ACTA Negotiators Still Aiming For Agreement By Year’s End 25/09/2010 by Kaitlin Mara for Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Countries negotiating a semi-secret trade agreement against piracy and counterfeiting this week in Tokyo are still aiming to reach agreement by the end of this year, a negotiator told Intellectual Property Watch today. The negotiator also did not reject outright the notion that patents might still be included in the draft treaty text, instead saying it is still a matter for discussion. Negotiators for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) are meeting from 23 September to 1 October in Tokyo for what some have said could be the final round of the negotiation. Civil society groups have stepped up expressions of concern in the lead-up to this meeting, not only over issues with the text itself but also over issues of non-transparency in the negotiating process (IPW, Bilateral/Regional Negotiations, 24 September 2010). As far as whether the negotiation will finish this week, participants are “aiming at concluding this year, as soon as possible,” the Japanese negotiator told Intellectual Property Watch, but it depends on the progress in each round. The definition of intellectual property rights in ACTA references sections of the World Trade Organization Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. On whether this means patents will be enforced by ACTA, the negotiator said TRIPS already has patents in it and “it is not ACTA that defines what is included in intellectual property rights.” As a general principle “there’s no definitive decision with regard to scope, coverage by ACTA as to what IPRs should be covered… [it is] still an issue that should be addressed in the negotiations.” When asked about sticky issues of customs actions to enforce patent rights interfering with trade in legitimate generic medicines, the negotiator said the “intention of negotiating parties is to avoid constraints on legitimate transactions of trade in medicines and other goods.” But “even without ACTA a number of countries” already have laws in place regarding customs seizures for infringing goods and “we don’t see why there should be additional concern.” When Intellectual Property Watch asked about an ongoing dispute settlement process over one such law in the EU, the negotiator said the intent is “to ensure full consistency between TRIPS and ACTA.” Geographical indications are also a matter that continues to need more discussion, the negotiator added. Geographical indications, or product names associated with a particular location and characteristics, are highly valued by the European Union, which has several: Parmesan, Champagne, and Bordeaux, for example. But in the United States many names protected in Europe – parmesan, for example – are considered generic. GIs is a critical area of disagreement between the US and the EU and had been thought by some commentators to be enough of an issue that it might derail the negotiating process. ACTA is being negotiated by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States. Transparency Issues There is a “recognition among participants in Japan” that transparency should be enhanced “as much as possible… that has never been changed,” the negotiator from Japan said. But there needs to be a consensus to release text. After increasingly strong demands for transparency, including among democratically elected bodies such as the European Parliament, ACTA negotiators released a draft version of the text in April. But this text did not include which countries have asked for which provisions, and there has been no text officially released since despite there being several more negotiating rounds. Several updated draft texts have been leaked through non-governmental groups concerned about the public interest in the talks (IPW, Bilateral/Regional Negotiations, 24 September 2010). The international press has had very limited access to substantive information about the talks other than the leaks. “It is not necessarily international practice to release after each negotiating meeting” a text, the negotiator said, adding that there are negotiations where text is made available to civil society, but it depends on how participating countries like to organise and where it is deemed useful to inform interested people. A number of issues on most areas of the agreement remain to be discussed and there is “continuing evolution at this stage” in several areas, including on issues of environment and internet. Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Related Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch."ACTA Negotiators Still Aiming For Agreement By Year’s End" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Rebentisch says 29/09/2010 at 2:50 am “On whether this means patents will be enforced by ACTA, the negotiator said TRIPS already has patents in it and “it is not ACTA that defines what is included in intellectual property rights.” TRIPs is restrained by the fiction that the provisions relate to a removal of non-tariff barriers to trade (trade-related aspects of…), it is also not directly enforcable. ACTA seems to be magically liberated from these premises and the EU DG Trade made up its competence for international harmonisation of “advanced standards”. It is technically interesting on the EU side as there are no harmonized EU substantive patent laws or criminal enforcement provisions for IPR. This month, 18 Sept, the Council dropped the Parliament codecision proposal for a IPR criminal measures enforcement directive (with patents explicitly excluded). No harmonisation, no acquis, no competence. I wonder through which legal base my government gets represented by the EU Council presidency negotiators in Japan and negotiates the criminal chapter. It is not a trade process but international legislation, still the process is like banana tariffs and banana quota. You may wonder if the future of the ordinary legislative process in the EU would be FTA between the European Council and the Republic of Bananas to circumvent EU-Parliament legislative powers. GI protection is an artificial barrier to trade, by definition they lessens the freedom of trade. I assume the European Commission lacks legal competence to promote new barriers to trade internationally. They cannot act like a government, what they can do needs a mandate stemming from the European Treaties. And the treaties provide for removal of trade barriers, not their creation, whether the French like it or not. Their Camembert smells. Not to mention the explicit inclusion of political corruption (“technical assistance”, “capacity building”) for prospecting nations. ACTA is outrageous. This process has to be terminated. The sooner the better. Reply