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

Advertisement


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.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • This is certainly a good move, but perhaps this is... »
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »

  • 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 >


    New US IP Enforcement Plan May Have International Impact

    Published on 23 June 2010 @ 9:03 am

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    The Obama administration’s release of its national intellectual property strategy yesterday was welcomed by many groups representing businesses and intellectual property holders who said it could serve as an example to other countries.

    The strategy encompasses 33 enforcement strategy action items that fall within six categories of focus for the United States: (1) leading by example; (2) increasing transparency; (3) ensuring efficiency and coordination; (4) enforcing US rights internationally; (5) securing US supply chain; and (6) building a data-driven government.

    “Combating counterfeiting and piracy requires a robust federal response,” says the introduction of the report, which was released by President Obama’s intellectual property enforcement coordinator (IPEC), Victoria Espinel, who was joined by US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Attorney General Eric Holder, Vice President Joe Biden, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. “Our status as a global innovation leader is compromised by those countries who fail to enforce the rule of law or international agreements, or who adopt policies that disadvantage American industries.”

    “I say to those who are suffering from infringement: ‘Help is on the way,’” Espinel said during a press conference releasing the report.

    Watch a video of the press conference here.

    Biden said a comprehensive approach thus far has been lacking in this country, further alluding to the fact that up until now, there has been no proper cracking down on piracy at the federal level.

    “Piracy hurts. It hurts our economy,” as well as citizens’ health and safety, he added, taking a hardline position. “Whether we’re talking about fake drugs that hurt instead of help the patient or knockoff car tires that fall apart at 65 miles per hour that cause injury or death, counterfeits kill. Counterfeits kill. There’s a reason why they’re counterfeit – they don’t know how to do it in the first place. It also, to state the obvious, stifles creativity.”

    He continued: “Piracy is theft – clean and simple. It’s smash and grab. … Intellectual property is no different.”

    While acknowledging the need to control IP infringement, public interest groups, academics and some US trading partners have continually raised concern that overly strong or unbalanced protection measures can also stifle creativity and innovation as well by limiting access to ideas and knowledge.

    Under the “leading by example” category, the report says the US government will lead by ensuring the federal government does not purchase or use infringing products. It will establish a working group to reduce the risk of procuring such products, and ban the use of illegal software by government contractors.

    As to increasing transparency, the administration vows to further encourage public participation in intellectual property enforcement policy making and international negotiations. During trade negotiations, however, it notes that this objective will be pursued with consideration given to the need for confidentiality in international trade negotiations.

    The process surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which is being negotiated among a group of mostly developed nations and led by the United States and European Union, has been heavily criticised for its perceived lack of transparency.

    “We [also] agree with her [Espinel’s] emphasis on transparency in the development of IP enforcement policy, whether on domestic IP or in the context of foreign policy,” said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge. “That would be a refreshing change from the development of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which was done behind closed doors. We wish the plan had included in its transparency discussion the Section 301 reports, which put countries on watch lists, for reasons not clearly or publicly explained and which appear dependent on industry statistics.”

    Sohn also said her group appreciates the discussion of “carefully crafted and balanced agreements” when it comes to preserving competition in private sector enforcement actions. “In our view, there private industry should not have the ability to cut off someone’s internet access based only on unproven allegations without any due process.”

    There has been debate over whether the US government or industry should implement a “three strikes” rule that allowed repeat infringers’ internet connection to be cut off. France has attempted such a law.

    Biden noted that internet delivery companies, movie studios, the recording industry and others have stressed the need for a “strong and fair” way to crack down on illegal downloads. He said discussions are ongoing between the content community and ISPs, but “everybody needs to pull together to fight the harm” done by intellectual property theft.

    “It takes cooperation between the content community as well as between the internet service providers,” he said.

    Enforcement across Borders

    While the report says that the US needs to continue to raise concerns about IP enforcement in other countries – as it does via the Special 301 report released annually by the USTR – it will also now report on progress made in other countries that adopt best practices.

    The USTR and the IPEC will also launch an interagency process to assess opportunities to further publicise and expand USTR’s Notorious Markets list – a list of examples of internet and physical markets subject to enforcement action or that needs further investigation.”

    And the US will also work to provide the US Customs and Border Protection agency with the authority to share enforcement data with complainant rights holders, including denials of entry, seizures and other actions, when the CBP is banned by the International Trade Commission from importing infringing goods.
    Other international highlights include:

    -The IPEC will establish an interagency committee with participation from the private sector on the counterfeiting of pharmaceuticals and medical products, including unlicensed internet pharmacies, and the proliferation of counterfeit drugs in Africa.

    -The US government will ensure that personnel – including law enforcement – are stationed in countries where intellectual property theft is rampant. It will form enforcement work plans for embassy personnel and establish working groups within the embassies to implement those plans. The United States will also further work to reduce infringement internationally through increased global coordination on seminars, workshops, outreach and other training programs.

    -Cracking down on foreign-based and foreign-controlled websites that infringe on American intellectual property rights and having federal law enforcement agencies encourage cooperation with their foreign counterparts on enforcement investigations, particularly in China.

    -USTR will continue using ACTA and other trade agreements to enforce intellectual property rights and will, with the IPEC, initiate an interagency process to increase the effectiveness of Special 301 action plans aimed at getting countries off the watch list.

    -Increasing international collaboration on IP issues with groups such as the World Intellectual Property Organization, World Trade Organization and World Health Organization.

    -Educating and providing resources to businesses acquiring IP rights in foreign markets or exporting IP-based products to foreign markets, particularly those doing business in China.

    -Increasing collaboration with the importing community to find effective, cooperative solutions to the flow of fake goods coming into the United States.

    The Justice Department pointed out that the attorney general has met with foreign law enforcement officials from South America and Spain, industry CEOs and others to discuss the department’s effort to emphasize the need for greater coordination and cooperation in the fight against intellectual property theft.

    Mark Esper, executive vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center, said this strategy may cause others to ponder similar plans. The instalment of Espinel as the IPEC may also hammer home the idea that the United States is taking IP enforcement seriously, he added. As of January 2007, 23 countries and/or regions had intellectual property strategies included in WIPO’s IP and New Technologies Database.

    “Those two go hand in glove,” Esper told Intellectual Property Watch. Other countries may conclude that “they, too, will need somebody at the top of their government focused solely on IP and creativity.” He said the European Union is pondering the idea of such an official.

    The Chamber commended the administration, specifically, for acknowledging the increasingly sophisticated problem of internet piracy. Biden also called on the private sector to do more to combat this type of theft.

    “I am encouraged to see they have taken on the issue area growing the most quickly, the one that will be the most difficult to get under control,” Esper added.

    Biden also specifically applauded search engines like Yahoo, Google and Bing, which in recent weeks took steps to stop selling advertising to illegal internet pharmacies.

    Applause and comments also came from other groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America, Copyright Alliance, Progress & Freedom Foundation, National Association of Manufacturers and American Apparel & Footwear Association, as well as lawmakers such as Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was the lead author of the 2008 legislation creating Espinel’s post. Leahy said he will discuss the plan with Espinel at the Judiciary Committee’s IPEC oversight hearing today.

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

     

    Comments

    1. New IP Enforcement Strategy US — We All Make Music says:

      [...] out some details about the new strategy on Intellectual Property Watch and the press conference on the White House [...]

    2. U.S. refocusing on IP enforcement — including “enforcement across borders” « the CAS-IP blog says:

      [...] June 23, 2010 · Leave a Comment I first read on IP-Watch news about recent release of a national intellectual property strategy from the US governme…. [...]

    3. Dr.H.T.Gangal MS DSc FACS Hubli Ka India says:

      I feel the China offices and their attorneys do not care to continue their international obligations to provide such legal protective acts in view of general trend of gain at any cost as there is no international implementing authority to safe guard the intercountry obligations to protect the interest of its legal now acquired legal rights by the IP RIGHTS HOLDER and is intentionally ignored by the concerned private attorney and China Government office dealing IP rights in China though they are aware or deliberately ignore these required acts as their responsibility as they have accepted to do these acts as obligatory acts while accepting to do on being entrusted to do and are possibly involved in such acts deliberately as can be noted from their outlooks and response even on being pointed of such situation.

    4. Gena777 says:

      While I was heartened to learn of the US’s new Joint Strategic Plan, I was disappointed — and baffled — by the fact that it appears to contain few specific provisions regarding patent law. Although it occasionally mentions patents, the JSP seems to address copyright and trademark almost exclusively. Not to mention the fact that Congress is apparently incapable of passing effective patent reform legislation. I’m just not sure why patent law keeps getting short shrift.

    5. Andy Bruce says:

      July 22nd, 2010

      IP enforcement plan a ‘missed opportunity’ says authentication body

      US policy makers have missed a golden opportunity to make authentication technologies mandatory for intellectual property (IP) anti-counterfeiting strategies, says the International Authentication Association (IAA).

      Although the newly published US Joint Strategic Plan on IP Enforcement is a welcomed step in the right direction, the IAA is disappointed to see the only reference to authentication methods is the proposal to establish a mandatory requirement for a track and trace system for pharmaceuticals and medical products.

      Although the plan indicates that track and trace ‘allows for authentication of the product’, in reality such systems do not authenticate products.

      The IAA, which represents many of the world’s leading brand owners and suppliers of authentication technologies, says that the plan does not go far enough and should have been stronger in endorsing the use of authentication technologies and methods – not just track and trace – for IP protection.

      Track and trace can help to secure the supply chain from the infiltration of counterfeiting but it cannot in itself identify nor confirm whether products distributed beyond legitimate supply chains are genuine or not.

      The most effective strategies for combating counterfeiting include the use of overt and covert authentication technologies and programs – something which the Joint Strategic Plan on IP Enforcement should have acknowledged and supported.

      IAA chairman Jim Rittenburg said the plan is definitely a step in the right direction but track and trace is not a panacea – a position supported in the Performance of Authentication Solutions circulated to ISO members, which states ‘…track and trace technology when used alone is not considered to be an authentication solution’.

      This is also highlighted in the approach that governments take to protecting their money.

      Although banknotes are all serialized for tracking purposes they also contain a multitude of overt and covert authentication features such as security threads, holographics, watermarks, micro text, security inks and invisible taggants.

      “The national plan to fight counterfeiting should include references and guidance on the means of authentication, because detecting fakes is a key part of any anti-counterfeiting strategy,” said Jim Rittenburg.

      “So, the plan from Victoria Espinel, the US Government’s IP Enforcement Coordinator, is not only a missed chance to highlight the importance of authentication technologies but a misguided one in its belief that track and trace allows for authentication.

      “We would like to see the IP Enforcement Coordinator look at the broader role of authentication technologies and programs for the next strategic plan.

      “We would also encourage those involved in authentication to provide her with information which shows the full spectrum of authentication and global experiences.”

      ENDS

      Notes to editors

      The International Authentication Association is a global organisation set up to lead the fight against counterfeits and represents many of the world’s leading brand owners and suppliers of authentication technologies. For more information about the IAA, authentication and the benefits of being a member visit http://www.internationalauthenticationassociation.org

      Issued on behalf of the IAA by Mitchell Halton Watson Ltd. For further details contact Andy Bruce on +44 (0) 191 233 1300 or email andy@mhwpr.co.uk


    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.