SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • Congratulations upon re-election;-WHO chief.Priori... »
  • Great article. Ms. Chan may want to read our book ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Business, Governments See Momentum For ACTA, But EU Snags

    Published on 4 March 2008 @ 12:27 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Liza Porteus Viana for Intellectual Property Watch
    NEW YORK – Business leaders and some global government officials on Monday urged ratification of a global anti-counterfeiting treaty and proposed a series of new strategies aimed at curbing pirated goods they say not only harm developed and developing countries’ economies, but their citizens’ health as well.

    Meanwhile, European Union participation in the negotiations has come into question, and nongovernmental critics have raised concerns about the need for a treaty and the inclusiveness of the negotiations.

    “Our future relies on innovation, creation, brands and unfortunately, all of those are very easy to theft,” said Jean-Rene Fourtou, chairman of the supervisory board of Vivendi and co-chair of the International Chamber of Commerce’s Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP). He added that the security, social and economic issues associated with rampant theft is “like a cancer.”

    Fourtou and other CEOs and corporate executives of BASCAP met Monday in New York City with US Trade Representative Susan Schwab, World Intellectual Property Organization Deputy Director General Michael Keplinger and World Customs Organisation (WCO) Secretary General Michel Danet, among others. BASCAP’s Global Leadership Group tackled topics such as how to get Group of 8 countries to make more progress on shutting down counterfeit markets, working with the WCO to stop the flow of counterfeit goods across borders and forthcoming consumer awareness and education campaigns that will spell out the dangers of fake and pirated goods.

    BASCAP will work with WIPO to seek out other government partnerships on the education campaign, which they say is critical to relaying to consumers the message that buying counterfeit goods harms the economy, local manufacturers and creators of such goods, and poses serious safety and health concerns.

    “We need to more effectively translate these hard-hitting facts” to work toward a “fake-free world,” Keplinger said during a press conference after the meeting.

    Officials also urged Schwab to move quickly toward completing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which the United States, European Union and other key trading partners announced last October. Schwab, who attended the morning business meeting but not the press conference afterward, told attendees that she is hopeful negotiations can be completed this year. The language of the draft agreement is expected early this year.

    “We think it’s absolutely necessary to work toward that while there’s so much momentum behind this issue,” said Alan Drewsen, executive director of the International Trademark Association. He also said Schwab vowed that whatever new administration enters the White House in November, there will be the “same level of commitment to the protection of intellectual property” and pursuing ACTA.

    Kevin Havelock, president of Unilever United States, said Schwab “made quite a commitment of her own energy” to pushing ACTA through this year.

    But a main sticking point, several officials told Intellectual Property Watch, is that the EU has not settled issues surrounding its negotiating authority as one unit yet. “There’s a major problem in the European Union,” Keplinger told Intellectual Property Watch. “That is the open issue,” added Drewsen. “We’re told progress is being made.” Some sources have said the EU has a question of competency versus the national governments in this area.

    Seeking to Include Developing Countries

    One ACTA message relayed to government officials from business was that it is fine to have the US, EU, and Japan involved in the negotiations, but it also is imperative to have other less developed countries involved as well. Also discussed were objectives the group could take to further education and various country initiatives that vary by country and culture. The World Customs Organization gave a presentation on challenges it faces interdicting fake goods.

    “Today we consider this an industry that kills employment, productivity, progress and people,” Danet said in French. “There is no single product that has not been pirated today … the consumers are the pirates and also the victims.”

    Officials also said the finger cannot just be pointed at China as the main culprit, although the fact remains that 80 percent of counterfeit goods seized in Europe alone come from China. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Nigeria and Vietnam also are sources, they said. The problem in holding China accountable, Danet said, is that Beijing may sign onto various agreements but it is hard to know whether they actually are implemented by the country’s various regional leaders who remain fairly independent.

    Bob Wright, vice chairman of General Electric US and a co-chairman of BASCAP, said the hope is that ACTA will be “fill-in-the-blanks for lots of things that are not as thought out or as well drawn having to do with counterfeiting or piracy” in current international agreements.

    Industry Recommendations

    The ICC and INTA also on Monday presented a paper to Schwab, outlining their ACTA recommendations. The paper will be distributed to leaders of the EU, Japan, Korea, Mexico and other governments.

    Intellectual Property Watch obtained a copy of those recommendations, which include avoiding compromises that will limit the scope and effectiveness of the final agreement, having governments warn consumers about the harms of counterfeit products and providing clear guidance and deliver tangible results in topics such as:

    • requiring that each party designate a chief intellectual property enforcement officer to oversee coordination of relevant government officials and agencies and allocate resources
    • ensuring that criminal penalties reflect the magnitude of the crime
    • disrupting the flow of counterfeit goods through free trade zones and other transhipment sites by giving local customers and enforcement authorities power to inspect all shipments and seize infringing goods
    • developing global “minimum standards” in adjudicating counterfeiting and piracy cases
    • addressing the growing problem of the sale of counterfeit goods on the Internet
    • treating counterfeiting and piracy as a transnational crime if activity crosses borders.

    USTR is seeking public comment on ACTA via the Federal Register. Comments must be submitted by March 21 to be considered.

    Critics Raise Doubts on Narrow ACTA Process

    But some ACTA critics say that is not enough, and that developing countries and civil society groups not part of the inter-governmental discussions are at a disadvantage from the outset.

    “These talks have all been going on between a select handful of countries that will basically decide what the parameters of the agreement will be and the concerns of developing countries, the concerns of civil societies, won’t be included in the final text,” said Robin Gross, executive director of the civil liberties organisation IP Justice.

    Gross also is concerned that ACTA will result in increased data-sharing between governments – which could pose privacy concerns – as well as increased use of public resources that would be put toward trying to remedy a problem hurting “a very small number of companies” and would fund what she called “propaganda campaigns” to discourage.

    She said there is no need to reinvent anti-counterfeiting laws, when many countries have already signed onto the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which, among other things, establishes minimum levels of protection that each government has to give to the intellectual property of World Trade Organization members. Pro-ACTA officials say the new agreement would set a new, higher benchmark for enforcement that countries can join voluntarily.

    Undermining Trust in Company Brands

    BASCAP officials maintain that the problem is very real – and potentially deadly, emphasising that it is about more than illegal copies of CDs and DVDs being sold on streets.

    For example, as of December 2007, Pfizer – which has implemented a programme to identify and disrupt the major manufacturers and distributors of counterfeit Pfizer goods – confirmed the presence of counterfeit medicines under its name in at least 75 countries. Fake versions of seven Pfizer products had been detected in legitimate supply chains (e.g., pharmacies) in at least 25 countries – and not just developing nations with weak regulatory systems.

    “Counterfeit pharmaceuticals are truly a global problem for which we need global solutions,” said Andreas Fibig, Pfizer’s senior vice president of US pharmaceutical operations. “And as long as it remains a ‘low risk-high reward’ activity, it will continue to attract opportunists, organised crime and terrorists.”

    Liza Porteus Viana may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.