[Ip-health] The Counterfeit Treaty

[Riaz K Tayob]

The Piracy/Anticounterfeiting move is "supported" by 'incredible'
evidence from 'credible' sources like the International Chamber of
Commerce. They said between 5 to 7 percent of world trade is in
counterfeit goods. They believe this figure to be correct and recanted
somewhat and it has been said the figure is "without any statistical
underpinning."

When challenged they (ICC) did more research and hey presto, they got 5
to 7%, AGAIN. So just because the ICC is saying it, it has merit,
content notwithstanding.

Even the OECD used to quote this figure! But they subsequently had
researchers question it.

This "evidence" based policy driven process of anti-counterfeiting is a
joke right from the start. These are some gems we have picked up from
the background research on this that you may find amusing because it is
not informative. The critique is very good though:


Dryden, J. (2007) =E2=80=9CCounting the Cost: The Economic Impacts of
Counterfeiting and Piracy Preliminary Findings of the OECD Study=E2=80=9D T=
hird
Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy 30-31 January
2007, International Conference Center, Geneva (Deputy Director for
Science, Technology and Industry, OECD, Paris) (Convened by WIPO,
Interpol and the WCO with the support of the business community)
www.oecd.org/sti/counterfeiting <http://www.oecd.org/sti/counterfeiting> .

http://www.ccapcongress.net/archives/Geneva/Files/Dryden.pdf


The CEBR(2002) said, on the International Chamber of Commerce report
also quoted by the OECD which asserts that between 5 and 7 % of world
trade is in counterfeits goods, that, =E2=80=9Cnot all of these are based o=
n
research and, as they admit, the data did not exist to make robust
estimation process possible. They have recently asserted that they
believe the figures to be correct as an indication of activity, despite
the absence in some cases of any statistical underpinning.=E2=80=9D

An official from the OECD said it is =E2=80=9Cunfortunate that this [ICC] f=
igure
=E2=80=9Cfound its way into the 1998 OECD report.=E2=80=9D It is unfortunat=
e because,
=E2=80=9CThe methodology is not clear and the ICC report quite openly indic=
ates
that the estimates reflect judgements not supported by hard data=E2=80=A6So=
me
interpret the figure to mean that counterfeit products traded
internationally account for 5-7 per cent of total traded goods; others
assume that the figure relates total counterfeit production (to include
production for domestic consumption as well as export) to world trade.
Is world trade =E2=80=9Ctotal=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cgoods=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=
=9Cmanufactures=E2=80=9D? Are the
counterfeited goods valued at the border, at the prices to final
purchasers in the market, or at the price charged for the equivalent
genuine product? Nor is it clear what types of IPR infringements are
included. Is it limited to trademark violations or does it include
patent, copyright, etc.?=E2=80=9D=EF=80=A0

The basis for the customs data on interceptions/seizures was a key input
to the ICC analysis which is an =E2=80=9Cextremely crude indicator of the r=
ole
of counterfeit and pirated products in international trade.=E2=80=9D

The follow up research of the OECD data =E2=80=9Csuggests=E2=80=9D that cou=
nterfeit and
pirated items which are traded internationally account for about USD 176
billion or about 2.4 per cent of world trade in manufactures (2 per cent
of world trade in goods) =E2=80=93 imports or exports. According to Dryden,=
 the
OECD is =E2=80=9Cfully aware that 2.4 per cent or 2 per cent is significant=
ly
below the oft-quoted 5 - 7 per cent.=E2=80=9D This is not an update of the =
1998
figure because =E2=80=9Cwe can=E2=80=99t [update] because we don=E2=80=99t =
know what it means
and we don=E2=80=99t have the basic data required to produce estimates that=
 we
can defend on some of the =E2=80=9Ceconomic impacts of counterfeiting and
piracy.=E2=80=9D Additionally =E2=80=9Cfor those who believe that our resul=
t is somehow
=E2=80=9Ctoo low=E2=80=9D, I would respond that it looks high to me. Higher=
 than the
entire GDP of most countries, including some OECD members, like Ireland,
for example.=E2=80=9D

james.love@keionline.org wrote:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/the-counterfeit-treaty_b_104831.=
html
>
> The Huffington Post
> June 3, 2008
>
> The Counterfeit Treaty
>
> Today in Geneva Switzerland, at an undisclosed location, the US
> government, the European Commission, Japan and a handful of other
> countries will meet in a secret negotiation on a new treaty.
> The working name is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a
> name that masks the much broader subject matter, and one that was
> deliberately chosen to intimate and discourage politicians from
> expressing opposition to provisions that undermine civil rights and
> privacy, and which many say will change the substantive rights the
> public has to use copyrighted works or inventions. What member of
> Congress or Parliament wants to be accused of protecting counterfeiters?
>
> The US, EU and other governments involved in this project have not
> released details of the substantive provisions under discussion. Press
> reports in Canada in Europe have focused on provisions that would
> involve searches of computers, cell phones or iPods for infringing
> software or music files. Others have discussed changes in international
> law regarding injunctions for alleged infringements of intellectual
> property rights, expanded ex officio powers for governments, tougher
> sanctions, special programs to train judges or law enforcement
> officials, and other measures, most of which is speculation based upon
> some of the "asks" by lobbyists from the computer game, software, music,
> film, pharmaceutical and fashion industries. (See here, here, and here.)
>
> There is a huge rush to conclude this agreement before Bush leaves
> office. So far, no Democratic member of Congress has expressed much
> interest in the details of the agreement, or asked probing questions
> about why such a potentially far reaching treaty is being rushed through
> under a cloud of secrecy, described by some as cloak and dagger.
>
> This "patriot act" for intellectual property "crimes" may be one of the
> late legacies of the Bush Administration. It would be nice to have more
> transparency about such a far reaching and important global trade
> agreement. Particularly since the current negotiation strategy seems to
> be to present the Congress with a fully negotiated text for an up or
> down vote, before there has been any debate of the actual provisions of
> the agreement, or consideration of alternative approaches, including
> those that have fewer negative impacts on privacy, due process or consume=
r
> rights.
>
> There are undoubtedly reasons for such tight secrecy and the use of
> thought-stopping terms like "anti-counterfeiting" to name this
> agreement. But they are undoubtedly the wrong reasons for the public.
> They are signals that the treaty would face opposition if more was known
> and understood about its substantive provisions.
>
>
> --
> James Love, Knowledge Ecology International
> mailto:james.love@keionline.org
> voice +1.202.332.2670, fax +1.202.332.2673, US mobile +1.202.361.3040,
> Geneva mobile +41.76.413.6584
> "When everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much." =E2=80=94 Walter L=
ippmann
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>
>