korea Doctors for Health Rights / Association of Physicians for Humanism / Korea Dentists Association for Health Society / Korea Health and Medical Workers Union / Korean Pharmacists for Democratic Society]

National Association of Professors for Democracy

People’s Health Institute

People’s Solidarity for Social Progress

Progressive Strategy Council

Saranglbang group for human rights

Sexuality politics committee New Progressive party

Solidarity against Disability Discrimination

SPECWATCH KOREA

Solidarity for HIV/AIDS Human Rights Nanuri+[ Korean Pharmacists for Democratic Society/ Korean Gay Men’s Human Rights Group / Public Pharmaceutical Center / Solidarity for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Human Rights of Korea]

10 November 2008

Korea Close On “Graduated Response” Bill Aimed At Copyright Infringers

Posted by Catherine Saez @ 2:06 pm

  Link This Article   Leave a Comment   Print

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=1311 첨부 파일 과거 URL http://www.ipleft.or.kr/bbs/view.php?board=ipleft_5&id=490

May 12th, 2005

International Bureau
World Intellectual Property Organization
34 Chemin des Colombettes
1211 Geneva 20
Fax: + 41 22 733 54 28
wipo.mail@wipo.int

Dear whom it may concern,

We, IPLeft, would like to apply for the WIPO permanentobserver accreditation as a nation non-government organization(NGO). IPLeft was launched in 1999 as an NGO in South Korea and now it is registered in the municipal office of Seoul as a non-for-profit organization. Basically, IPLeft is individual membership based organization which supports the democratic governing body.

Main purpose of IPLeft is to examine the existing intellecual property regimes and to make alternative system that all the people can have equitable access to knowledge and culture. We have carried out lots of work related to the intellectual property such as copyright, patent, trademark etc.

IPLeft has tried to promote the civil society participationin the policy making process and, in particular, has intervened many intellectual property related legislation processes of the parliament on the basis of human rights and liberty representing the common people\’s interests. It has focused on the issues of compulsory license & public health, open access model to information, free-use&open source software, trademarks and domain names, copyrightfair use and public domain etc.

IPLeft is willing to promote and facilitate many NGOs and civil society participation in WIPO proceedings, and in particular to increase participation of consumer and citizen interests. At a national level, IPLeft has made a public campaign for copyright issues very actively and tried to amend it by reflecting the characters of digital networks and environments(http://www.ipleft.or.kr/antilaw). And in 2005, IPLeft developed an open access license to information for Koreans(http://www.freeuse.or.kr) as an alternative model for copyright regimes.

IPLeft has raised the issues of the public health and compulsory licensing on the essential medicine, especially it has worked for a legislation of \’compulsory license for export of medicine to developing countries\'(http://www.ipleft.or.kr/patent). Recently this act was passed in the Korean Parliament.

IPLeft participated in the processes of the World Summit on the Information Society of UN(WSIS) in 2003. It actively joined Korean Civil Society Network for WSIS and contributed position paper(declaration and action plans) on intellectual property regimes.(http://www.wsis.or.kr)
 at a national level. And it also participated in the international discussion of civil society working groups(http://www.wsis-cs.org) in particular Patent, Copyright and Trademarks Working Group(http://www.wsis-pct.org).

In terms of WIPO affairs, we participated in the international meeting to discuss A2K treaty which was organized by NGOs such as Third World Network and Consumer Project on Technology. Recently we held a open forum on the future of WIPO and intellectual property issue by inviting James Love of CPTech in South Korea. (http://www.ipleft.or.kr/maybbs/showview.php?db=ip&code=notice&n=57).
 
We would like to work more actively by obtaining the accreditation of WIPO permanent observer status. It will be a great opportunity for Korean NGOs and civil society entities to know WIPO and intellectual property regimes.

Sincerely Yours,
Nam Hee-seob

Chairperson
Intellectual Property Left
Website) http://www.ipleft.or.kr
Tel) + 82-2-717-9551
Fax) +82-2-701-7112
첨부 파일 http://www.ipleft.or.kr/bbs/data/ipleft_5/15/Application_Letter_for_WIPO_Observer_Status_Accreditation.pdf 과거 URL http://www.ipleft.or.kr/bbs/view.php?board=ipleft_5&id=477

1. Intellectual Products must be shared

Intellectual Property System assumedthat information and knowledge are originated from the producer. But, historically, intellectual products do not exist without communication and sharing with others, without socially accumulated knowledge base. Information and knowledge can not be created from \’nothing,\’ but from social intellectual assets that was constituted of historically accumulated experiences and efforts. And created intellectual products have been used, modified, and resolved to social assets. But current IP system grant all rights with producer(or investor) who have contributed partially to creation. So We must recognize historic and social characteristics collaborated contribution on knowledge production.

2. Right on a2k is basic of digital age

1) Everyone must access and use information freely, we should not allow restrictions and distinctions by classes and levels like one\’s job, sex, region, human race, and so on. Especially we have to access public information which are required essentially, used commonly, invented by public funds, and have to use freely and equally. And use of information for education, research, private use, noncommercial use do not restrict by IP rights.
2) IP rights as copyright, patent, trademark right etc. should not be prior to rights of a2k. excessive protection of IP make information divide along with classes and levels. Information divide reproduce economic divide and social power divide. Making decision within provinces or internations should dissolve information divide, and pursue the weak\’s interests than the strong\’s.
3) Main method to dissolve information divide is enlargement of public domain. It can be pursued by reduction of protection periods and bounds, and by encouragement of information production method without acknowledge of exclusive rights.

3. The dignity of human and life, human rights are prior to IP rights

1) Property holder\’s rights to IP products should not protect excessively to invade user\’s rights.
2) IP rights to discovery and invention subject to living things and a part of them should not destroy the dignity of human and life, environment, health, and so on.
3) Personal privacy is not infringed by protection of IP rights.
4) We do not use IP rights as a method of restriction to free expression.
5) IP rights should not be used as a method of restraint to the people with different political views, the weak and the minor.

4. We must recognize various values and autonomies to production and consumption of IP products

1) Nations and communities have a right to their individual values and principals of governance. And they should not be enforced to accept internationally singular IP system. IP system is one of many principals of governance.

2) There must be political supports to maintenance of individual values and principals of governance than \’principal of markets\’ in knowledge production. We should support public knowledge production institutions like school and research institution, copyleft movement as spontaneous production area of civil society, and protect transmitted knowledge of communities like traditional medical care.

Korean Situations Related to Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Knowledge

1. Introduction of Legal Systems in Korea

Intellectual Property Acts
Purpose of Act
Administration Authorities
Copyright Act
To protect the rights of authors and the rights neighboring on them and to promote fair use of works in order to contribute to the improvement and development of culture.
Ministry of Culture and Tourism
Computer Software Protection Act
A Copyright Law Special for Computer Software
Ministry of Information and Communication
On-line Digital Contents Industry Development Act
To protect Digital Contents and Investment
Ministry of Information and Communication
Patent Act
Trademark Act,
Utility Model Act
Design Act

KIPO (the Korean Intellectual Property Office)
Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Lay-out Design Act
To contribute to the sound development of the national economy by protecting the right of a creator who creates a layout design for semiconductor integrated circuits and by establishing the fair use of layout designs to promote the semiconductor industry and technology.
KIPO
Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act
To prevent acts of unfair competition such as improper use of domestically well-known trademarks and trade names, and To prevent infringement of trade secrets.
KIPO
Variety Industry Act
New Seed Variety Protection
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

2. Recent Issues Related to Intellectual Property Rights and IPLeft\’s Positions

[General IPLeft\’s Positions]

1. Public Subsidy for Citizen Activities to Enhance Production and Distribution of Information:
The Government should provide monetary or other assistances for citizen\’s voluntary activities to enhance the production and distribution of information related to public interests

2. Access to Public Information:
The word "public information" includes national or local government\’s information; private companies\’information related to scientific research, medical treatment, education, legal systems or other public interests; essential computer software and the like.  Access to the public information should not be restricted byIPRs.  Further, everyone should be entitled to access to the public information through universally accessible network.

3. Balance between Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs):
The freedom of expression should not be restricted by copyrights.  Use of works for political expressions and parody, etc. should not be considered as infringement upon copyrights.

4. Balance between Privacy and IPRs:
Automatic transmission of IP address, monitoring activities of users by online service providers, inspection to private information such as mail box, and the like could not be justified for protection of IPRs.

[Copyright]

1. Fair Use (or Free Use) of Works
In the Copyright Act, the scope of fair use tends to be narrower. However, the narrower scope of fair use of works makes the information divide more severe.  Use of works, if it is non-profitable, for examples, for purpose of education, research, criticism and the like, should not be restricted by IPRs.

2. Copying and Transmission of MP3 file on Internet
An appeals court ruled on January 12, 2005 that exchanging mp3 files using peer-to-peer software violates copyright laws. The Seoul Central District Court found three users of \’Soribada\’, Korea\’s biggest peer-to-peer network system (http://www.soribada.com), guilty of violating copyright laws for exchanging music files.
IPLeft announced its opposition to the judgment. The sharing of MP3 files through Soribada is a non-profit and private reproduction of works, which should be allowed under Article 27 of the Copyright Act, although the file sharing takes place on the Internet. If copyright laws are applied equally to the Internet as in the offline world, they will infringe upon the right to access digital information as well as strengthen the power of corporations.

3. Disputes about MP3 Mobile Phone
In May 2004, the Ministry of Information and Communication and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism tried to constrain the use of MP3 files on MP3 phones (a mobile phone having MP3 playing function) by lowering the quality of sound or restricting period of time of playing, in order to prevent infringement upon copyrights and phonogram producers\’ rights.
IPLeft opposed the proposal because such stringent measures potentially places a tremendous burden on the user, which in turn violates the users\’ fair rights.

4. Digital Library
2003 Copyright Act prohibits access from outside the library as well as data transmission between libraries and limits the maximum number of people who can simultaneously access online materials.
IPLeft position is:
Libraries play a key role in public access to knowledge across and despite social, political, and regional differences. They help narrow the gap between the information "haves" and "have-nots." Copyright protection is thus restricted in the case of libraries by Article 28 of the copyright law.
IpLeft proposes new ideas for the revision of Article 28. ? No license should be required to distribute non-profit and academic materials. ? People should not be charged for fair use of libraries. ? benefit principle (this principle means that if anyone who receives some sort of benefit, he or she should pay for it) should not be applied to digital libraries.

5. Transmission Right Given to Performers And Phonogram Producers
The Copyright Act amended last year, which became effective in Jan. 2005, confers a transmission right to performers and phonogram producers. The Copyright Act had granted the right to transmit only to copyright holders since 2000.
Korean Netizens began to realizehow the Copyright Act strongly restricts their activities. They are voluntarily making online discussion communities (so-called "Cafe") and campaigning against the Copyright Act. Citizen groups altogether with Netizen plan to release statements and to carry several campaigns on-line and off-line.

6. Protection of Database Having no Originality
The Copyright Act was amended in 2003 so as to add Articles 73bis to 73nona that protects database having no originality. According to Article 73tetr, Producers of databases has rights of reproduction, distribution, broadcasting or transmission the databases.
IPLeft criticizes that the revision of the Copyright Act violates Articles 22(2) of the Constitution that requireoriginality as a ground for protection by copyright laws, and distorts the original purpose of copyright law as an investment guarantee rather than as means to make returns on creative activities.

7. Technological Measures for Protecting Copyright
Technological measures by copyright holders, performers or producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rightsshould be removed after termination of their rights.  Further, the measures should not prevent the fair use of works.

8. Obligations of Online Service Providers(OSPs)
No one, including OSPs, should be forced to be responsible for the copyright infringement of a third person. Monitoring obligation to prevent infringement of copyrights, if burdened with OSPs, may cause infringement upon privacy of users.

[Patent]

1. BM Patent
The KIPO has a policy to promote BM patent applications and issue such patents without strict examination.
IPLeft opposes BM patent because the patent for Internet Business Model can monopolize the idea itself, so, it will disturb the development of Internet Society. In 2000, IPLeft and Korean Progressive Network \’JinboNet\’made an action of nullity against the Samsung Electronic Co.\’s patent, \’Remote education via an internet\’ and won in the suit.

2. Compulsory License
To achieve public policy goals, national governments should be able to more freely grant a compulsory license to patent rights. 
(1) Request for Authorization of Compulsory License
In 2001, several health citizen groups requested the KIPO to adjudicate for the authorization of a compulsory licenseto the Gleevec(leukemia drug by Novartis) patent. In the response, the KIPO rejected the request on the ground that it is not considered that there are the interests of the public to work the patented invention.
(2) Implementation of 2003/8/30 Decision
A bill was filed November 26, 2004 to the Korean National Assembly, which aims at implementing the WTO General Council Decision of 30 August 2003 on the implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health (WT/L/540 of 2 September 2003).
IPLeft had prepared the draft billtogether with lawmakers and are pushing the National Assembly to pass the bill. However, the bill must overcome obstacles, such as KIPO\’s oppositionand lobbies by multinational pharmaceutical companies.Some responsible officials in the KIPO argued that we have to wait until the Article 31 of TRIPsis finally revised by reflecting the WTO Decision of 30 August 2003.

3. Biotechnology and Patent
TheKorean Patent Act allows patenting of natural or engineered microorganisms, transgenic plants and animals, as well as a part of human body, such as genes, proteins and organs.
Natural materials such as microorganisms and genes, even if separated and isolated from their original circumstances, should not be patented because they are not "invention" but "discovery."
With regard to transgenic organisms, effective systems to examine their effects on the ecosystem and ethics problems should be established.

[Variety Protection]

Farmer\’s Rights of seed-harvesting, seed-storing and seeding, which have been recognized by FAO, should not be restricted by patent rights on plant and plant seed.

[Internet Domain Name]

Internet Address Resource Management Act was enacted in 2003 to manage the registration of domain names and dispute settlement surrounding domain names. Domain name owner\’s right should be respected at least to the same extent as trademark rights.

IPLeft (http://www.ipleft.or.kr)

IPLeft is a social group for information commons in South Korea. It was founded in 1999. IPLeft has concerned about the social and digital divide and criticized the strengthening of intellectual property rights(IPRs) [or limited intellectual monopolies] regime and has researched alternative policies against existing IPR.IPLeft believes that IPR should not deter the free and balanced flow of ideas and innovations and the cultural basis of information commons should be socially wide-spread for the real innovation and creation.

IPLeft Launching Korean Open Access License
(http://www.freeuse.or.kr)
- Cultural movement for sharing creative works -

IPLeft launched Korean Open Access License (KOAL) in October, 2004.It is an information open access model newly introduced in South Korea.
As the information and communication technologies (ICTs) are being developed and the broadband infrastructure is becoming more widespread, it is a common expectation that people would have easier access to information. Nevertheless, the benefit of getting convenient access to information and saving expenditure on information use do not seem to be available as expected. One example is that in South Korea, in spite of the huge broadband infrastructure, there is only very limited access available to the digital library. It is due to the restrictions imposed by the existing copyright regime.
Current Copyright Act automatically grants several rights such as reproduction right, distribution right, display right and so on to authors for their works. Grant of such rights is made as soon as any production activity gets completed regardless of author\’s will.However, authors have diverse opinions regarding the copyright they get granted. Some people would like to express \’all rights reserved\’, but others are likely to express \’some rights reserved\’. Some people don\’t even mind their rights at all, and hope to make their works available to the public without any restrictions of copyright. This may imply that the copyright regime should be able to embrace different needs and protections required of copyright owners.
In this context, IPLeft has conducted a research regarding many different types of open access models and finally developed KOAL. It is a kind of social contract between authors and users. By using KOAL model, an author can set the level of access to and use of his/her work he/she wishes to allow users to have and marks a KOAL logo accordingly. People can use the work according to the author\’s mark of KOAL. Setting the level of restrictions under KOAL does not mean that authors give up their copyrights but mean that they permit users to use their work only on certain condition.KOAL can be used on various types of work such as software, academic works, educational material, digital contents and media.

KOAL has four options with below followings.

1) OK on commercial use and derivative work
2) OK on non-commercial use and derivative work
3) OK on commercial use and No on derivative work
4) OK on non-commercial use and No on derivative work

KOAL will become a cultural basis which encourages free use of information. Fundamentally, it can contribute to the improvement and development of creative culture in the society.

Summary of KOAL

1. Korean Open Access License: Commercial-Derivative works

All users who have commercial or non-commercial purposes are free
- to reproduce, perform, broadcast, communicate to the public, exhibit, and distribute the work and
-to make derivative works to make compilation and compilation works.

Only on conditions that users must observe author\’s moral rights such as indicating original authorship credit make this license appear on works used under the terms of this license.

Any termination of this license shall not affect user\’s rights that current Copyright Act of Korea and relative laws guarantee.

2. Korean Open Access License: Commercial-No derivative works

All users who have commercial or non-commercial purposes are free
-     to reproduce, perform, broadcast, communicate to the public, exhibit, and distribute the work and
-     to make compilation and compilation works.

Only on conditions that users must
-     observe author\’s moral rights such as indicating original authorship credit and
-     make this license appear on works used under the terms of this license.

Any termination of this license shall not affect user\’s rights that current Copyright Act of Korea and relative laws guarantee.

3. Korean Open Access License: Non-commercial-Derivative works

All users who have non-commercial purposes are free
-     to reproduce, perform, broadcast, communicate to the public, exhibit, and distribute the work
-     to make derivative works and
-     to make compilation and compilation works.

Only on conditions that users must
-     observe author\’s moral rights such as indicating original authorship credit; and
-     make this license appear on works used under the terms of this license.

Any termination of this license shall not affect user\’s rights that current Copyright Act of Korea and relative laws guarantee.

4. Korean Open Access License: Non-commercial-No derivative works

All users who have non-commercial purposes are free
-     to reproduce, perform, broadcast, communicate to the public, exhibit, and distribute the work; and
-     to make compilation and compilation works.
Only on conditions that users must
-     observe author\’s moral rights such as indicating original authorship credit; and
-     make this license appear on works used under the terms of this license.

Any termination of this license shall not affect user\’s rights that current Copyright Act of Korea and relative laws guarantee.

첨부 파일 http://www.ipleft.or.kr/bbs/data/ipleft_5/0/IPLeft’s_Position_on_Access_to_Knowledge.pdf 과거 URL http://www.ipleft.or.kr/bbs/view.php?board=ipleft_5&id=476

Enactment on February, 2001
First revision on March, 2005

Chapter Ⅰ General Provisions

Article 1. Name
The name of organization shall be called "Intellectual Property Left \’IPLeft\’".

Article 2 Purpose
The purpose of IPLeft is to examine the existing intellecual property regimes and to make alternative system that all the people can have equitable access to knowledge and culture.

Article 3 Functions
To achieve the purpose of the organization, IPLeft shall organize the following activities :

1. To examine the intellectual property rights system
2. To study, research and make the alternative system to create knowledge and culture
3. To reform the actual intellectual property rights system
4. To spread the understanding of the intellectual property rights system: publication and education
5. To establish international solidarity with foreign progressive groups
6. To do other related works

Article 4 Seat
The main office of IPLeft shall be located in Seoul.

Chapter Ⅱ Membership

Article 5 Qualification
1. Anyone who agree with the purpose and mission of IPLeft can be a member.
2. Anyone who has participated our activity in fixed-term and paid membership fees over three times can be a full member. Additional qualifications of the full membership shall be decided by executive committee. (revision March, 2005)

Article 6 Membership and secession
To be a member, application form shall be submitted according to the procedure decided by executive committee. When the member submit secession form, then she/he will lose  membership.

Article 7 Classification, Rights and duties
1. Membership consists of full membership and associate membership.
2. The full members shall have the right to participate in decision-making in the general assembly and all activities of IPLeft.    
3. The associate members shall be provided resources of IPLeft and have the right to participate in all activities of IPLeft.
4. Members are obliged to comply with the Statutes and the Regulations of IPLeft, and to pay membership dues.

Article 8 Expulsion of members
Members who have abandoned their duties or who have seriously undermined the honor of IPLeft shall be expelled in accordance with the decision of executive committee. If the member wants to appeal against the decision of executive committee, she/he can ask re-consideration in the general assembly.

Chapter Ⅲ General Assembly

Article 9 Composition and Convocation of General Assembly
1. The General Assembly is the supreme decision-making organ of IPLeft.
2. Regular general meeting shall be convened by the representative once a year.
3. Extraordinary general meetings shall be held upon the notice of convocation by the representative, with the written request of executive committee or more than one third of full members, within a month of the request.
4. The representative must notify the agenda to members, 5 days prior to the meeting.
5. The representative shall be the chairperson of general assembly. When the representative can\’t attend the meeting, executive committee can elect the chairperson.

Article 10 Functions of the General Assembly
The General Assembly shall have the following functions :

1. Election and release of offices
2. Approval of action plan and the annual statement of accounts and the closing accounts.
3. Amendment of the Statute
4. Dissolution or union of organization
5. Passing resolutions on agendas raised by executive committee or more than one third of full members
6. Passing resolutions on other important issues

Article 11 Quorum
1. The General Assembly shall form a quorum when a simple majority of the full members are present, and resolutions shall be passed also by a simple majority of the present members. However, the resolutions on the amendment of statute shall be passed by two third of present members, and dispersion of organization shall be decided by the approval of two third of full members.
2. A member can entrust other member with voting right. In this case, a member who entrust shall be regarded as present member.

Chapter Ⅳ Officers and Organization

Article 12 Composition of officers
1. A representative
2. 5 to 20 executive committee members
3. an auditor

Article 13 The duties of offices
1. A representative shall represent IPLeft and take a charge of general management of IPLeft.
2. Executive committee members shall inspect and decide main issues on IPLeft activities in the executive committee meeting.
3. An auditor shall inspect the business and finances of IPLeft, and report to the general assembly and executive committee.

Article 14 Term of officers
The term of officers is 2 years and reappointment is possible. The term of replacement officer is the remainder of the term of previous officer.

Article 15 Organization
1. IPLeft has general assembly, executive committee, secretariat and advisory committee. (revision March, 2005)
2. IPLeft can build and run annex instituions for the effective business.
3. IPLeft can build and run working groups under the executive committee for the purpose of business execution.
4. Establishment or abolition of annex institutions must be approved by the executive committee.

Chapter Ⅴ Executive Committee

Article 16 Composition and Convocation of the executive committee
1. The executive committee shall be a inspection and decision-making body of IPLeft.
2. The executive committee shall consist of the representative and executive committee members. The executive committee meeting shall be convened by the representative.

Article 16-2 Qualification of Executive Committee member
1. Executive committee member can be elected from the full members with 2 or more year careers.
2. Anyone whohas participated our activity in fixed-term and has paid membership fees more than three times can be a full member. Additional qualifications of the full membership shall be decided by executive committee. (revision March, 2005)

Article 17 Functions of the Executive Committee
The Executive Committee shall have the following functions :

1. Inspection of action plan and the annual statement of accounts and the closing accounts.
2. Appointment and dismissal of Secretary-General
3. Approval of accounts execution
4. Establishment and abolition of annex institutions
5. Discipline of members
6. Passing resolutions on other important issues

Article 18 Quorum
1. The executive committee shall form a quorum when a simple majority of the executive committee members are present, and resolutions shall be passed also by a simple majority of the present executive committee members.
2. An executive committee member can entrust other executive committee member with voting right. In this case, an executive committee member who entrust shall be regarded as present.

Chapter 6 Secretariat

Article 18-2 Secretariat
1. IPLeft shall have a secretary-general and secretariat staffs
2. Some of secretariat staffs can be full-timers.
3. Secretary-General shall take a charge of execution of works and finances.

Chapter 6-2 Advisory Committee (revision March, 2005)

Article 18-3 Advisory Committee
1. IPLeft can have an advisory committee for the purpose of advice to the executive committee .
2. A representative shall appoint the advisory committee members through the discussion of the executive committee.
3. Executive committee shall decide the composition and execution of the advisory committee.

Chapter 7 Finance and accounts

Article 19 Fiscal year
The fiscal year of IPLeft shall coincide with the calendar year (January 1 to December 31) But, the account of the year when IPLeft is founded, shall be included in the account of next year. 

Article 20 Fund Raising
Fund raising of IPLeft shall include membership fees, donations, and other incomes.

Article 21 Budgets
Within a month from the beginning of a new fiscal year, executive committee must submit a report on the budget plans to the general assembly. The general assembly can decide the modification of the budget.

Article 22 Settlement of accounts
Within a month from the end of a previous fiscal year, executive committee must submit a report on the budget plans to the general assembly, after inspection of the auditor.

Chapter 8 Supplementary rules

Article 23 Rules for Application
Items not defined in the Statutes shall follow the Regulations of the executive committee or commonsense and social conventions.

첨부 파일 http://www.ipleft.or.kr/bbs/data/ipleft_5/10/The_Statutes_of_Intellectual_Property_Left.pdf 과거 URL http://www.ipleft.or.kr/bbs/view.php?board=ipleft_5&id=475

이 문서는 2005년 4월 29일 영상미디어센터에서 열린 정보공유연대 IPLeft 월례포럼에서 미국 CPTech 소장인 James Love가 발표한 것이다.

첨부 파일http://www.ipleft.or.kr/bbs/data/ipleft_5/9/The_Medical_Innovation_Prize_Fund.pdf과거 URLhttp://www.ipleft.or.kr/bbs/view.php?board=ipleft_5&id=459