[Ecommerce] Copyright infringement in Senate? (Manila Times Story)

[Manon Ress]

I think this story gives a new meaning to piracy.
Manon

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/sept/13/yehey/top_stories/
20050913top8.html

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Bill =91pirating=92 common in Senate

Practice infringes on intellectual property rights, says Pimentel

By Efren L. Danao, Senior Reporter

Pirating of intellectual property rights in the Senate appears to be
more widespread than initially believed.

The Senate minority leader, Aquilino Pimentel Jr., first complained
during the Thirteenth Congress of the refiling by a new senator of
his bill without informing him and getting his information. He said
that a bill is the result of deep research and studies by a
legislator and once filed, it should be considered his intellectual
property rights.

Last week The Manila Times reported that Senate Bill 94, filed by
Sen. Loi Ejercito Estrada, and Senate Bill 1453, filed by Sen. Miriam
Defensor Santiago, are completely identical, suggesting that one may
have copied from the other. It turned out that these are not the only
bills =93cloned=94 in the Thirteenth Congress.

The Manila Times discovered that three bills filed separately by Sen.
Manuel Villar, Estrada and Santiago are worded exactly the same, and
that their only differences were the bill number, the date of filing,
the name of =93autho,=94 and the format. All three measures seek to
establish an =93Office of Research on Women=92s Health=94 under the
Department of Health.

Among the three senators, Estrada was the first to file her measure.
Estrada filed SB 203 on June 30, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., Villar=92s SB 622
was filed on the same day at 8:45 p.m., and Santiago=92s SB 1654, on
August 4, 2004, at 3:15 p.m. This, however, does not mean that
Estrada was really the original =93author=94 of the bill.

A staff member of Villar, Avic Amarillo, said that SB 622 was
originally filed by Villar in the Twelfth Congress as SB 1102. The
measure was archived when it did not become a law, and Villar decided
to refile it.

Does this make the bill Villar=92s brainchild? Apparently not,
according to a staff of Santiago.

Dennis Legaspi said that Santiago=92s SB 1654 was originally filed on
August 10, 1998, during the Eleventh Congress as SB 1044, so it
antedated even that of Villar=92s.

The Manila Times notes the close friendship among Santiago, Villar
and Estrada, so the =93cloning=94 of Santiago=92s bill could not possibly
be a case of one-upmanship or credit-grabbing.

One possible explanation is that Villar, who was elected in the
Twelfth Congress, got the permission of Santiago to refile her SB
1044. It must be noted that Santiago lost her reelection bid in the
2001 polls.

And what about Estrada? It is also possible that she got Santiago=92s
permission. Then, perhaps, the chief of staff of Santiago did not
know anything about the prior permission, and decided to refile her
measure.

Whenever a new Congress starts, senators and congressmen search the
archives for worthy bills that were not passed, and refile them even
if they are not the original authors, and with or without the
authors=92 knowledge and      permission.

Some legislators boast of the big number of bills that they have
filed, but they conveniently hide the fact that they merely pick the
brains of their colleagues. Unless there are reforms, the Senate of
the Thirteenth Congress will earn the dubious distinction of being
the home of =93bill pirates.=94



************************************************
Manon Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC USA
Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des  Morillons, CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent,
London, N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386
4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607