[Chapter-delegates] Opportunity to join other NGO's in support of open multistakeholder IPR

[Dave Burstein]

Folks

    Several ISOC staffers (and many others) have criticized the U.S.
for negotiating Internet "intellectual property rights" through a
closed, secret process by declaring them part of a trade agreement
treaty. We now have an opportunity to do something about this.
Respected U.S. NGO Public CItizen has brought together 50
international organizations for a "Civil Society Declaration."

   Open multistakeholder  is a core ISOC issue. I think ISOC should
immediately contact Public Citizen for details and begin discussion
among the members about whether it is right to sign. How can members
bring this to the top of the ISOC agenda?

   I care about the cost of "IPR" because I've watched how
"unreasonable" patent and copyright charges drive up the cost of
things like mobile broadband. I'm reporting that smartphones with the
performance of an iPhone 4 are now available for $50 in the very
competitive China market.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4410110/Spreadtrum-flourishes-as-low-end-smartphones-boom
. That's enormously exciting for markets like Africa. But Microsoft
alone has asked for $12 for software licenses for Android  from HTC;
the total claims - most of which haven't gone to court - for patents
and licenses for a smartphone could actually double the cost. All
standards have a provision that licenses be "reasonable and
non-discriminatory" but it is never enforced. I'm not opposed to all
patents, but believe "reasonable" fees are crucial to making gear
affordable for all.

Let's find a way for ISOC to be a strong player here.

db






Nearly 50 Groups Demand IPRs Out Of EU-US FTA

Published on 18 March 2013 @ 10:43 pm

      Print This Post

Intellectual Property Watch

Upwards of 50 civil society groups have issued a declaration asking
for the exclusion of all forms of intellectual property rights from
the upcoming Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement between the European
Union and the United States. They raised significant concerns about
the potential effect of IP rights’ inclusion on the public interest in
the countries involved.

The declaration, available here, signed by public health advocacy and
digital civil rights groups, calls for negotiators to release
negotiating documents as talks proceed, which has not been the case in
recent trade negotiations. Many of the groups were among those that
led to massive protests against online anti-piracy legislation in the
US called SOPA and PIPA.

Second, they demanded that “the proposed TAFTA exclude any provisions
related to patents, copyright, trademarks, data protection,
geographical indications, or other forms of so-called ‘intellectual
property’. Such provisions could impede our rights to health, culture,
and free expression and otherwise affect our daily lives.”

“Past trade agreements negotiated by the US and EU have significantly
increased the privileges of multinational corporations at the expense
of society in general,” the declaration said. “Provisions in these
agreements can, among many other concerns, limit free speech,
constrain access to educational materials such as textbooks and
academic journals, and, in the case of medicines, raise healthcare
costs and contribute to preventable suffering and death.”

Signers includes groups such the Foundation for a Free Internet
Infrastructure (FFII), European Digital Rights (EDRi), Act-Up, the
Open Rights Group, and Public Citizen.

Winners of ACTA and SOPA Battles Call for Exclusion of ‘Intellectual
Property’ From EU-U.S. Trade Talks

Current Talks Favor Corporations, Exclude Public Interest

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Planned trade negotiations between the United
States and the European Union should exclude any provisions related to
patents, copyright, trademarks, data protection, geographical
indications or other forms of so-called “intellectual property” (IP),
a transatlantic coalition of 45 consumer, public health and Internet
freedom groups said today in a civil society declaration.

The groups, many of which helped organize mass demonstrations and
online protests last yearthat led to the collapse of the
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement in Europe and the Stop Online
Piracy Act in the U.S., warned that such provisions could limit free
speech, constrain access to educational materials such as textbooks
and academic journals, and, in the case of medicines, raise health
care costs and contribute to preventable suffering and death.

In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama announced
plans to negotiate a transatlantic free trade agreement (TAFTA), also
referred to as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

“Past trade agreements negotiated by the U.S. and EU have
significantly increased the privileges of multinational corporations
to exclude competitors, expand monopoly power and control the rules of
the information economy,” said Peter Maybarduk, Global Access to
Medicines program director at Public Citizen.

Important rules governing technology, health and culture should be
debated in the U.S. Congress, the European Parliament, national
parliaments and other transparent forums where all stakeholders can be
heard, not in closed negotiations that give privileged access to
corporate insiders, the groups said. Unless intellectual property is
excluded from these talks, the outcome will be an agreement that
inflicts the worst of both regimes’ rules, they said.

The U.S. also is negotiating a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free
trade agreement intended to eventually incorporate most members of the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Taken together, the TPP and
TAFTA could represent an effort to lock out the BRICS countries –
Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – from global rulemaking
on technology and information economics. The BRICS countries have
challenged U.S. and EU efforts to expand patent-based pharmaceutical
monopolies and copyright controls at international forums.

“TAFTA will be a game changer in the IP debate because American and
European politicians are keen on shaping globalization and setting IP
rules for the 21st century outside the official global forums, said
Burcu Kilic, legal counsel for the Global Access to Medicines Program
at Public Citizen. “BRICS are seeking development while EU and U.S.
industries are pushing a conflicting agenda.”

The groups warned policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic that any
attempt to augment patent or copyright rules in favor of right holders
and against consumer interests would be a major mistake and would
encounter strong public resistance.

To read the declaration, visit http://www.citizen.org/ip-out-of-tafta.



IP out of TAFTA

 Civil Society Declaration

Last year, millions of Americans told their government not to
undermine the open internet. We sent the SOPA and PIPA bills down to
defeat.

Soon after, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of
Europe to protest against ACTA, a secretive trade agreement that would
have violated our rights online and chilled generic drug competition.

Meanwhile, leaked trade texts revealed US and EU threats to access to
affordable medicines, which significantly disrupted trade talks in
India and the Pacific.

On February 13, the US President Barack Obama, the European Council
President Herman Van Rompuy, and the European Commission President
José Manuel Barroso announced the official launch of negotiations of a
Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA)—also touted as the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP.

We, the undersigned, are internet freedom and public health groups,
activists, and other public interest leaders dedicated to the rights
of all people to access cultural and educational resources and
affordable medicines, to enjoy a free and open internet, and to
benefit from open and needs-driven innovation.

First, we insist that the European Union and United States release, in
timely and ongoing fashion, any and all negotiating or pre-negotiation
texts. We believe that secretive “trade” negotiations are absolutely
unacceptable forums for devising binding rules that change national
non-trade laws.

Second, we insist that the proposed TAFTA exclude any provisions
related to patents, copyright, trademarks, data protection,
geographical indications, or other forms of so-called “intellectual
property”. Such provisions could impede our rights to health, culture,
and free expression and otherwise affect our daily lives.

Past trade agreements negotiated by the US and EU have significantly
increased the privileges of multinational corporations at the expense
of society in general. Provisions in these agreements can, among many
other concerns, limit free speech, constrain access to educational
materials such as textbooks and academic journals, and, in the case of
medicines, raise healthcare costs and contribute to preventable
suffering and death.

Unless “intellectual property” is excluded from these talks, we fear
that the outcome will be an agreement that inflicts the worst of both
regimes’ rules on the other party. From a democratic perspective, we
believe that important rules governing technology, health, and culture
should be debated in the US Congress, the European Parliament,
national parliaments, and other transparent forums where all
stakeholders can be heard—not in closed negotiations that give
privileged access to corporate insiders.

The TAFTA negotiations must not lead to a rewriting of patent and
copyright rules in a way that tilts the balance even further away from
the interests of citizens.

Please send an email to medsaccess at citizen.org if you want to add your
group to the declaration.

PDF of Civil Society Declaration without Logos

PDF of Civil Society Declaration with Logos

For a full list of civil society organization please see below




Background information

In its June 2012 interim report, the United States-European Union High
Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth (HLWG) noted that “both sides
agree that it would not be feasible in negotiations to seek to
reconcile across the board differences in the IPR obligations that
each typically includes in its comprehensive trade agreements”.
However, after receiving input from pharmaceutical associations in
Europe and in the USA urging both governments to address intellectual
property in the negotiations, in its final report the HLWG recommends
that “both sides explore opportunities to address a limited number of
significant IPR issues of interest to either side, without prejudice
to the outcome”.

For more information:

M. Palmedo,  "A Look at Industry Comments Regarding the Inclusion (or
Not) of IPRs in Soon-to-Be-Proposed U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement
Interim Report to Leaders from the Co-Chairs EU-U.S. High Level
Working Group on Jobs and Growth", Infojustice.org, January 15, 2013.
M. Palmedo, " US-EU Working Group and Senate Finance Committee on IPRs
in the Upcoming Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership",
Infojustice.org, February 14, 2013.
Interim Report to Leaders from the Co-Chairs, EU-U.S. High Level
Working Group on Jobs and Growth
Final Report High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth
Public Comments by National Association of Manufacturers (USA)
Public Comments by the National Foreign Trade Council
Public Comments by the European Telecommunication Network Operators
Public Comments by the European Generic Medicines Association (EU) and
Generic Pharmaceutical Association (USA)











Act Up Boston

 International
 France
 U.S








 U.S France
 Germany


Europe
U.S.
U.K.



U.K.
Netherlands
Canada


Poland
International
Germany




Germany
U.S.
Europe








U.S.
U.S.
Sweden







Germany
Europe
U.S.

Austria
Canada
Poland



International
Sweden
U.S.




France
U.S.
Canada



U.K.
GermanyU.S.









   U.S.
Spain
International





U.S.
U.K.
Europe






U.S.France
U.S.







Netherlands





###