[Ip-health] Bangkok Post on IPR in US-Thai FTA

[Mike Palmedo]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/Business/13Feb2004_biz59.php

Intellectual property focus of FTA - Researcher finds deal with US is
`different'

Woranuj Maneerungsee
Bangkok Post
13 February 2004

Thailand must revise and clarify certain intellectual property issues
when negotiating the terms of the Thai-US free trade area (FTA)
agreement to avoid potentially negative impacts, according to an
intellectual property researcher at the Thailand Development Research
Institute (TDRI).

Somkiat Tangkijvanich said intellectual property rights (IPR) protection
was among the United States' three prime concerns when holding bilateral
FTA talks with its counterparts. The other two were investment and
access to the services sector.

Powerful US businesses, especially pharmaceutical and entertainment
companies, are well known for lobbying the Washington government hard to
protect their IPR interests abroad.

Mr Somkiat is part of the TDRI research team hired by the American
Chamber of Commerce in Bangkok to study Thailand's competitiveness in
key sectors and the commitments the country could offer under the FTA.

In his research, he suggested that Bangkok negotiate to delay for 10-12
years the enforcement of the IP element under the FTA, as the country
would need a transitional period to adjust itself.

The US is one of the countries with the highest IPR standards and the
most sophisticated technological capabilities.

If Thailand draws from the US-Singapore FTA, ignoring the differences in
technological capabilities, it will be deprived of the flexibility to
design its IPR system, something the US and other developed countries
enjoyed in their earlier stages of development, he said in his report.

The US and Thailand are scheduled to launch bilateral FTA negotiations
this year. It is assumed that the talks will be based on the
US-Singapore agreement, which excludes the farm sector.

Mr Somkiat said Thailand should also think about safeguards against the
exploitation of IPR that could lead to a monopoly. As well, the Commerce
Ministry should enforce the existing trade competition law efficiently.

For example, the US had required long protection for its pharmaceutical
industry and demanded its counterparts extend the protection period
beyond the 20-year requirement under the Agreement on Trade Related
Intellectual Property Rights (Trips).

``If Thailand accepts this requirement, Thai people, particularly the
poor, will lack access to cheap medicines,'' he said.

In terms of patenting, he said genetic materials found in nature such as
plants and animals, as well as the biological processes to produce them
should not be patented. Patenting software and business methods should
also be excluded.

Regarding copyrights, he said the Thai government should keep the period
of protection at 50 years after the creators' deaths. Extension of the
term to 70 years would likely stifle creativity and limit access to
educational materials.

Thailand should not accept the 1991 International Convention for the
Protection of New Varieties of Plants, known as the UPOV convention, as
it was designed with commercialised farming in developed countries in
mind. The convention protects plant varieties with very high standards
in terms of novelty, distinctiveness, uniformity and stability. The
standards are not currently achievable by most plant varieties developed
by Thai breeders.

``Benefits for Thailand from the high standards of IPR regime are, at
best, long-term, while the cost of adopting them are real and immediate.
Such costs include legislative and administrative cost in revising
current laws and regulations, legislating new ones and implementing them.

``However, the current legal system is already overburdened and can
hardly accommodate new obligations, at least in the short run,'' he
concluded in his research.

An observer who declined to be named said he was worried about the
attitudes of some economic ministers involved in the issue, who
misunderstood the concept of the comprehensive Thai-US FTA. They did not
seem to realise that the FTA between Thailand and the US was totally
different from the FTA agreements Thailand had made with China or India.

``They (the ministers) are considering free trade on basic goods with
America while the US demands are much broader, including free flow of
goods to the services sector. Sadly, they don't heed the warnings the
civil servants have made.

``The wrong idea will result in the wrong method to deal with the issue
and the lack of proper offensive and defensive strategies when they
engage in the talks,'' the same observer said.