[Ecommerce] CPTech statement at WITA event on IP

[Manon Ress]

Yesterday, I went to a Washington International Trade (WITA) event:
Intellectual Property Protection: What Are We Doing, and Is It Enough?
A discussion of IP enforcement issues, efforts, and proposals

Speakers included The Honorable Evandro DIDONET, Deputy Chief of
Mission and Minister (Trade), Embassy of Brazil; Dr. Robert SHAPIRO,
Chairman, Sonecon LLC, & Co-author, "The Ecnonomic Value of
Intellectual Property"; Chris ISRAEL, Coordinator, International IP
Enforcement Center, US Dept. of Commerce; and Manon RESS, Director,
Information Society Projects, Consumer Project on Technology. The
moderator was Mark SMITH, Executive Director, US-Brazil Business
Council. (http://www.wita.org/index.php)

My comments on the questions, intellectual property protection, what
are doing and is it enough are cut and paste below.

Manon Ress
CPTech
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20009
t. +1 202 332 2670
manon.ress@cptech.org

WITA Panel October 25, 2005

The title for this event is: Intellectual Property Protection--What
Are We Doing, and Is It Enough?

First, let=92s see what =93we are doing=94:

For many observers, the United States officials in charge of global
negotiations on intellectual property issues act as if they are
completely captured by lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical,
agricultural biz, motion picture, recording music and software
industries.

There is no serious effort to evaluate which policies would best
promote innovation, creativity, development and consumer welfare.
This administration, and to a certain extent, this Congress, simply
lets IP owner lobbyists dictate policy.   Sometimes this may work out
ok.  But sometimes it is a disaster.  It is also deeply resented
around the world.

Let=92s begin by talking about intellectual property rights and medicine.

Our trade negotiators are doing everything they can to make medicines
more expensive for everyone on the planet.

We are pushing for tough ip rules for:
=95    drug registration data,
=95    patent extensions,
=95    patents on second uses of medicines,
=95    linkage between drug registration and patent status (even
patents of dubious quality),
=95    global bans on parallel trade in medicines,
=95    the elimination of price controls or even price negotiations on
pharmaceutical drugs,
=95    limitations on the use of compulsory licensing,
=95    and other things dreamed up by big drug companies.

Basically, if Pfizer wants it --  we push it, everywhere.

Unfortunately, this is more than enough.   It is appalling.

To illustrate the outrageous nature of US trade policy relating to
IP, consider this war on US consumers:

Oseltamivir, sold by Roche as Tamiflu, is currently the most
important drug to treat an avian flu pandemic.  Suppose the United
States wanted to increase its stockpiles of this medicine from 20
million to 100 billion doses, the amount actually recommended by some
experts.  We know that Roche, the company that controls the patent on
this drug, can=92t meet the demand, and its prices are too high.  But
USTR has =93opted-out=94 of the 30 August 2003 WTO decision that permits
countries to import generic drugs manufactured on a compulsory
license in a foreign country.   India is likely to be the best
foreign supplier of generic copies of this drug.  But it will be
illegal to import generic Tamiflu from India, without Roche=92s
permission.

Please note that this is not something imposed on the US.  It is a
choice made by USTR that puts US citizens at risk.  We do not - and
will not - have large stockpiles of this medicine.   We have asked
USTR to fix the problem.  We have asked USTR for a meeting on this
issue.    We are still waiting.  We have to assume USTR and the White
House, are perfectly willing to let US citizens be exposed to risks
of a flu pandemic, because they think it is more important to defend
patent rights than to protect us.  This is not the right choice.  We
don=92t know if the Congress fully appreciates how short sighted and
harmful the opt-out decision is.  But, they should get on top of
this, before the USTR pushes through a permanent amendment to the
TRIPS in Hong Kong in December.

Secondly, consider the decision of the USPTO, the US Copyright  and
the WIPO secretariat to push WIPO member states to have a diplomatic
conference (in 2006!)  on the protection of broadcasting and
webcasting organizations.  What is this about?  US trade officials
say it=92s about piracy.  They say this because they know that many
journalists are not into =93research=94, and they will just report this
as if it is true.  They know that people think piracy is a bad thing.
They know attention spans are short.

But what is the broadcasting, cablecasting and webcasting treaty
really all about?

It is not about protecting copyright.  Copyright is protected under
many other treaties, including the Berne, the TRIPS, the WCT and the
WPPT.  The groups that represent copyright owners are not asking for
the xcasting treaty.  In fact, they are unhappy with the treaty,
because it will undermine the rights of copyright owners.

For the US, the treaty is about creating a new intellectual property
right, modeled after provisions in the Rome Convention.   The Rome
Convention gives broadcasting organizations a special right in
information they broadcast.  This right is on top of the copyright
owners right.  It is an additional layer.   It gives broadcast
organizations the right to prevent the copying of works that are in
the public domain, or which are copyrighted by someone else,
including works licensed under a creative commons license.  The
United States and 100 other countries never signed the Rome
Convention.  We rely upon copyright laws to protect creative works.
We have a very successful broadcast industry without this additional
intellectual property right layer. The WIPO Treaty would actually go
further than the Rome treaty in several areas, including the term,
which is extended from 20 to 50 years, for something that protects
=93investment=94 rather than creativity. The USPTO is hoping to change US
law by pushing for a treaty that introduces rights the US Congress
has never granted.

The USPTO is also pushing very hard in WIPO to extend this Rome
Convention type layer of rights to the Internet.  They want a new
global treaty instrument for something called =93webcasting.=94  This
would give a new layer of rights for transmitting information on the
Internet.  The new right would last 50 years, and would basically
eliminate the public domain for anything that was =93cast=94 over the
Internet. This right does not exist in the Rome Convention, it does
not exist in US law.   It does not exist anywhere.   But the USPTO is
pounding on WIPO to create this as a global treaty obligation.  The
webcasting =93right=94 is opposed by nearly every copyright owner trade
association.  It is pushed in the US by a handful of firms, most
notably Yahoo.   Most of the US Tech community has never heard of the
treaty.   The USPTO and the Copyright Office refuse to have a federal
register notice on the webcasting proposal, until a few weeks before
a diplomatic conference is convened --- which is very late in the game.
We don=92t want the broadcast treaty, and we are even more alarmed
about the webcasting proposal, which would vastly increase the hassle
of clearing permissions to use works, and lead to all sorts of
restrictions on access to knowledge, including more problems with
orphan works.

What else is the US government up to in International negotiations?
It is opposing the WIPO Development Agenda, it is opposing a proposal
for a global treaty on medical R&D.   There is now a growing movement
for a treaty on access to knowledge, which we support.  Our
government is certainly not doing enough to promote this treaty.

So, to answer the question =93are we doing enough?=94:

We=92re doing too much to advance anticompetitive practices and
restrict access to knowledge and we are not doing enough to protect
consumers.



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

Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673

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

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