Slashdot Mirror

According to the original article, this is a routine annual report listing who we are happy with or unhappy with concerning copyright and such. There's also no mention of DMCA. Evidently, countries come and go off these lists all the time. It's just a way for the USA to communicate what it does and doesn't like about other countries behavior. It's called diplomacy. How does anyone get "blacklist" out of this?

By the way, it mentions that North Korea was taken off the bad-boy list. Does anyone really think North Korea instituted a DMCA-like law?

What the 2009 Special 301 Report says about Canada is:

Canada will be added to the Priority Watch List in 2009. The United States appreciates the high level of cooperation between our two governments in many important bilateral and multilateral IPR initiatives. The United States also welcomed the Government of Canada's reaffirmation earlier this year of its 2007 and 2008 commitments to improve IPR protection and enforcement. However, the Government of Canada has not delivered on these commitments by promptly and effectively implementing key copyright reforms. The United States continues to have serious concerns with Canada's failure to accede to and implement the WIPO Internet Treaties, which Canada signed in 1997. We urge Canada to enact legislation in the near term to strengthen its copyright laws and implement these treaties. The United States also continues to urge Canada to improve its IPR enforcement system to enable authorities to take effective action against the trade in counterfeit and pirated products within Canada, as well as curb the volume of infringing products transshipped and transiting through Canada. Canada's weak border measures continue to be a serious concern for IP owners. The United States hopes that Canada will implement legislative changes to provide a stronger border enforcement system by giving its customs officers the authority to seize products suspected of being pirated or counterfeit without the need for a court order. The provision of additional resources and training to customs officers and domestic law enforcement personnel would enhance IPR enforcement. The United States will continue to follow Canada's progress toward providing an adequate and effective IPR protection and enforcement regime, including near term accession to and implementation of the WIPO Internet Treaties and improved border enforcement.

It's not clear that it's "[claiming] that Canadian copyright and intellectual property laws are as bad as those found in China and Russia" - or Algeria or Argentina or Chile or India or Israel or Pakistan or Thailand or Venezuela, to give the other countries who appear after China and Russia in the list of Priority Watch countries in the report.

(I'm not saying that the report is justified in thumping Canada - or any of the other Priority Watch or Watch countries; I'm just suggesting that "Canadian copyright and intellectual property laws are as bad as those found in China and Russia" might be an overstatement of what the report is saying.)

KEI is very impressed with the USTR decision to undertake a review of USTR transparency efforts. They are taking this much further than simply reviewing policies on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), or recent controversies over the secrecy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations. The review offers the possibility of more transformative changes, including pro-active measures to enhance transparency, covering all aspects of USTR operations, including multilateral, plurilateral, regional, bilateral and unilateral trade policies and negotiations. We are also grateful that USTR is offering to have a continuing dialogue on this issues. KEI will offer additional suggestions on transparency to USTR, and we encourage others to do so also."

From ustr.gov:

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is an agency of over 200 people, a highly committed group of professionals who have decades of specialized experience in trade issues and regions of the world. They negotiate directly with foreign governments to create trade agreements, resolve disputes and participate in global trade policy organizations. They also meet with governments, business groups, legislators and public interest groups to gather input on trade issues and explain the president's trade policy positions. The agency was founded in 1962 and has offices in Washington, Geneva and Brussels.

Works for me (from Germany).
I also get access to the list on http://www.ustr.gov/Who_We_Are/List_of_USTR_Advisory_Committees.html, and the PDFs for the individual ITACs. So maybe the site was just temporarily slashdotted.

FYI: The assertion that plenty of corporate figures have access to the documents is true. On skimming the documents, you will see lots of President($Corp), Counsel representing($Corp), Director($Think Thank).

Hello? The EU is so ridiculously hypocritical. Just look at the EU's bananas regime:

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/June/United_States_Requests_WTO_Panel_to_Review_European_Unions_Banana_Import_Regime.html

The EU has been consistently ruled against for well over a decade, and there is still no movement towards compliance.

I'll get modded down for this one, as it is Slashdot, but here goes:

Many of America's client states are rebelling against the economic burdens placed upon them. A clear example of this is seen in South America, where several countries (Venezuela included) are acting in contravention to America's economic wishes.

Which explains why the U.S. and Peru just struck a free trade agreement and why the U.S. already has a free trade agreement with, pound for pound, what is arguably the most powerful and stable economy in South America - Chile.

Oh, but Chavez. He makes a lot of angry speeches against the U.S.! He MUST hate us! He must just be screwing us and cutting us out!

Try again. Venezuela's main export partner - still by massive, massive margins (46% in 2006, according to the CIA world factbook) is the U.S. He still sends vast majorities of his oil to the U.S. Economically speaking, he's lining up just fine. Security wise, he's causing a few issues with neighboring countries that we would like him to stop, but as far as his massive oil industry - which is the only real engine his economy has - massive amounts of it are coming here, and there's little reason for him to change that.

Also of note, according to CIA World Factbook figures from 2006: Brazil imports almost twice as much from the U.S. as it does Argentina and exports twice as much to the U.S. as well.

Furthermore, the American economy is in deep trouble, largely because it has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to build expensive weapon systems (and also to build too many unproductive but expensive toys such as big screen TV's).

Oh please. The American economy has stalled a bit, but we're not even at the point of a classic recession (failure to increase GDP).

The economic system you are discussing is referred to generally as "neo-Marxism", with its focus on large states ruining the outlying countries for their wealth in an evil capitalistic world. What neo-Marxists never came to realize is that the world is not a zero sum game - and that rhetoric rarely translates into cold hard cash.

Now, what the U.S. likely is experiencing is more akin to hegemonic diffusion. The U.S. is, pretty much, an undisputed world Hegemon at this time. However, to maintain this hegemony, it must maintain trade (using its own resources) and trade a great deal with other countries, slowly diffusing its wealth to others. The great examples of this at the moment would be China and perhaps India. China is building a massive military based on income largely from U.S. trade, for example. China improves quickly, and the U.S. finds it increasingly difficult to maintain its relative position. The big question is whether this will switch to a bi-polar world (U.S./China), remain a uni-polar world (U.S., possibly China) or become multi-polar in the end.

I hate to ruin the cool stat that you posted of the US never losing WTO cases before Bush, but, well, by some counts the US has lost more then 40 cases before the WTO out of almost 90.

Here is some more information on this http://benmuse.typepad.com/ben_muse/2007/09/how-is-the-us-d.html
or the source (warning PDF) from the US gov't rather then a random blog:
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Monitoring_Enforcement/Dispute_Settlement/WTO/asset_upload_file811_5696.pdf.

I didn't realize that number was so high, but as a Canadian I could think of a couple of cases that didn't go so well for you guys (not that you haven't taken it to us as well).

I spoke too soon. The full report is right here (PDF) and indeed refers to Israel's policy on pharmaceutical patent protection.

Anyone go to the Office of the United States Trade Representitive web site? The corners of all squares are cut off, reminds me of Battlestar Galactica.

Intellectual Property trade sector has links to the past 301 special reports. Like 2006 Special 301, 2005 Special 301, 2004 Special 301, 2003 Special 301, and 2002 Special 301 .
The 2007 report is not out yet.

Intellectual Property trade sector has links to the past 301 special reports. Like 2006 Special 301, 2005 Special 301, 2004 Special 301, 2003 Special 301, and 2002 Special 301 .
The 2007 report is not out yet.

Intellectual Property trade sector has links to the past 301 special reports. Like 2006 Special 301, 2005 Special 301, 2004 Special 301, 2003 Special 301, and 2002 Special 301 .
The 2007 report is not out yet.

Intellectual Property trade sector has links to the past 301 special reports. Like 2006 Special 301, 2005 Special 301, 2004 Special 301, 2003 Special 301, and 2002 Special 301 .
The 2007 report is not out yet.

Intellectual Property trade sector has links to the past 301 special reports. Like 2006 Special 301, 2005 Special 301, 2004 Special 301, 2003 Special 301, and 2002 Special 301 .
The 2007 report is not out yet.

Intellectual Property trade sector has links to the past 301 special reports. Like 2006 Special 301, 2005 Special 301, 2004 Special 301, 2003 Special 301, and 2002 Special 301 .
The 2007 report is not out yet.

...is a pdf file to be found here:

Priority Watch List

The countries on the priority watch list are: China and Russia (listed first and discussed at substantially more length because the report considers them the worst), Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

China's infringing products dominate the black markets of the world, and the reputation of China's industry has suffered as a result. China is not doing enough to stop the outbound infringing products at its borders.

Trade in pirated optical discs continues to thrive, supplied by smugglers and by both licensed and unlicensed factories. Small retail shops continue to be the major commercial outlets for pirated movies and music, and roaming vendors offering cheap pirated discs continue to be very visible in major cities across China.

Piracy and counterfeiting are partly products of China's market access restrictions, which artificially limit the availability of foreign content and thus lead consumers to the black market. Various U.S. right holders continue to be adversely impacted by restrictions on imports, including having to go through import monopolies, restrictions on foreign investment in distribution, and delays in regulatory approval. Examples include restrictions on the import and distribution of legitimate foreign movies and delays created by the censorship process. Efforts to speed up content review for entertainment software have also been unavailing.

The United States is also encouraged that authorities in China started to take enforcement actions against Internet piracy in 2005, following China's 2005 JCCT commitment to carry out a "nationwide crack-down on Internet piracy, including through enforcement at Internet cafes." This included a temporary campaign from October 2005 through February 2006, the concrete results of which remain unclear.

Oh, they do. Some countries seem to still live under the illusion that they are sovereign states and not obliged to let the MPAA draft their IP legislation, but a little trade sanctions can work wonders in rectifying that minor error.

And you probably should read this book, it may revise your impression about that "signed treaties" thing.

We've seen over and over how successful NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT have been to the American workforce.

Hah! U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico have risen, but look at the numbers in the NAFTA at 10 report to see that it is Mexico, followed by Canada that are the real winners in that deal.

The Free Trade Agreement that Australia signed with the United States last year had certain gotchas including parts of the DMCA being forced upon us and software patents becoming law in Australia.

This is one of the reasons why the Kazaa case is being fought in Australia because our DMCA laws are nearly identical to the US version now.

More information is available here:

- Linux.org.au

- The Agreement

There are other fun gotchas linked on this page that do not relate to the parent:

Trade Watch Oz

With CAFTA and FTAs between US and Australia, and other Free Trade agreements in effect or in progress, including Andean FTA, Australia FTA, Bahrain FTA, Chile FTA, Israel FTA, Jordan FTA, Morocco FTA, Panama FTA, Singapore FTA, and SACU FTA, you can bet that we'll see more of the same with our major trading partners.

The US puts out these neat Special 301 Reports that tell all about the things countries are doing about IP that upset the US. If you read through you can find a couple countries that would be suitable, Jamiaca and Peru look like they might work to be patent havens.

"Who the FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD, and the Pentagon ought to be going after is China, Korea, Thailand, and all the other Southeast Asian countries that are costing American companies millions, if not billions, in 'lost revenues' on computer software sales. Sadly, that would require an act of war..."

The US (and other Berne signatories) do fight piracy in the countries you've mentioned, and it doesn't take an act of war in the sense that you probably mean. It's typically done with economic sanctions.

Examples and more info:

• http://www.templetonthorp.com/en/news621
• http://www.bna.com/itr/arch245.htm
• http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Release s/2003/May/Special_301_Report_Finds_Some_Progress, _But_Improvement_Needed.html
• http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/Archive/2003/Dec/31-309 8.html

I think the topic of this discussion is a side-effect. I think, the question this all starts with is: how can you stop American politicians from being legally bribed?

It's really obvious looking from the outside in that America is rotting, it's more difficult to see from the inside because the ones that are trying to control the government, and succeeding in my opinion, are the ones that feed you information through TV.

Here in Chile, a FTA is now in effect with the US (I don't have a link to the actual text, this is only a draft).

So that means that we are fucked up, and we can do nothing about it, right?

-copyright: life + 70
-encourage that circunvention of access control be criminally punished.
-recognize patents to anything, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology.

:(

rather than address in any meaningful way, US lawmakers will try to "fix" by imposing the DMCA on the entire world via treaties

They are already doing that. For example, these regulations will be imposed on Central America. Similar regulations would be imposed to Australia.

It's not software patents that are bad, it's *bad* patents in general.

No, software patents themselves are absurd.

I am a programmer. All software is in fact a feild of mathematics, not a feild of technology. Every program is in fact a pure mathematical function. Every program can be broken down into a pure sequence of addition subtraction and multiplication. It may be a tremendously long combinations of additions subtractions and multiplications, but that is ALL that it is. Pure math.

You can connect a keyboard to a computer. A keyboard can be patented. You can connect a monitor to a computer. A monitor can be patented. You can connect a printer to a computer. A printer can be patented.

The only thing a computer can do is calculate math. The only thing a computer can implement is a mathematical equation.

If you are using a word processor - you type letters on a keyboard and that keyboard send numbers to the computer. Those numbers are fed into a mathematical equation - a math equation calculated by the computer. The result of that calculation is nothing but another number or sequence of numbers. Those numbers then go out to be displayed on the monitor or printed by the printer.

The only thing a computer can do is calculate math. The only thing a computer can implement is a mathematical equation.

Any physical thing a computer supposedly does is actually done by a patentable object connected to a computer. No one involved is arguing against such patents. The argument is only over patenting pure software - patenting a pure math function.

As far as I know every patent office on earth has recognized that you cannot patent math. Even the US patent office recognized it. At least they did up until a few years ago when they reversed the rules. The EU patent office still has a rule explicitly forbiding such patents.

The US is extorting other countries to force them to change their rules. For example this treaty term:

Jordan shall take all steps necessary to clarify that the exclusion from patent protection of "mathematical methods" in Article 4B of Jordan's Patent Law does not include such "methods" as business methods or computer-related inventions.

There would be no need for that treaty term unless software is in fact "mathematical methods".

Countries that do not submit to US demands potentially face punitive 100% tariff rates- economic warfare. Ukraine had been hit with such tariffs. Note that "pirate media" is a dysphemism (antonym of euphemism) for the manufacture of ordinary blank CDs without a tracking number burned into them. The Ukraine's big sin to provoke punitive trade war is that they didn't feel like making it a crime to manufacture ordinary CDs without tracking codes on them. Oooo, Eeeeevil.

[sarcasm alert:] Manufacturing blank 8-tracks and vinyl records and tape cassettes and 5.25 floppy disks and 3.5 crunchies without tracking numbers has always been criminal, so the US is perfectly justified in attacking Ukraine for not passing such a law for CDs. [end sarcasm]

The US is strong-arming countries all over the globe to pass rediculous laws and to create absurd crimes. And it's generally doing so under the flag of "free trade" agreements. Any country that balks at such terms faces the imposition of punitive trade barriers. So much for advocating free trade.

And don't think I'm anti-American. I *am* American. I'm appalled at my own country's behavior.

"copyright is bad"

BAH! Straw man argument!
Current US copyright laws are an abomination, but if you repeal the crap passed since 1975 or so then we'd have pretty good copyright law. Note that every copyright law since 1975 has literally been written by lawyers employed by the publishing industry. Copyright is a *good* thing as long as you don't pass bad laws under the bann

The US has a long history using it's combined power of trade, diplomacy and intelligence/espionage to further it's goals and the goals of it's private corporation.

(Disclaimer: links below are from various Google searches and are there to give context. They do not necessarily express my views, or even agree with me.)

Echeleon was used in corporate espionage to benefit private US corporation, to the detriment of corporations from US allies.

The US complained to the WTO about the EU policy of banning genetically modified foods. The issue is not yet fully resolved, but looks like the EU must eventually let GM-foods in. US companies are very strong in GM-foods and gene technology in general.

The US (and the EU, Japan and others) oppose a developing nation's right the apply protectionistic economic policies. That's, IMHO, what's really behind the Cancun failure and the Singapore issues (PDF). It's also two-faced, disgusting and imperialistic as about anything in the world today.

The US is using strongarm tactics in exporting it's brand of copyright laws.

The US has by no means limited it's interference to humans rights or other laudable goals. To suggest so it at best naive, but maybe "willfully ignorant to the point of being harmful to the world around" would be closer.

--Flam

And this agreement is sold by the media, wealthy elites and goverment propaganda (at least in Costa Rica) as a "we must sign it or we all will starve" thing.

Funny, text of CAFTA is very similar to the Australia Agreement text: same structure and chapter names. It's like the US Trade Representative has a template for agreements like these, on top of which negotiations take place. So these are not really agreeements between two parties, but some sort of take-it-or-leave-it imposition.

I'm not sure why such vague flamebaiting by an AC was modded up so highly, but if anyone wants to examine the issues beyond nationalistic ranting, you might take a look at what the US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said on the issue U.S.-China Trade Relations in a recent speech at the Asia Society.

China is a vast nation with great diversity matched by a turbulent history. If current trends continue, sometime in the 2030s China will become the world's largest economy. Trade with China is crucial to the economic well-being of both the U.S. and the planet.

• Government Use of Software

  In October 1998, the United States announced a new Executive Order directing U.S. Government agencies to maintain appropriate and effective procedures to ensure legitimate use of software. In addition, USTR was directed to undertake an initiative to work with other governments, particularly those in need of modernizing their software management systems or about which concerns have been expressed, regarding inappropriate government use of illegal software.

  The United States has achieved considerable progress under this initiative. Countries that have issued decrees mandating the use of only authorized software by government ministries include Bolivia, China, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Paraguay, Thailand, the U.K., Spain, Peru, Greece, Turkey, Hungary, Korea, Hong Kong, Macau, Lebanon, Taiwan and the Philippines. Ambassador Zoellick was pleased that these governments have recognized the importance of setting an example in this area and expects that these decrees will be fully implemented. The United States looks forward to the adoption of similar decrees, with effective and transparent procedures that ensure legitimate use of software, by additional governments in the coming year.

Countries which convert to free software become compliant. The alternatives are converting to free software, paying millions (sometimes billions) to Microsoft, or facing trade sanctions by the US. That makes free software look really good.

The whole Special 301 process may thus backfire against commercial software vendors. Microsoft is going to have a fit over this.

In my opinion, a thriving gray market -- where consumers seek out cheaper products/services in other districts/countries -- is evidence of a healthy, competitive global economy.

Sincerely,

Vergil

Interestingly enough, "In spring 2000, Korea was elevated to the Special 301 "priority watch list" as a result of continuing concerns regarding inadequate IPR enforcement, lack of protection for clinical drug test data, lack of full retroactive protection for pre-existing copyrighted works and pharmaceutical patents, problematic amendments to Koreaâ(TM)s Copyright Act and Computer Program Protection Act, lack of coordination between Korean health and IPR authorities on drug product approvals for marketing, and continued counterfeiting of consumer products."

The article is a little thin on actual textual references, so I spent a few minutes actually reading the treaty. Iâ(TM)m not a lawyer, but Iâ(TM)m fairly well educated in legal theory.

I would first point out that a treaty with Singapore does not greatly restrict the United States. Should the Congress change its mind, this treaty would not create a substantial barrier to reform legislation. Its purpose is to prevent the manufacture and design of circumvention technologies in Singapore to protect U.S. copyright holders. It seems unlikely that Singapore worries much about Americans pirating their movies and music.

The section of the treaty mentioned is the copyrights section.

There are indeed comprehensive rules in the treaty very similar to that of the DMCA. It requires the prohibition of circumvention devices, defined as

• marketed for circumvention
• donâ(TM)t do much else
• are primarily designed for circumvention

Thereâ(TM)s also an amusing section on patents which suggests that non-obvious is synonymous with inventive step; useful is synonymous with capable of industrial application.

It also prohibits the retransmission of TV and broadcast streams (on the Internet).

I wonder if we'll see large budget adware games in the future. Considering the 400billion to Trillion[1] dollar expenditures on direct and indirect advertising along with the increased popularity of ad-blocking software and consumer electronics, creative --foolhardy?-- ad producers might see piggyback ads as a way to micro-target consumers.

Some modern ad examples: Kazaa makes (millions) off of their file sharing service. We see product placement ads in movies Happy Gilmore (Subway sandwitch), tv shows Drew Carey(Aqua Java drink) nowadays. Some oneline chat (MMORPG) "There.com" (Levis/Nike)

Former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky projected online advertising revenue to projected to increase. From 3E8$ to 2E9$ to 11 billion dollars by 2003[2]. If advertisers aren't seeing good returns from banner ads, they might after making their "ads" more entertaining by bundling some entertainment... =)
_____________
[1]COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES: Advertising and Related Services (2001 July). World Trade Organization notes (?)
[2]Opening Remarks, FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky, Public Workshop on Online Profiling, November 8, 1999. Volume XIX. Issue 22. November 15, 1999. Page 5-8. [see hyperlink]. --the linked article is some sort of critque of Pitosfsky's policies.

Well, it's worked for them in the past.

Although I believe that after the United States got its choice of minimum copyright and patent standards written in to the GATT, they are theoretically no longer supposed to use these unilateral sanctions to coerce other countries into changing their laws.

That's a widely-disputed claim.

You singled out my example of the Roman empire as proof of my ignorance of history, but my comment was that if cheap labor were the only factor in determining the relative economic strength of a nation-state, the Romans wouldn't have had an empire. And I'm not sure about the relevance of your comment about the US South prior to the Civil War. The South underperformed the North to a huge degree specifically because they used slave labor. It was only after the Civil War that the American economy, no longer dragged down by the Southern plantation economy, was able to truly modernise.

Just ask the Branch Davidians.

I'm not going to apologize for the US government's handling of the Branch Davidians standoff. But it's specious to compare the Branch Davidians incident with the clampdown on the Falung Gong. They are completely different in scale and cause. It's also instructive to remember that while the FBI was acquitted of wrongdoing, the repurcussions from the event have led to inquiries, a storm of debate, and changes within the FBI. There is no such internal debate regarding handling of the Falung Gong in China, because the system prohibits it.

I don't make any contention that the US is even remotely perfect, or that it's the only place to be, or even that it's going to maintain hegemony forever. But I do believe that whatever nation-state overtakes the United States will only do so on the basis of a social structure rooted in respect for the individual.

China is making huge strides. They have tremendous industrial and high-tech potential, and smart, hardworking people. That's obvious. But the Soviet Union had those same advantages, and their inability to reconcile their technological progress with the squelching of free thought made their experiment doomed to failure from the start.

It's my belief that the Chinese system of government will have to evolve if the country is to ever approach, much less overtake, the US economically.

In case someone feels like telling the USTR what they think about this:

http://www.ustr.gov/about-ustr/contactustr.shtml

By Telephone:
USTR Individual Offices
USTR Public Information Line (TOLL-FREE)
1-888-473-USTR (8787)

By Mail:
United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20508
United States of America

By E-Mail:
questions regarding information on our site can be directed to contactustr@ustr.gov. (Your e-mail will be directed to the appropriate office.)

This is a bit of old news, but interesting new commentary provided in the original posting. Essentially metals and footware (good thing Nike's are manafactured in Viet Namese sweat shops and not Ukraine sweat shops, I would hate to see Michael Jordan battling with Hilary Rosen of RIAA)

The white house sent the following email to people on their trade/tech related listserv. Also see here for the Trade Office's (u.s. govt) press release.

TO: High Tech Leaders

US imposes sanctions on Ukraine in CD piracy row

WASHINGTON, Dec 20 (Reuters) - The United States will impose sanctions on $75
million worth of Ukrainian goods in retaliation for the continued piracy of U.S.
music compact disc and other optical media products, a spokesman for the U.S.
Trade Representative's office said on Thursday.

The action follows repeated warnings that the United States would impose
sanctions unless Ukraine stopped the illegal reproduction of the products within
its borders.

The U.S. industry estimates annual losses from Ukrainian piracy at more than
$200 million.

You're right! It's a big evil conspiracy! Posting links to...

You realize I wasn't saying the organization itself or our nations involvement in it was a secret. I was making the point that how someone becomes representative to this organization is not public information. Nor are its proceedings, which are all held behind closed doors.

And I really hate to hoist your by your own petard, but, it seems that some people withing the USTR agree [ustr.gov]. I might also point out that this information came to light after December 3rd 1999, which is a nice concidence, don'tcha think?

You know what else is a corporate conspiracy? The CIA!

Not quite. The director of the CIA is a presidentially appointed position that undergoes a similar ratification process as cabenet appointments and abassadors. The CIA director is in theory ultimitely responsible for all actions of the CIA.

...Clueless uninformed opinions. Vague hints of nebulous corporate conspiracies.

It fascinates me that any anti-corporate, anti-government, anti-consumption post I make is almost always taken to be a conspiracy. I don't think theres anything of the sort going on, unless you'd call a country club a conspiracy. It's just business as usual on the global scale.

Anyway, you're skirting the issue: who from the US appoints US representatives to the WTO and by what process? Where are there checks or balances? Who is accountable? I don't think you can answer because this information is not publicly available. I imagine that even if you know, you're not allowed to tell.

You're right! It's a big evil conspiracy! Posting links to the US Trade Representatives websites will immediately bring the secret police to your door. Deep links to the USTR WTO website are expressly prohibited! In fact everything is so hidden that if you search for "US representative WTO" on google you get nothing at all!

You know what else is a corporate conspiracy? The CIA! There are no senate meetings or congress approval to appoint the individual agents in the CIA. It's gotto be a corporate conspiracy!

Or there is the logical conclusion that the secretary for trade is the one responsible for the decisions of who represents the US and the secretary is appointed by the president with the approval of the Senate and Congress - but that theory is so boring.

I have to take issue again. Were you there among the "majority of WTO protesters" or did you rely on (hostile) mainstream media coverage to make your assessment?

I live in Seattle. I have heard the stupid comments first hand from idiots trying to prove to me the WTO was evil and from the same morons in other forums like Slashdot. Clueless uninformed opinions. Vague hints of nebulous corporate conspiracies. You guys should really read some newspapers from other countries to get a clue what organizations like the WTO are. Too many idiots are journalists in this country.

Anyway, you're skirting the issue: who from the US appoints US representatives to the WTO and by what process? Where are there checks or balances? Who is accountable? I don't think you can answer because this information is not publicly available. I imagine that even if you know, you're not allowed to tell.

You're right! It's a big evil conspiracy! Posting links to the US Trade Representatives websites will immediately bring the secret police to your door. Deep links to the USTR WTO website are expressly prohibited! In fact everything is so hidden that if you search for "US representative WTO" on google you get nothing at all!

You know what else is a corporate conspiracy? The CIA! There are no senate meetings or congress approval to appoint the individual agents in the CIA. It's gotto be a corporate conspiracy!

Or there is the logical conclusion that the secretary for trade is the one responsible for the decisions of who represents the US and the secretary is appointed by the president with the approval of the Senate and Congress - but that theory is so boring.

I have to take issue again. Were you there among the "majority of WTO protesters" or did you rely on (hostile) mainstream media coverage to make your assessment?

I live in Seattle. I have heard the stupid comments first hand from idiots trying to prove to me the WTO was evil and from the same morons in other forums like Slashdot. Clueless uninformed opinions. Vague hints of nebulous corporate conspiracies. You guys should really read some newspapers from other countries to get a clue what organizations like the WTO are. Too many idiots are journalists in this country.

• Cripple the technology so that only large-scale commercial pirates can make copies. (CSS, encrypted monitors, restricted DVD blanks, etc.)
• Find the commercial pirates. (Private investigators and law enforcement funded by the Business Software Alliance, Software Publishers Association, RIAA, etc.)
• Lean on countries to shut down the commercial pirates by using trade sanctions (the TRIPS agreement).

It's working, too. There's an annual report on compliance with the TRIPS agreement describing countries that the US is putting the screws on for not being tough enough on content piracy.

The answer is potentially.
I'll try to answer this question in two parts.

1. First off, the US PTO has been soundly criticized for granting patents on software and business methods. While the rest of the world guffaws at the US PTO, the US government has been quietly attempting to "harmonize" patent examining procedures abroad.

For instance, on October 24, 2000, the office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) drafted a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Jordan concerning IP protection. Here is provision #5 of the MoU:

"Jordan shall take all steps necessary to clarify that the exclusion from patent protection of 'mathematical methods' in Article 4(B) of Jordan's Patent Law does not include such 'methods' as business methods or computer-related inventions."

In other words, the US government is attempting to export its penchant for granting lousy patents to other nations.

2. Second, consider an international convention is currently being negotiated between representatives of 47 nations. The Hague Conference on Private International Law's "Proposed Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters" -- or "Hague Convention" is an attempt to render legal judgements between nations enforceable. If the Hague Convention is ratified by member nations, the following scenario may occur:

Multinational Corporation X (native to Britain) patents a fundamental web standard in the United States, where such patents are allowed. X sues its competitors (who reside in nations that do not tend to grant such patents) in a U.S. court, and under the Hague Convention, is able to make the judgement enforceable in other countries -- even if those other countries do not allow patents on web standards. Imagine what the Hague Convention might do to increase the liability of international Free-Software developers.

The U.S. PTO recently solicited comments from the public about the Hague Convention and its effect on patents and intellectual property. You can read the comments here. My organization also has a page on the Hague Convention here.

I hope that helps answer your question about the enforcement of U.S. patents abroad. Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell

get you facts straight: just beacuse Iraq is embargoed doesn't mean the rest of the middle east is.

have a look here to see what's going on at Gitex in Dubai. And the article here shows that US imports from the UAE were $8.9bn in 1998. That doesn't sound like a trade embargo to me.