[A2k] TACD-KEI-HAI release: Intellectual property enforcement initiatives threaten consumer rights and public health

[Anne-Catherine Lorrain]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
http://www.tacd-ip.org/blog/2009/06/12/intellectual-property-enforcement-in=
itiatives-threaten-consumer-rights-and-public-health/

PRESS RELEASE                12 June 2009

*Intellectual property enforcement initiatives threaten consumer
rights and public health*

The TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), Health Action
International (HAI) and Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) hosted
a public meeting on the issue of intellectual property rights
enforcement in Brussels on Wednesday, June 10th.

Everyday we hear about counterfeiting and piracy and about anti-
counterfeiting and new enforcement initiatives of governments and
industry. HAI, KEI and TACD presented two panels that challenged the
direction and rationale of several of these intellectual property
rights initiatives, including EU regulation 1383 on border measures
and the proposed =93Anti-counterfeiting=94 trade agreement (ACTA). The
enforcement of private intellectual property right claims is a
complex and important area of public policy that touches on issues
such as personal privacy, civil rights, freedom, social and economic
development, among others.

European Union leaders and the United States government are currently
engaged in efforts to shape global norms for the enforcement of
copyright, trademarks, patents and other intellectual property
rights. These discussions are taking place in multilateral,
plurilateral, bilateral and unilateral fora. Such policies raise
concerns because of the delicate balance between on the one hand
rights and exceptions, put in place by the international copyright
and patent law =93acquis=94, and on the other hand public health
principles such as access to medicines.

Speakers at the event represented consumer and public health
organisations from both sides of the Atlantic: M=E9decins Sans
Fronti=E8res (MSF), KEI, Essential Action, Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF), HAI, The European Consumers Organisation (BEUC) and
the Brazilian Permanent representation to the European Union, as well
as respondents from DG-Trade and DG-Internal Market & Services. The
diverse audience included representatives from pharmaceutical, seed,
and software companies, the US Chamber of Commerce, academic experts,
European Commission officials, members of the European Parliament,
journalists,
public health groups, consultants, business and civil society
organisations.

Selected quotes by the speakers:

Alexandra Heumber, MSF
=93Patent infringement should be excluded from the EU regulation
1383/2003 in order to avoid seizures of legitimate generic medicines
in transit.=94

=93Regulation 3295/94, the law preceding 1383/2003, was much narrower
in scope. Rather than including all violations of intellectual
property, it focused on counterfeit and pirated goods, which are
generally seen as trademark issues. The updated, broader law is
problematic as we have seen no justification for the extension to
this area and no impact assessment of the effects.=94

Eddan Katz, EFF
=93At a time when carefully considered public policy is critical for
protecting the growth of the knowledge economy, the ACTA negotiations
brazenly obscure decision-making in secret meetings outside of public
debate and without legislative accountability. The leaked provisions
reveal a global information customs regime with radically broad
powers for border officials and a grab bag of multi-national
corporate lawmaking. As the Internet section is in the process of
being mapped onto this border customs pact, the urgency of meaningful
public debate demands a release of this ill-considered text.=94

Anne-Catherine Lorrain from TACD announced at the meeting that the
French Constitutional Court censored the graduated response proposal.
The French Court echoed "Amendment 138" of the Telecoms Package voted
by the European Parliament, saying that cutting access to the
Internet is a sanction that can only be imposed by the judicial
authority, taking into account the rights of defense and the
presumption of innocence.

James Love, Knowledge Ecology International
=93In a plethora of settings, publishers and pharmaceutical companies
are pushing an aggressive new agenda to expand and enforce
intellectual property rights. The proposals are often advanced in
undemocratic and non-transparent fora, such as the top secret and
highly classified ACTA negotiations. This is big government and big
business at its worst, creating rules without input or sensitivity to
the concerns of consumers, overriding civil rights, undermining
privacy, increasing prices to consumers. The topics under review are
not simple technical issues or directed at organized crime, they are
big sweeping changes in our basic
freedoms, and underhanded attempts to give lobbyists rules they can=92t
get in a normal democratic setting.=92=92

Peter Maybarduk, Essential Action
=93Many new worldwide measures aggressively protect pharmaceutical
monopolies under the guise of fighting counterfeits - blocking
competition and jeopardizing global access to medicines in the
process. For example, the secret, so-called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement =96 which in fact focuses on ratcheting-up patent, copyright
and trademark protection, with little if any attention to drug
quality =96 deliberately misrepresents its contents to consumers, and
is therefore itself counterfeit. Counterfeits are a subset of a much
larger drug quality issue. The enforcement agenda fails to address
broader quality concerns, and indeed may divert much-needed public
health resources away from strengthening drug regulatory authorities.
Rather than investing taxpayer dollars enforcing private rights,
public bodies should promote price-lowering competition, drug quality
and affordable access to medicines.=94

Henrique C. Moraes, Brazilian Permanent representation to the EU
"There are =91TRIPS Plus=92 initiatives emerging in fora where these kind
of discussions are not expected. Public Interest organisations should
be aware of this.=94

Kostas Rossoglou, BEUC
=93BEUC calls on decision makers in Brussels not to give in to the wish
of the content industry to control the Internet. There remains
confusion =96 whether deliberate or not - between consumers and
organized operations, whereby consumers are blamed for copyright
infringements. Clarification is needed: applying the same enforcement
measures to both commercial scale infringers operating for profit and
to individual citizens is, at a minimum, disproportionate. While
consumers have been actively engaging with the technology and what
they can do with it, it is disappointing that many producers and
owners of content in the creative industry sector have seen the
technology as a threat rather than a business opportunity.=94

A Swedish participant at the meeting referred to a quote by MP Johan
Linander, Legal affairs spokesperson of the Swedish Center Party,
saying =93If any of the other negotiating countries still would choose
to put a stop to openness, Sweden and the EU will have to seriously
consider stopping the negotiations altogether". This quote is thought
to be in reaction to the recent success of the Pirate Party in the
European elections.



-------

Anne-Catherine Lorrain
Intellectual Property Policy Project
The TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD)
80, rue d'Arlon, B-1040 Bruxelles
aclorrain@gmail.com
aclorrain@consint.org
Mob (Belgium): +32 473 99 97 92
Tel: +32 2 740 28 17, Fax: +32 2 740 28 02
www.tacd.org
www.tacd-ip.org/blog