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.

Advertisement


Inside Views

Submit ideas 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.

How Listing Ukraine As A Priority Foreign Country In Special 301 Violates WTO Agreements

Prof. Sean Flynn asks whether US sanctions of Ukraine under the US Special 301 program violates World Trade Organization rules. He also asks whether the operation of watch lists threatening sanctions for intellectual property matters could be challenged under the WTO even prior to any sanction going into effect.





Latest Comments
  • As it happens, I own and create "intellectual prop... »
  • So long term planning of the UN Development Decade... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    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 >


    US Wrestles With Transparency As Europeans Urge Release Of ACTA Texts

    Published on 27 March 2009 @ 10:43 am

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The parliaments of Sweden and the European Union are urging the European Union to make public all documentation related to a secretive global anti-counterfeiting treaty, while the United States has claimed the papers are a matter of national security and therefore a state secret. But now the US has decided to undertake a review of its transparency.

    The Office of the United States Trade Representative has said that the agency will undertake a thorough review of its transparency to the public, in accordance with the new Obama administration’s assertion that a “democracy requires accountability” and “in the face of doubt, openness prevails” in his government. The timeline for the review has not been set, according to a USTR spokesperson.

    The review was first announced by advocacy group Knowledge Ecology International, which met with USTR and other civil society groups on 19 March to discuss the openness issue. A follow-up meeting with civil society will be held in about a month to talk more specifically about possible changes, according to Eddan Katz of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who participated in the 19 March meeting.

    The US government on 10 March sent a letter to KEI, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on the anti-counterfeiting treaty denying the group access to the documents it sought.

    The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is still under negotiation among a number of nations. Its proponents say it is needed to counter the rising threat from the proliferation of intellectual property rights infringement which they say is potentially damaging to the sustainability of the global economy.

    But the secrecy of the treaty as well as concern over what it might contain has spurred critique of the treaty by civil society groups, those in the technology industry, and some government representatives. (IPW, Enforcement, 20 December 2008; 14 December 2008; 3 October 2008).

    USTR seemed determine to maintain this secrecy, however, stating in its 10 March letter to KEI [pdf] that the documents “are being withheld” as the information “is properly classified in the interest of national security.”

    But the letter was sent prior to a meeting between USTR officials and KEI, EFF and fellow advocacy groups Essential Action and the Consumers Union at which the USTR promised it would be undertaking a full review of its policies with a view towards transparency.

    It was also sent before a 19 March memorandum [pdf] from the US Attorney General to the heads of executive departments and agencies – in response to Obama’s declaration that openness prevails – that states: “an agency should not withhold information simply because it may do so legally.” The Justice Department, it said, will defend a denial of a FOIA request only if there is reason that disclosure would harm an interest protected by statutory exemptions or if it is prohibited by law.

    This represents a departure from the closed-lips policies of the Bush years, when reasons to deny a FOIA request were much broader, including “institutional, commercial, and personal privacy interests” that might be affected by disclosure.

    These parallel processes of the transparency review and the openness to FOIA requests, said Katz, may indicate a shift in direction. “There’s a lot of opportunity for change in the way that things have gone on ACTA and on trade policy,” he added, especially with new USTR Ron Kirk now sworn in.

    “As the source of innovation and creative production in the US widens, and more innovative companies are emerging as reliable parts of the economy, it’s wise at this moment of transition to pay attention to what this broad segment has to say,” Katz said.

    Transparency Review to “Maximise” Available Information

    Kirk, in his opening statement as the new USTR [pdf], asserted that he and the president “believe fundamentally that fair, open and transparent rules-based trade can act as catalyst to benefit working families and business, large and small, throughout this country.”

    The Office of Intergovernmental Relations at USTR with the offices of the General Counsel and Congressional Affairs will be coordinating the review internally, USTR Deputy Assistant for Public Affairs Debbie Mesloh told Intellectual Property Watch.

    The goal, she said, is the “maximise the information we can make available to the public without compromising our ability to negotiate agreements that maximise the gains for Americans to benefit from international trade.”

    There is currently no set timeline for the review, but Mesloh said the USTR would “seek input from across the community of people interested in or who could be affected by these issues.”

    The relationship between ACTA’s designation as a state secret and the new transparency review remained somewhat unclear.

    “The first step is an assessment of how the agency acquires information from the public and transmits information to the public,” she said, adding they would start with a review of the USTR’s advisory committees and its informal consultation practices.

    EU, Swedish Parliaments Call For EU Openness on ACTA

    The Swedish Parliament “urges the government… to investigate the possibility to revoke the mandate of the [European] Commission to negotiate about ACTA in secrecy,” said a publication of the request available on the Swedish Green Party’s website here.

    “This matter is urgent and a decision should be made before the Council [of EU member governments] reaches a political agreement on ACTA,” the statement continued. “Information made available so far clearly demonstrates that ACTA will have far-reaching consequences in several controversial areas of law.” Consequences could extend to internet access providers, border control, and even private citizens, they said.

    “Parliamentary supervision is a prerequisite,” the statement continued, “or the agreement would set a precedent for secret law making, in violation of the principle that all law making in the EU must be as transparent as possible.”

    The European Parliament, too, is calling for more transparency on the treaty negotiations, as a new text adopted by the body called for the European Commission to “immediately make all documents related to the ongoing international negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) publicly available.” The statement comes as a part of a broader document on public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

    The European Parliament seemed to hold a similar view to the Swedish Parliament, saying on 11 March that “no legislative documents should be kept secret.”

    Civil Society Keeps Up Pressure

    KEI made specific recommendations on how USTR could improve transparency, including disclosure of all negotiating texts, policy papers, and meeting agendas as well as accreditation of civil society groups to attend meetings and the institution of public consultation periods.

    Katz said “by opening up the process you’ll see participation from different kinds of companies,” such as search engines, internet service providers, small businesses, software manufacturers and social networks.

    “By opening up, we’ll see a more balanced trade policy,” he added. “USTR has in the past been pursuing distorted exportation of US copyright and IP policy” that will harm the emerging American innovative sector when it must face stricter laws on operations abroad than at home.

    The US has, Katz said, been exporting exclusive rights but not the flexibility and balance that facilitated the emergence of leading thinkers in new innovative spaces such as the internet. He urged USTR not to pursue a course that represents only a small segment of interests of multinational companies that are served best by stricter enforcement and the existing exercise of power.

    About a dozen NGOs – including librarian, civil liberties and consumer groups – weighed in on the matter Thursday, expressing support for the new FOIA guidelines and hope for the review.

    “I am cautiously optimistic,” said Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford University, according to a 26 March KEI blog post.

    “As Attorney General Holder’s recent memorandum on FOIA indicates, information should not be withheld merely because it can be,” Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, adding, “there must be a compelling reason – beyond a mere deference to habit or protocol – to hide the workings of government from the public.”

    “If Obama trade officials follow through, it will make the government more accountable, give the public a greater voice, and connect policy with campaign promises,” said Judit Rius Sanjuan of KEI.

    Present at the 19 March meeting from USTR, according to KEI’s blog, were Assistants Daniel Sepulveda for Congressional Affairs and Stanford McCoy for Intellectual Property and Innovation as well as General Counsel Timothy Reif and Chief Counsel for Legal Affairs Catherine Field.

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Links 27/03/2009: OSBC Comes to a Close | Boycott Novell says:

      [...] US Wrestles With Transparency As Europeans Urge Release Of ACTA Texts The parliaments of Sweden and the European Union are urging the European Union to make public all documentation related to a secretive global anti-counterfeiting treaty, while the United States has claimed the papers are a matter of national security and therefore a state secret. But now the US has decided to undertake a review of its transparency. [...]

    2. orbit says:

      Do you have a reference to the Swedish decision?

    3. Kaitlin Mara says:

      Hi Orbit– is this what you are after?

      http://mp.se/templates/Mct_78.aspx?avdnr=19910&number=166782

      It is the website from the Swedish Green Party where the information we have above is taken from. If you are asking after the Swedish government’s decision in response– as far as I know, it has not yet been made.

    4. Obama seeking unlimited computer spying abilities - InterfaithForums says:

      [...] Obama is willing to plunge us farther in debt to give us Big Brother. Here’s a recent article: Intellectual Property Watch Blog Archive US Wrestles With Transparency As Europeans Urge Release… __________________ Advaita Vedanta [...]

    5. Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » Detailed Summary Of Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Released says:

      [...] Civil society groups and other interested stakeholders have been calling for more transparency in these negotiations for months, with governmental voices joining the call in recent weeks (IPW, Enforcement, 27 March). [...]


    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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 107.21.186.38