Authentic leadership: The U.S. and the Treaty for the Print-Disabled
When the US, the champion of strong IP rights, steps up to leading for the benefit of the world that is authentic leadership.
October 15, 2013 at 04:00 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The United States has long been a leader in fostering for itself a strong intellectual property system and encouraging other nations to develop strong intellectual property systems. And it makes sense that we should — our nation has had a 230-plus year commitment to innovation. Our founding fathers enshrined IP rights in our Constitution, affirmative rights that in other countries are only granted grudgingly. IP is a right of the people — not an exception taken at the discretion of the government. Our commitment to innovation has served us well, producing the strongest innovation environment the world has ever seen.
But there is another side to US intellectual property leadership, evident in the dual roles of incentivizing innovators by giving them protection for their creations, while ultimately permitting widespread dissemination of those creations to enrich the public corpus and facilitate future innovation. Both roles are critical and, although the second is less attractive for innovators in the short-term, the benefits of the resulting increase in collective intelligence stemming from the dissemination of creative work is key to technological advancement.
The typical mechanisms for effectuating this latter role are to time-limit monopolies granted over intellectual property and to limit those monopolies to the appropriate subject matter (inventions, for example, that are novel and non-obvious). But there is another mechanism that, until recently, has not been given much attention — exceptions and limitations in narrow but appropriately circumscribed situations.
It was exactly this mechanism that the United States championed in 2009 when it proposed before the World Intellectual Property Organization what would become the “Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled.” This Treaty, conceived, created and developed by the United States in collaboration with other countries from Europe to Central and South America to Africa, is the first-ever treaty of its kind. It provides access to copyrighted works to millions of print-disabled people throughout the world. The Treaty for the print-disabled was formally adopted on June 27 of this year.
What is remarkable about the work the United States undertook in leading the sponsorship and adoption of the Treaty is that the problem it addresses is demonstratively not a U.S. problem. Of the more than 314 million blind and visually impaired people in the world, 90 percent live in developing nations. And those who live in the U.S. already have access to a wealth of works in accessible formats. This is an example of U.S. leadership at its best — for the benefit of the world. This is authentic leadership.
It is also important to understand that the Treaty is more than gratuitous. Consider for example the inventions created by visually impaired innovators. In 1945, Ralph Teetor, a blind automotive engineer, invented cruise control, a standard feature on almost all automobiles today. Blind Saudi engineer Mohannad Jibreel Abudayyah has over 20 patents, including one over a submarine that can dive 5,265 meters below sea level. James Teh and Michael Curran, visually impaired inventors, developed a popular voice-to-speech system that “reads” any text a computer user touches with his or her mouse. These are only a few examples of the innovations that result from increased access to knowledge. What further breakthroughs will follow from the adoption of the Treaty? When you enable human potential for hundreds of millions of creative individuals, the upside is unlimited.
America should be proud of our country's global leadership. We are at our best when we encourage a healthy and value-promoting balance between protecting innovation and providing wide access to it. And when the US, the champion of strong IP rights, steps up to leading for the benefit of the world — that is authentic leadership.
The United States has long been a leader in fostering for itself a strong intellectual property system and encouraging other nations to develop strong intellectual property systems. And it makes sense that we should — our nation has had a 230-plus year commitment to innovation. Our founding fathers enshrined IP rights in our Constitution, affirmative rights that in other countries are only granted grudgingly. IP is a right of the people — not an exception taken at the discretion of the government. Our commitment to innovation has served us well, producing the strongest innovation environment the world has ever seen.
But there is another side to US intellectual property leadership, evident in the dual roles of incentivizing innovators by giving them protection for their creations, while ultimately permitting widespread dissemination of those creations to enrich the public corpus and facilitate future innovation. Both roles are critical and, although the second is less attractive for innovators in the short-term, the benefits of the resulting increase in collective intelligence stemming from the dissemination of creative work is key to technological advancement.
The typical mechanisms for effectuating this latter role are to time-limit monopolies granted over intellectual property and to limit those monopolies to the appropriate subject matter (inventions, for example, that are novel and non-obvious). But there is another mechanism that, until recently, has not been given much attention — exceptions and limitations in narrow but appropriately circumscribed situations.
It was exactly this mechanism that the United States championed in 2009 when it proposed before the World Intellectual Property Organization what would become the “Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled.” This Treaty, conceived, created and developed by the United States in collaboration with other countries from Europe to Central and South America to Africa, is the first-ever treaty of its kind. It provides access to copyrighted works to millions of print-disabled people throughout the world. The Treaty for the print-disabled was formally adopted on June 27 of this year.
What is remarkable about the work the United States undertook in leading the sponsorship and adoption of the Treaty is that the problem it addresses is demonstratively not a U.S. problem. Of the more than 314 million blind and visually impaired people in the world, 90 percent live in developing nations. And those who live in the U.S. already have access to a wealth of works in accessible formats. This is an example of U.S. leadership at its best — for the benefit of the world. This is authentic leadership.
It is also important to understand that the Treaty is more than gratuitous. Consider for example the inventions created by visually impaired innovators. In 1945, Ralph Teetor, a blind automotive engineer, invented cruise control, a standard feature on almost all automobiles today. Blind Saudi engineer Mohannad Jibreel Abudayyah has over 20 patents, including one over a submarine that can dive 5,265 meters below sea level. James Teh and Michael Curran, visually impaired inventors, developed a popular voice-to-speech system that “reads” any text a computer user touches with his or her mouse. These are only a few examples of the innovations that result from increased access to knowledge. What further breakthroughs will follow from the adoption of the Treaty? When you enable human potential for hundreds of millions of creative individuals, the upside is unlimited.
America should be proud of our country's global leadership. We are at our best when we encourage a healthy and value-promoting balance between protecting innovation and providing wide access to it. And when the US, the champion of strong IP rights, steps up to leading for the benefit of the world — that is authentic leadership.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
2024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending Stories
- 1Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 2Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 3Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
- 4Foreign-Company Lobbyists Would Need to Register Under Proposed DOJ Regulation
- 5'Fancy Dress': ERISA Claim Accuses Plan Administrator and Cigna Affiliates of Co-Pay Maximizer Scheme
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250