Month: October 2017

Categories
Innovate4Health

Innovate4Health: Nutriset Uses Patents and Trademarks to Fight Severe Malnutrition Across the Globe

This post is one of a series in the #Innovate4Health policy research initiative.

Innovate4HealthBy Nick Churchill

Malnutrition is one of the greatest global health challenges, particularly with regard to children and pregnant women in developing countries. Undernutrition contributes to nearly half of all deaths among children under the age of 5 and has lifelong consequences for physical and cognitive wellbeing.

Nutriset has confronted the global malnutrition problem head-on by developing a range of innovative nutritional products and using its intellectual property to help developing countries reach nutritional autonomy.

Malnutrition is a blanket term that includes both undernutrition and micronutrient deficiency. An estimated 11 percent of the world’s population, or 815 million people, are undernourished. Undernourished people are particularly vulnerable to disease and death, and both undernutrition and deficiencies in micronutrients can prevent proper growth and development. Undernutrition causes children to underperform in school and makes adults less able to work, perpetuating a cycle of poverty. It can also be deadly. Children suffering from severe acute malnutrition, characterized by very low weight and visible muscle wasting, require urgent treatment to survive.

Severely undernourished patients have traditionally been treated with powdered foods which are dissolved in water before consumption. These powdered products carry risks of dosage errors and bacterial contamination, and they are likely to cause diarrhea in undernourished patients. They also tend to have short shelf lives, particularly in tropical climates.

Nutriset was founded in 1986 by Michel Lescanne with the mission of “focusing on research in the field of humanitarian nutrition, developing innovative solutions and acting as an interface between the worlds of humanitarian aid, nutritionists and food industry technologies.” Since then, Nutriset has developed several therapeutic milks, pastes, and tablets. In 1996, Nutriset partnered with Dr. Andre Briend to create Plumpy’Nut®, the first ready-to-use therapeutic food (or, RUTF) for the treatment of severe acute malnutrition.

This new product was field tested in Malawi by Dr. Mark Manary, who discovered that RUTFs were much more effective than traditional treatments. Dr. Manary was able to clear his hospital’s malnutrition ward and use RUTFs to treat his patients at their homes, while increasing the recovery rate from 25% to 95%. Given the product’s success, Dr. Manary recognized the long-term impact RUTFs could have if they were manufactured in the countries that needed them. Together, the doctors simplified the recipe so it could be produced locally.

A woman and child sitting on a bend next to a box. The woman is giving the child something to drink.Plumpy’Nut® has a long, 2-year shelf-life, is formulated to avoid diarrhea-type side effects, and can be eaten right out of the packet, eliminating the risks of dosage errors and contamination associated with mixing a powder with water. Plumpy’Nut®’s long shelf-life, effectiveness, and ease-of-use have led to a rise in community-based treatment of acute malnutrition and have made it possible to treat children in areas that were not reached by traditional methods.

Nutriset has used its patent rights to further increase access to its technologies in developing countries through its PlumpyField® network. Nutriset partners with local entrepreneurs in franchise-like relationships to create sustainable production systems in developing countries. In addition to benefiting from Nutriset’s reputation and manufacturing experience, network partners are given access to Nutriset’s patents and trademarks. The franchise-like system based on granting rights to use its intellectual property allows Nutriset to ensure that all products being locally produced by network members embody the innovations that actually help those suffering from malnutrition. And by supporting the local manufacture of its innovative products, Nutriset enables its partners to provide jobs to local people, source raw materials from local farmers, and customize the products to address the specific nutritional needs of their communities, while decreasing dependency on foreign organizations.

The PlumpyField® network consists of 9 members based in Central America, Africa, Asia, Europe, and the U.S. While the majority of the products are still manufactured in France and the U.S., members in developing countries continue to increase their production capacity, bringing the network’s total capacity to 117,400 metric tons. In 2016, the network’s products were used to treat nearly 8 million children. Thanks to Nutriset’s focus on incentivizing local capacity, that number will surely rise. According to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, increasing local production is one of the best ways of ensuring long-term food security. Nutriset’s success in this endeavor would not be possible without its intellectual property rights.

The story of Plumpy’Nut® and PlumpyField® illustrates the power of intellectual property rights to improve and save lives. Not only do IP rights encourage the development of innovative products, they can be used to implement sustainable solutions to some of the world’s most pressing health challenges.

#Innovate4Health is a joint research project by the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF). This project highlights how intellectual property-driven innovation can address global health challenges. If you have questions, comments, or a suggestion for a story we should highlight, we’d love to hear from you. Please contact Devlin Hartline at jhartli2@gmu.edu.

Categories
Copyright

Pulitzer Prize-Winning Author T.J. Stiles Makes the Case for Copyright

a shelf full of booksOn October 12th and 13th, the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) hosted its Fifth Annual Fall Conference at Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia. The event brought together scholars, industry professionals, and practicing attorneys to discuss recent developments in intellectual property law and to present meaningful policy reform proposals. In addition to panels and presentations of recent scholarship in IP, the conference featured a keynote address by the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and copyright advocate T.J. Stiles in which he discussed his career in writing and made an inspiring case for the rights of creators.

Watch the keynote here:

Stiles, whose works include the award-winning biographies Custer’s Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America and The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt, began his speech by detailing his various book projects over the course of his career and explaining how he writes about topics that personally interest and compel him—stories which others authors sometimes overlook. He also made clear from the start that though he writes for creative fulfillment, writing books is his job, and he relies on the money they make to live.

T.J. Stiles speaking on stageSpeaking on the distinctions between academic and commercial publishing, Stiles explained that he relies on book sales to expand his audience.  He noted that, as a biographer, his books are a unique combination of fact-filled scholarship and non-fiction, artistic prose. It’s a genre of writing that has a broad market, but one with a dwindling number of authors due to diminishing incentives.

Providing a stark overview of the state of the writing profession, Stiles pointed out that the number of full-time authors is down 30% from 2009, and that annual income for full-time authors has dropped from $25,000 to $17,500. Freelance journalist income has fallen from between $1 and $4 a word to between 25 cents and $1.25. Moreover, Stiles explained that, as an author, he is his own employee, and that he is responsible for costs that others may take for granted:

Meanwhile, while we’re struggling with these constraints on income, I’m paying my own health insurance, I am saving for retirement on my own. There is no matching contribution to a retirement fund, and I’m paying self-employment tax.

He also pointed out that, depending on the stage of a book project, his income can vary wildly. While some years his expenses and taxes can be covered by book proceeds and publishing partnerships, other years bring burdensome costs. And though the small royalty streams from his older books may seem to some insignificant, Stiles explained that they are used to cover his mortgage, car payments, and health insurance for a family of four.

Stiles spoke to the importance of controlling the rights in one’s work, noting that sometimes overlooked rights such as the right to perform (as it relates to the recording of audio books) can generate important licensing income. In addition to the costs of living he detailed earlier in his speech, this income is reinvested directly into his current or future projects by paying for research trips and other expenses.

Addressing rampant piracy in the digital age, Stiles noted that though illegal downloading doesn’t affect books as much as music and movies, the unauthorized copying and digitization of books through massive internet archiving projects is devaluing works of authorship and threatening the creative marketplace.

Stiles lamented that in addition to losing money from theft and misappropriation, creators are expected to police the Internet for infringement and enforce their rights on a case-by-case basis, a task that is virtually impossible. Stiles then compared this unrealistic expectation to a scenario in which a shopkeeper is expected to track down and arrest shoplifters, making a persuasive point about the absurdity of private copyright policing.

stack of books at T.J. Stiles speaking eventStiles warned that when authors lose control of their works, it chips away at the incentives that drive independent creation, thereby silencing important voices. This disregard for the rights of creators is part of a larger problem: the degradation of a social compact and understanding that we should pay for something that we want. It’s a troubling trend that could have disastrous consequences in an age when stolen content is available at the click of a mouse.

Cautioning against the embrace of certain large tech companies, Stiles explained that when digital platforms aggregate and distribute huge amounts of content, creators are separated from the income their works are generating. Platforms such as YouTube want to compile as much content as possible, pay as little as possible for it, and then turn a profit by inundating said content with advertisements. Stiles warned that this behavior skews price expectations and ultimately disincentivizes creators.

In closing, Stiles reiterated just how important copyright and creative control is to fostering individual voices:

I think it’s absolutely essential for our culture, for our knowledge, for just the sheer pleasure of living, to maintain these individual voices. But again, it’s our very individuality, our very disaggregation which provides our cultural value, which it also is the limiting factor on the economic, the financial value we get out of our work.

Though it may seem like an obvious construct, the fact that artists and creators rely on the income generated by their works to live is something that is all too often discounted in an era of endless content, and it’s one that needs repeating. T.J. Stiles’ story is one of success in writing, but it’s also a cautionary tale that shows how even acclaimed authors rely on copyright and control of their works to get by. Continuing to incentivize authors and creators and allowing them to make a living is more important now than ever before, and for T.J. Stiles, “that’s what copyright is all about.”

Categories
Uncategorized

Small Claims Bill Aims to Empower Copyright Owners and Creators

Cross-posted from the Mister Copyright blog.

U.S. Capitol buildingThis month, Congress introduced a bill that would establish a long-discussed small claims court for copyright disputes. The legislation comes after a House Judiciary Committee proposal based on a four-year review of the US Copyright system and a 2013 report by the Copyright Office that recommended “the creation of an alternative forum that will enable copyright owners to pursue small infringement matters and related claims arising under the Copyright Act.” The bill represents one of the key reforms intended to modernize the US copyright system, hoping to finally empower creators of limited means in the fight against the unauthorized use of their works.

Dubbed the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act, the legislation was introduced to the House of Representatives by Congressmen Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Tom Marino (R-PA), along with Representatives Doug Collins(R-GA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), and Lamar Smith (R-TX). The bill proposes the creation a Copyright Claims Board overseen by three Copyright Claims Officers, who would be appointed by the Librarian of Congress and serve a six-year term. Among other duties, these Officers would render determinations on the civil copyright claims brought before the Board, with damages capped at $30,000.

In 2011, a study by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) found the cost of litigating a copyright infringement lawsuit with less than $1 million at stake was roughly $350,000. This figure has surely grown over the past six years, and unfortunately, so too have instances of infringement. In addition to cost concerns, the time it takes for a copyright claim to be resolved has also deterred many copyright owners from pursuing lower-value claims. The Copyright Office small claims report noted that it takes nearly a year and a half for cases to go to trial in the districts that see the highest volume of copyright complaints.

The establishment of the small claims system would give plaintiffs of limited means an opportunity to represent themselves or be represented pro bono by copyright attorneys and supervised law students. Not only will the Copyright Board provide copyright owners with a chance to recover damages that, to them, are not insignificant, it will give them a voice in the fight against infringement and hopefully deter acts of infringement that have become all to casual in the digital age.

The reality is that the majority of copyright owners are small businesses and individual creators who often lack the means to bring an infringement suit in federal court. According to a report by the Professional Photography Association, 70% of photographers have experienced unauthorized use of their work, but most instances of infringement are valued at less than $3,000. With relatively small sums of money and damages on the line, attorneys are reluctant to dedicate their time to representing individual artists and small businesses.

Speaking on the CASE Act at the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property’s (CPIP) recent Fifth Annual Fall Conference, copyright expert Mike Klipper and CPIP Senior Scholar Sandra Aistars praised the House’s effort to implement a system that will benefit frustrated small creators. Klipper explained that the House Judiciary Committee heard creators and stakeholders loud and clear during its review tour in which it solicited suggestions on how the copyright system could better serve those it’s meant to incentivize and protect. Artists and small creators were tired of feeling powerless against rampant online infringement and asked for a venue that would allow them to challenge the theft of their works without breaking the bank.

While the Copyright Claims Board is a step towards empowering small creators, it’s important to point out that because the adjudicatory proceedings do not involve a jury trial, participation is voluntary for both parties. But, as Robert Levine points out in his review of the CASE Act, many defendants would likely still agree to the proceedings due to the high cost of defending themselves in federal court.

With the future of other legislative efforts to modernize the Copyright Office uncertain, it’s difficult to predict whether the CASE Act will become law. At the moment, the bill is supported by a bipartisan group of Representatives and doesn’t appear be strongly opposed by stakeholders who might find themselves named as defendants, which bodes well for its passage.

As Klipper explained in his commentary on the Copyright Claims Board, the time to act on copyright reform is now, as House Judiciary Committee Chairman—and champion of copyright reform—Bob Goodlatte’s term will come to an end in February of next year. Before that time, the establishment of a small claims system that will benefit both petitioners and respondents alike and provide a long-overdue service to the creative community will help to modernize the US copyright system.