,

Corruption to be tried in public court?

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Now the drafters want to try corruption in public courts?:
What a shocking discourse. The team drafting a new anticorruption law is seeking to kill the three-year-old Anticorruption Court, where the enemies of graft work for a clean future. If the House of Representatives, which Transparency International Indonesia singled out in its last year's Corruption Perception Index report as the country's most corrupt institution, eventually endorses the bill, all corruption cases will be tried at a public court.The courageous non-career, ad hoc Anticorruption Court judges will have to find jobs elsewhere, because only the career judges at the public court will be licensed to prosecute.
Told ya to keep an eye. Back to the stone age gentlemen...

 

, , , ,

Water law in Indonesia

Monday, February 12, 2007

I am doing some research on drinking water contracts between water companies and regulators/government, so my next updates will be dominated by water law issues.

Anyway, here's some info as a backgrounder. The Constitutional Court had declared Indonesia's new law on water resources "Conditionally Constitutional". This means that affected parties will have opportunity to submit another judicial review to the Court if they are able to prove that in practice, the law is implemented differently than what has been suggested by the Court.

I wrote an article on that issue which you can download here (pdf). And here's the abstract:

Enactment of the Water Law in Indonesia has arises public debate. The Judicial Review of the Law by the Constitutional added to this controversy as it puts the legality of the water regime in Indonesia in a “twilight zone”. This article explained the historical background of the water regime in Indonesia and its development, analyze the position of water rights and human rights to water under Indonesian Constitution, elaborates the key provisions of Indonesian water law, elaborate water law's judicial review by the Constitutional Court, analyzes the legal consequences of the review and recommend the government on the parts of the law that needs to be amended or modified. The author also discusses several important issues that needs to be weighed by governments when creating the water law's implementing regulation, including regulating several standard contract provisions between government and water investors.

 

, , ,

Bird flu strain MoU signed

Thursday, February 8, 2007

Not bad, although only an MoU it could be a good start:
Baxter International Inc. on Wednesday said it signed an agreement that could lead to a collaboration with Indonesia on the development of a bird flu vaccine, stirring controversy over the country's recent decision to stop sharing virus samples with the WorldHealthOrganization. It is the first such agreement Indonesia, the country with the most human fatalities from the H5N1 strain of avianinfluenza, has made with a foreign maker of vaccine. The "memorandum of understanding" with the Indonesian government provides "a framework for future discussions" that could lead to a formal supply agreement for pandemic vaccine. Baxter is already landing contracts to help countries, including the United States, stockpile dosages in the event of a pandemic.

An MoU is not yet binding. I wonder what the actual agreement will like. It may be difficult to attach derivative rights to the bird flu strains for financial compensation to Indonesia. If the agreement is like a supply agreement "here, you can have this strain but give us some money" then Indonesia will have no royalty share for each vaccines they create.
Got any other opinion?

 

, , , ,

Can bird flu strains be "owned"?

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Indonesia delayed the transfer of bird flu strains to WHO after an aussie company developed a vaccine out of it:
The Indonesian Government says Australian company CSL should have sought its permission to develop a bird flu vaccine using the Indonesian strain of the H5N1 virus. But news this week that the Australian pharmaceuticals company CSL had developed a vaccine against the H5N1 bird flu virus was met with alarm by Indonesian Health Minister Siti Fadillah Supari. She says Indonesia is seeking intellectual property rights over the Indonesian strain of the virus on which the vaccine is based.

If the case is about some Indonesian plants or animals, I am certain that there could be some protection granted by one of intellectual property treaties currently in force -- if Indonesia is a party to the treaty. However, I don't think it is the case when virus is involved. I don't think bird flu strains per se can be subjected to IPR protection. If, on the other hand, someone decode the strains, they might be able to obtain IPR protection. The code could be protected but the sample cannot!

NY Times said:
A spokeswoman for Indonesia’s Health Ministry told Reuters yesterday that the country “cannot share samples for free.” “There should be rules of the game for it,” said the spokeswoman, Lily Sulistyowati. “Just imagine, they could research, use and patent the Indonesia strain.” The Financial Times reported the move by Indonesia yesterday; the country has not released a flu sample since late last year.

True, they can obtain IPR protection from it. But the strain itself is noneother but a raw information. What the law gives is the protection after the information is processed.

While there may not be any case for IPR protection toward bird flu strain, holding the sample from being released is a legal thing. But, what would be the benefit for Indonesia?

 

,

Putting a tax on privacy

Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Hey, anything valuable is taxable. In my previous post, I talked about "privacy gap":
A growing "privacy gap" is the third problem. In the future, privacy is going to be expensive. You can protect an RFID tag, for example, by using passwords to make access difficult. You can do something similar with satellite imagery. If you do not want your roof or swimming pool to be photographed, you need to shield them, but it will cost you money. This means privacy will eventually belong only to the wealthy.
Now I have an idea, why not put tax on privacy. As privacy is something valuable in the future, tax it! Call it "privacy tax" ;)

 

, , ,

Jakarta flood and disaster management

Sunday, February 4, 2007

Most foreign media today says that the number of casualty for the Jakarta flood is 9. Local media however said that there are at least 20 dead. Thousands of civilians were trapped in flooded areas and need to wait for quite a long time before a rescue raft come to pick them up. But there wasn't enough raft for everyone. There should be enough rafts and boats if the armed forces were dispatched earlier to support the city police.

Communications are down, many telephone lines are off as the Telecom office is flooded by water, BTS antennas are also off due to electric cut. The flood had strucked down nearly all means of transportations from railways to toll roads. I think food distribution could be the next problem, in addition to the spreading of disease. I hope the officials have a clear chain of command in managing the situation although formally the disaster management law has not come into force.

Disaster management really should be a priority in the 2007 legislation program.

 

, , , ,

(This time) Intel won its trademark claim

Friday, February 2, 2007

Indonesian Supreme Court decided in favor of Intel Corp in a trademark dispute against a local apparel company:
The Supreme Court has cancelled a local apparel maker's domestic trademark, ruling that the world's biggest chip maker was entitled to copyright protection as a well-known brand in spite of the fact that Intel Jeans products bore no resemblance to electronic chips.


Well, there won't be any Intel Jeans anymore :)

But its really a long way to go for Intel. Its brand is being used by quite so many companies from electronic appliances to clothings. If I am not mistaken, Intel lost its claim back in 1993 as the court suggest that intel is not a well known brand.

Within 2002-2005, 131 out of 163 IPR claims is for trademark. The cost of litigation is very high, as well as the bureaucracy. If you are curious on how the bureaucracy look like, click here (in Bahasa).