Slashdot Mirror

Shouldn't that be the U.S Trade Protectionist Lobby (USTP)

"Today's Special 301 Report guides our efforts to protect American innovation and creativity around the world," said Ambassador Ron Kirk. "Our creative and innovative products can hit the global marketplace sometimes with just a keystroke. If we and our trading partners are not vigilant in protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights, they can vanish just as quickly"

The Absurdity of the USTR's Blame Canada Approach

Chevron Lobbyists Misleading USTR Over Ecuador Environmental Case

Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products

Yet D&D gamers grew up and they don't run amok in our streets fighting imaginary orcs and dragons.

That's because as we grew up we realized that we have enough real monsters to deal with. Orcs and dragons are for pussies, just let me get my .30-06.

You know what I think? By any standards, Americans have it too easy: houses are too big (compare them to any European), cars waste too much fuel, credit is too easy, etc.

Think about it: anybody who's got to compete with you has to at least bilingual, be up-to-date with everything you know (that is, read your books, read your papers), spend shitloads of money doing it that, etc.

I've heard US American presidents for decades preach about the free market. Well, there's free market and globalization for you - you get to rub elbows with Indians, etc. You don't like it? Tough it out.

But what I really expect your government to do is just to trample on the WTO's rules of trade and put forward a protectionist program, that is: to really come across once again as the jingoist nation full of B.S. that you are, one in which the rules apply to everyone else (for instance, the rule of international law), but not to you.

You guys have it easy. Stop complaining.

True that, but the most ironic thing is that the Swedish court really cant acquit them. Cause then maybe Sweden will be raped by WTO. http://www.wto.org/

Wasnt there a WTO ruling about offshore gambling hat went against the USA?

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds285_e.htm

Looks like USA cant ban online offshore gambling.

Wikipedia has a petty good analysis of most/some of them. Wiki tends to get somewhat biased and noteworthy sometimes so here are a few other sources with he raw language of the treaties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works

A problem is going to be that I don't know for sure if I can (have the skills and patients) make you understand them. I barely understand most of them myself and I'm not in a position to teach on them. You should be able to get them on your own though. Remember, the treaties usually don't have the text of a law in them. They will say a country has to make a law doing X. This is where the disputes and cross border things come into play. When X isn't completely covered, the treaty ensures that it will be. I'm just going to drop some links without actually hyper-linking them. The slash code might make links from them or you can copy and paste.

Berne Convention http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
This is the part that says the other countries have to make protections.

UCC
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1814&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

WTO
http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm

WIPO
http://www.wipo.int/standards/en/

This site which is part of the WIPO site seems to have collections of laws concerning copyright in other countries.

There are more, those are the big ones. They, as well as Wikipedia, will link to more but you will have a good Idea after a getting through a lot of that and might not need them.

Slashdot visited in 2003 the precedential Veeck case (went to the Supreme Court) mentioned several times in this discussion see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/08/204225 I support a "full daylight" policy for public access to laws and regulations with which compliance is mandatory. Indeed there are such transparency obligations on central and local governments within the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm "2.11 Members shall ensure that all technical regulations which have been adopted are published promptly or otherwise made available in such a manner as to enable interested parties in other Members to become acquainted with them." See also Legislative and Regulatory Underpinnings of US Government use of Standards in Technical Regulations and Procurements and the development by Government of voluntary standards http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/Legislativeunderpinning.html So for "technical regulations" with which compliance is mandatory, central and local governments could meet this expectation by posting them to the web. Central and local governments could also charge reasonable fees for paper copies of such "technical regulations" when requested. However the issue becomes complicated when "technical regulations" embody text of standards from private sector standards developers. There is a precedent case http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/veeck.htm In the Supreme Court of the United States Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc, Petitioner Peter Veeck, D/B/A Regional Web No. 02-355. I have copied below relevant text: "This case concerns model codes written and copyrighted by a private organization. The codes apply to the construction, alteration, use, occupancy, and maintenance of buildings and the electrical, plumbing, mechanical and gas systems in them and provided criminal misdemeanor penalties for failure to comply. The private organization offers the codes to government entities for enactment into law. Two municipalities enacted ordinances that adopted the model codes by reference. The question presented is: Whether copyright law gives the private organization the right to restrict individuals from making copies of the material incorporated by reference in the municipal codes of the two municipalities." The Supreme court in making its decision not to hear the case essentially accepted the US solicitor General's advice about a June 10, 2002 decision of the court of appeals from the Fifth Circuit "Supreme Court need not reconsider a June 10, 2002 decision of United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002)). The Fifth Circuit had concluded that SBCCI retains the copyright in its standard, but that "[w]hen those codes are enacted into law ... they become to that extent 'the law' of the governmental entities and may be reproduced or distributed as 'the law' of those jurisdictions." The Fifth Circuit further observed that laws are not subject to federal copyright law, and "public ownership of the law means that 'the law' is in the 'public domain' for whatever use the citizens choose to make of it." Many private sector standards developing organizations SDOs depend on the sale of standards to support their infrastructure. The implication for such SDOs was identified by the Dissenting opinion to the Fifth court decision by WIENER, Circuit Judge, joined by KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, dissenting: "Technical codes and standards have become necessary, pervasive, and indispensable ingredients of Twenty-First Century life in this country; regrettably, today's majority opinion has a real potential of d

You could only boycott at an individual level. Any government-level policies prohibiting citizens from trading with the United States would be a World Trade Organization violation, which would remove their protection in turn (so that others could boycott their nations at a gov't level without sacrificing their own protection).

Not to say that it would be impossible, or unwarranted.

• December 21, 2007
• October 12, 2007
• August 23, 2007
• April 2, 2007
• November 16, 2006
• February 17, 2006
• March 26, 2004

Trouble is, shorter timespans are not on the table.

The WTO will be around to see him shortly. You are right this is anti-competitive and a danger to the market economy^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdemocracy.

> Considering that Russia is now part of WTO

In what sense? They are *not* a WTO member (yet). They have an accession status, that has not changed much in the past few years. Take a look at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/acc_e/a1_russi e_e.htm for details.

I don't really know why I should go through the trouble of finding perfectly googleable information for a random slashdot poster, but since I have some time to spend, here you go:

Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (in WTO), article 22.3:

In considering what concessions or other obligations to suspend, the complaining party shall apply the following principles and procedures:

(a) the general principle is that the complaining party should first seek to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sector(s) as that in which the panel or Appellate Body has found a violation or other nullification or impairment;

(b) if that party considers that it is not practicable or effective to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sector(s), it may seek to suspend concessions or other obligations in other sectors under the same agreement. (emphasis added)

How else do you really think it could work? It's not like Antigua can extract billions of dollars by placing restrictions on how its citizens may use US gambling services. It must be able to enforce the treaties in question somehow, and that's exactly what WTO is: A framework for supervising member states' implementation of free trade and providing a way to respond to violations.

Think this way: If small developing country A is a big exports of bananas to the US, while US exports iPods to country A. Now if country A places restrictions to iPods that it doesn't place to other countries or locally produced producs, do you think the US can extract the lost revenue by placing restrictions on tech imports from country A? Sure, that's the preferred way (paragraph (a) above), but if it's just not adequate, US can place import tariffs on bananas.

Fair enough?

there is no way an effective vaccine will be slowed or stopped by politics and bullshit.

what?

US's tourism accounts for 0.9% of GDP... that's nothing compared to china (5.4%), New Zealand (10%), Italy (12%), even Canada (2.5%) ... get the point? It is insignificant to the US, but critical to many other areas of the world ...

I'd like to point out that what Brazil did is actually legal under TRIPS. TRIPS is the treaty that regulates Intellectual Property world-wide. The same treaty under which so many other cases are prosecuted. One of the TRIPS provision states that a number of countries can exercise compulsory patenting on pharmaceuticals for a number of years (I believe 15, but I am not sure). It was done to lure many countries into the treaty.

The eminent domain power is used to *permanently* acquire property; a compulsory license, as the name would suggest, is not a permanent taking. The compulsory licensing scheme set out in article 31 of the TRIPS agreement sets out a number of conditions that a country seeking such a license must meet, and the terms of the license are also limited in a number of ways (for example, the license "shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic market of the Member authorizing such use").

Importantly, if the conditions upon which the compulsory license is based (in this case, the inability for Merck and Brazil to see eye-to-eye on price) change, the license will *expire*. Thus, it's not accurate to imply that Brazil is acquiring the patent by what is basically its power of eminent domain. Brazil isn't acquiring anything really, since a change in circumstances could terminate its rights to continue using the patent.

And lastly, don't forget that (since this is a license, after all) TRIPS requires Brazil to pay Merck at some rate which will have to be determined later. Brazil wouldn't have to do that if it simply acquired the patent via its eminent domain power.

The NIH has done alot of research and publishes much of it in the interest of common good. The NIH (and related organisations in other countries) are not at all the problem however.

Bear in mind also that a cure can be published in detail while also remaining patented: don't get patentability mixed up with copyright.

As a medical researcher, you mind find it interesting - perhaps disturbing - to read the following:

Stagnation in the Drug Development Process: Are Patents the Problem?
TRIPS and pharmaceutical patents: fact sheet
Patents, Pharmaceuticals and the Third World

There is much more out there on this problem. I suggest you look around.

In the WTO "technical barriers to trade" gateway which the EU (and member states are party too)...

Isn't world government great! ... NOT!

lobby Congress to alter copyright law in the USA to change the duration to something more reasonable

Part of the problem is that the developed nations are in a race to the bottom. Nobody can fix their own laws without running afoul of TRIPS in particular. It looks like the only way to truly reform the IP regime is to do it at the international level.

I just looked at the sources again as documented by the WTO It apears that the dumping evaluations were considered normal under other WTO policies but had been stopped recently when the issue started going in front of the pannel. In fact, the pannel originaly found for the US, and later, canada had it reversed on appeal. But that isn't the interesting part.

The interesting part is that the pannel made it's determination by 2004. But acording to the same report, On 12 October 2006, the United States and Canada informed the DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU in the disputes WT/DS236, WT/DS247, WT/DS257, WT/DS264, WT/DS277 and WT/DS311. This solution was in the form of a comprehensive agreement (Softwood Lumber Agreement) between the United States and Canada, dated 12 September 2006.

so it apears if anyone was screwed, it was because they wanted to be. And Canada eventualy saw the problems it was creating and agreed to the settlemnt. SO the ops statment that -screwing over their own trading partners (like Canada over soft wood lumber) Is still misleading, vastly inflated or incorect. "Mutualy agreed solution" being informed by both parties "mutualy", doesn't mean anyone is forced or screwed. If canada had the treaty on their side, they could have gone back to the WTO and done something about it "if they wanted too"! The fact remains that they used the treaty to conclude the solution and it isn't in violation of it.

Which is quite illegal for two reasons. Read on.

From "Article VI: Technical Specifications." The Agreement on Government Procurement. (2)(b) & (3) 2. Technical specifications prescribed by procuring entities shall, where appropriate... (b) be based on international standards, where such exist ..." "3. There shall be no requirement or reference to a particular trademark or trade name, patent, design or type, specific origin, producer or supplier ..."

So MS failure to comply with standards (anything and everything from TCP/IP on up to Kerberos, LDAP, and even HTTP and HTML) should automatically eliminate it from consideration in government purchases, according to (2)(b). And any tenders explicitly specifying MS products or specifications should be withdran, according to (3)

However, even if governments were to comply with the international treaties which they have signed onto, you still have the problem of OEM lock-in to contend with.

...i don't think content creators have enough business muscle AND international clout to completely limit the range of drm-free options we as consumers will be able to access hardware-wise.

But we also must embrace the reality that each sovereign nation is a separate political entity with a different legal climate, economic power, culture, history, language, etc.

All of these differences tend to cause imbalances in how entities in each country trade goods or services. These imbalances can be used to give one side or another an advantage, and players on both sides can profit from that. But in most cases, the profit is unequal.

What many people don't seem to understand is that's the whole point. The idea is to give nations the ability to leverage their strengths in the global marketplace. Of course those strengths are the result of different cultures, geography, language, religion or whatever else you can imagine. That's a really good thing. Hey, maybe a nation has huge natural reserves of oil or coal? Maybe it has a large, disciplined work force that can manufacture cheap goods? It doesn't really matter what a nation is best at--the idea behind GATT and the WTO is to allow every member nation the chance to capitalize on those strengths.

After that, you seem to have sandwiched an anti-immigration argument into a discussion about free trade. You are probably one of those people who misunderstands what free trade actually entails under international treaties, but that's okay, because it's an easy mistake to make. There is so much bad information and rhetoric out there by people who claim that "free trade is this" or "free trade is that." Their goal is to confuse you and make you think that the world is changing around you for all the wrong reasons, instead of just as a result of market principles. I view the writer of the original Slashdot article as just such an alarmist.

The truth is that free trade really just boils down to preventing governments from artifically propping up their own domestic producers (and by proxy, their domestic labor force) by granting subsidies to those producers. If you believe in free competition in the marketplace, in no monopolies or cartels, and that consumers should be able to pay low prices for quality goods, then it's a very easy concept to embrace. The alternative is that you believe that governments should be able to screw around with the global economy by giving billions to dying industries, tax breaks to big businesses, and so on--you know, the exact things that the GATT and the WTO try to prevent.

There's so much irony there when Mr. Slashdot Poster X says something sanctimonious like he's against big, corrupt businesses taking his tax money and then proceeds to adopt the anti-globalization position that supports exactly that. The ignorance is astounding.

Then you go on to pick on tariffs:

It's true that Tarrifs, like any government-driven regulation, can be abused. But the solution is not to limit them. The solution is to develop an accountability process that discourages abuse. Tarrifs can also do as much damage as subsidies, to an industry's competitiveness. Again, intelligent moderation of subsidy level is the solution. Not an ideologically-driven "ban all tariffs!" movement.

Unlimited tariffs would topple entire nations, mostly the undeveloped ones you probably are trying to protect. So no, sorry, that's just a ridiculous thing to claim. I can tell you're maybe not really up on this, or you might be aware that an accountability process already exists.

There's more, but I'm just feeling like a broken record player. There's a lot of information out there, in books and even just on Wikipedia. You could start by reading about what comparative advantage means, what it entails, and why it's controversial to some people. Then you could read about GATT. It's going to

That's like saying Mark Foley's unusual interest in pages, and his party's subsequent coverup of it, hasn't a place in a rational discussion about the current state of US politics.

Simple. The EC declares Microsoft in contempt, leevies a larger fine. Files a complaint with the WTO, files a complaint with the U.S. FTC and SEC. The fine continues to accrue interest.

Yes, the US company could complain to the relevant office of their government (whichever office that would be) and the dispute could be raised as an issue with the World Trade Organisation.

Which seem to handle plenty of patent disputes:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_ subjects_index_e.htm#patents

The same companies have gotten away with region coding for years, and that's a pretty clear violation of international trade laws, specifically the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade section 2.2.

http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e .htm

I'm kinda surprised the EFF hasn't shown any interest in pursuing this.

This is in Denmark, as some have guessed. If you understand danish, you can find the legislative process for this law change documented here. Unfortunately the background for this law change (Betænkning nr. 1385/2000) is no longer online, and this is what best illustrates the US government pressure.

Basically the US government complained in the WTO that we did not obey TRIPS Article 50, 1 (b) as we did note have Anton Piller order-like legislation that could be used against individuals suspected on infringing on copyrights, although all legal experts said we were fully compliant. When the US government threathened to escalate this into trade restrictions against Denmark our government felt forced to propose this law change although they knew that we did not violate TRIPS.

This incident changed my view on the US. I have nothing against the US people, but I have developed a strong dislike for the US government (no matter which party in your two-party system is in power), and I now have a better understanding of why people in some parts of the world think the US is imperialistic and want to do terrorist action against the US.

Personally I don't want to retaliate against the US.

And I don't think it is needed. Given the way things are developing in the US and in the rest of the world, I think it is just a matter of time until the US has fallen so much technologically and economically behind the rest of the world that they will be unable to bully other nations like they did to my country. This is sad for the US people, as they have to suffer under a government by the corporations and for the corporations in a two-party political system that is only marginally better than the communist one party system.

What does a country get from belonging to the WTO? Could educated folks enlighten a slashdotter?

The ten benefits

1. The system helps promote peace
2. Disputes are handled constructively
3. Rules make life easier for all
4. Freer trade cuts the costs of living
5. It provides more choice of products and qualities
6. Trade raises incomes
7. Trade stimulates economic growth
8. The basic principles make life more efficient
9. Governments are shielded from lobbying
10. The system encourages good government

Of course 'they' can, and probably will.

Mechanisms such as the WIPO and WTO are incredibly influential entities, and have already been able to leverage many governments to implement laws governing media, and other communications [see: DMCA, EUCD].

Most of this work is due to the lobbying from large multi-nationals, as it is their interests that are at stake. In the case of the Internet, it would be logical to assume that affected corporations will lobby the relevant organizations to ensure global enforcement of rules that benefit them.

It is sensible to expect then, that in lieu of any bold moves to stop it happening, a similar fate will befall the internet.

The DCMA, the US's favorite export.

Actually the DMCA as well as its EUCD european counterpart are both implementations of the TRIPS international treaty which was brought to us by our loved and highly democratic World Trade Organization.

It also seems that EUCD is yet more restrictive than DMCA, actually the french implementation of EUCD, if adopted by the parliament at the end of the month, will simply make it illegal to publish free software .

It's more than time for all this nonsense to stop.

"Agreed but what can we do about it."

You can go to the police and report the evidence you have regarding an alleged crime. The police should then go and investigate the evidence and, in case enough evidence is found, justice should have it's cause and a judge should decide wether or not to punish the offender. That should be possible in all countries that signed the TRIPs agreement, including the US and the UK (see below). Article 61 states:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm4 _e.htm

-+-

SECTION 5: CRIMINAL PROCEDURES

Article 61

Members shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale. Remedies available shall include imprisonment and/or monetary fines sufficient to provide a deterrent, consistently with the level of penalties applied for crimes of a corresponding gravity. In appropriate cases, remedies available shall also include the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of the infringing goods and of any materials and implements the predominant use of which has been in the commission of the offence. Members may provide for criminal
procedures and penalties to be applied in other cases of infringement of intellectual property rights, in particular where they are committed wilfully and on a commercial scale.

-+-

It seems that at least the UK and the US have implemented this in their laws, so I think one could go to the police over this in both the UK and the US:

====
UK
====

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/07/prison_for _using_kazaa_surely/

-:-

But from 31st October, the new regime introduces a new threat for P2P fans: prison. "There's no suggestion that this is what the new law is intended to catch, and it's not something that the European Directive demands; but the wording could be interpreted this way," says Robertson.

The relevant provision states:

"A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public -

(a) in the course of a business, or

(b) otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work."

Robertson said: "It could be interpreted under these new Regulations that you are now committing a criminal offence when you use KaZaA or other P2P services. You may not be acting in the course of a business; but by making a music file available for download for any other users of your chosen P2P network, you are communicating the work - potentially at least - to millions, i.e. to an extent that the music industry could say is prejudicing its rights."

-:-

Judging on this, in the UK -- the base of first4internet -- one can also be sent to prison over copyright infringement.

Some more or less relevant case law:
http://www.legalday.co.uk/lexnex/simkins03/simkins q403/simkins141003.htm

"PPL applied for an order to commit Mr Tierney for contempt of court in respect of his failure to comply with the court order. It had reportedly made seven previous applications of this nature against Mr Tierney.

PPL succeeded in its application. Mr Tierney had been warned of the consequences of further breaches of the court order only six months previously. The court imposed a term of imprisonment of 35 days. In order that the sentence had the effect of ensuring future compliance, the court suspended the sentence for 40 months."

====
US
====

Did you know copyright infringement is a crime?

Well, it is.

Or at least, it should be in all countries that singed the TRIPs agreement. It says so in article 61:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm4 _e.htm

--

SECTION 5: CRIMINAL PROCEDURES

Article 61

        Members shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale. Remedies available shall include imprisonment and/or monetary fines sufficient to provide a deterrent, consistently with the level of penalties applied for crimes of a corresponding gravity. In appropriate cases, remedies available shall also include the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of the infringing goods and of any materials and implements the predominant use of which has been in the commission of the offence. Members may provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied in other cases of infringement of
intellectual property rights, in particular where they are committed wilfully and on a commercial scale.

--

So, commercial copyright infringement, as is obviously the case here, is to be regarded a criminal offence in all countries that signed the TRIPs agreement. And if it is a criminal offence, the government is responsible to take the offender to court and throw him in jail should he be found quilty!

All you gotta do is go to the police and hand over all evidence you can find regarding this alleged crime. Then the police should start investigating in order to bring these criminals to justice!

This is great! This is the key to enforcing the GPL globally without having to be the author or copyright owner of the code of which the copyright has been violated. That's the beauty of criminal offences. These are prosecuted by the government on behalf of the public.

Let's take a look at what I could find on this in the US law, since these disks have been sold in the US, haven't they?

What I found out is that -- for me -- over the ocean, they have the "Anticounterfeiting Act of 2004":

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391

"Provides penalties and jail sentences for trafficking in "counterfeit labels, illicit labels or counterfeit documentation or packaging" of records, software, movies, etc. The original bill also provided penalties for filing false information with Internet registrars, but that portion wasn't picked up in the omnibus. Passed the House Sept. 21, 2004."

As far as I can see, this is the law text that applies and apparantly is in act:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/us c_sec_18_00002318----000-.html

--

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113 > 2318 Trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, copies of computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging, and copies of motion pictures or other audio visual works, and trafficking in counterfeit computer program documentation or packaging

Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (c) of this section, knowingly traffics in a counterfeit label affixed or designed to be affixed to a phonorecord, or a copy of a computer program or documentation or packaging for a computer program, or a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, and whoever, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (c) of this section, knowingly traffics in counterfeit documentation or packaging for a computer program, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."

--

"or a copy of a computer program"

Looks like those criminals copying GPLed software can be sent to jail!

Korea declares all Microsoft IP, Software and Copywrites to be in the Korean Public Domain.

Diclaimer: IANAL, but I am a law student.

As much as that (semi-humorous) thought would warm my heart, South Korea is a member of the World Trade Organization, which requires signing the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPs"), which incorporates the Berne Convention by reference.

What does this mean? It means that South Korea is obligated to recognize foreign copyrights, and stripping that protection for (arguably valid) nationalist reasons would almost certainly be in violation of international law. I haven't had a chance to fully and formally study the documents in question, but I would be shocked if there would be no recourse by the WTO.

- Neil Wehneman

P.S. Berne is a major impediment to full and free reform of copyright on a national level, as it mandates signatory countries to grant at least a copyright term of life of the author plus fifty years.

Here's a FAQ on it at the WTO site.

Roche knows about this and is talking about licensing for exactly this reason, because they can get better terms this way.

Taiwan will produce six kg of its version of Tamiflu - enough, according to the government, to renew its stocks.

The government has said it will not market the drug commercially.

Taiwan just wants to get the stuff QUICKLY, so it's shortcutting the usual process.

As Taiwan is a signatory to TRIPS under the the WTO,
( http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/ch inese_taipei_e.htm )
there are serious economic consqeuenses for Taiwan if it doesn't eventually pay, (like trade embargos and higher tarriff by the patent holder's country) but I consider that extremely unlikely.

Sovereign governments always reserve the right to make use of patents that THEY have granted in THEIR jurisdiction ("Crown use"). Normally they do so by way of compulsory lisencing, on "just terms".

At least that's how it works in Australia.
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s163 to s172
Part 2--Exploitation by the Crown
http://www.scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/54 5/top.htm

That's true of Play Stations since they can make back the costs on other revenues, but not of things like steel, timber, etc. See WTO site for more info.

Thank John "jobs jobs jobs" Kerry's for his yeah vote on GATT in 1994, which passed and Bill Clinton subsequently signed.

A Democrat controled House, Senate, and Whitehouse gave us GATT. Which enabled our entry into the WTO "Wealth Transfer Organization".

Nobody cared when the "over priced" labor force was being eliminated, now that the shoe is on the other foot... Let me break out a Kleenex and shed a few tears.

If your "career" is on this list, to you I say, good luck with that: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/serv_se ctors_e.htm

Per the WTO, all developing countries have preferential tarrif treatment until 2009, including China (exempted from Kyoto too).

As long as we are in the WTO, I refuse to spend ten cents to further my education, better off eliminating all debts. It will make that Wallmart paycheck go all that much further.

Wealth is being Transfered Out as we speak.

Stop spending money and get out of Debt!

I admit I know nothing of WTO (expect it means "World Trade Organization"), so I might be skating in thin ice here...

Yes, you are. The WTO does care about trade and subjects like intellectual property. These topics are the entire reason that the WTO was created. To quote from the WTO website:
Copyright

The TRIPS agreement ensures that computer programs will be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention and outlines how databases should be protected.

It also expands international copyright rules to cover rental rights. Authors of computer programs and producers of sound recordings must have the right to prohibit the commercial rental of their works to the public. A similar exclusive right applies to films where commercial rental has led to widespread copying, affecting copyright-owners' potential earnings from their films.

The agreement says performers must also have the right to prevent unauthorized recording, reproduction and broadcast of live performances (bootlegging) for no less than 50 years. Producers of sound recordings must have the right to prevent the unauthorized reproduction of recordings for a period of 50 years. In short, these are international agreements that have already been made. China agreed to follow them and, in fact, has placed these laws in its own books. However, China has done almost nothing in enforcing their own laws regarding IP. As such, the US has a strong case against them if they were to bring it to the WTO.

"Hynix is receiving financial support from Seoul so that Hynix can afford to sell at a loss or at no profit. Such financial distortions (which are common in Korea) materially impact the American economy because Washington opens the American economy to "free" trade with Korea."

What absolute rubbish. Your disregard for the facts is astonishing, and you've never taken Economics 101. Which fallacy would you like me correct first?

Lets start with Hynix recieves financial support from the Korean government. Well that'll be just like Boeing in the US. Or, indeed the entire US sugar industry. Or, for that matter, most farmers in Europe and the US. Result: the US and Europe dump aeroplanes and food onto countries, stifling their own food/aeroplane businesses.

But this is besides the point: the World Trade Organisation recently concluded that the South Korean state (which bailed out Hynix in '02) was no where near as guilty as people claim. Hynix also no longer recieves any subsidy from the Korean government.

(If you think the government bailing out failing businesses is wrong - and it is - then ask yourself when the US government recently spent 10s of billions of dollars proping up companies. Like the airlines.)

Anyway. I'm ranting. So I'll shut up.

Because dumping refers to selling a cost in a foreign market at a cost below a product's home market cost. Here's it's not dumping, simply a loss leader, as the cost is low in all markets. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_e.ht m

Any "career" in this list is in jeopardy. GATS: General Agreement in Trade in Services. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/serv_se ctors_e.htm

• TRIPS as both floor and ceiling on length of copyright
  The TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement establishes 50 years as the minimum duration of copyright for WTO countries. 50 years should also be the maximum, and the TRIPS agreement should be amended accordingly. Countries, such as the US, which go beyond 50 years should be brought into compliance with international norms. This is a proper WTO issue, since the TRIPS Agreement is an annex to the agreement establishing the WTO. This change encourages the creation of new works.
• A stronger definition of "obviousness" for patents.
  It's possible to get very narrow patents without much trouble. This is usually pointless, but if the patent covers a de-facto standard way of doing something, it's a way of creating a monopoly. The "obviousness" criterion should be broadened so that if there is demonstrably a technically equivalent but incompatible way to do something, the patent is invalid for obviousness. This change reduces trade friction by enhancing interoperability.
• International standards override patents.
  When a standard is submitted for international standarization via the ISO process, patentholders should be given an opportunity to object to the standard during an opposition period. Once that period has expired, no patent infringement claim can thereafter be made for the subject matter of the standard. This change also reduces trade friction by enhancing interoperability.

False, if you're part of the plurilateral GPA, which the US and China are:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/gp_gpa _e.htm

In fact, the US has probably been the world's biggest proponent of the GPA. Governments spend a large portion of the world's GDP; it would be a huge oversight (and was a huge oversight) to ignore them.

Main features

The GPA establishes an agreed framework of rights and obligations among its Parties with respect to their national laws, regulations, procedures and practices in the area of government procurement. The cornerstone of the rules in the Agreement is non-discrimination. In respect of the procurement covered by the Agreement, governments Parties to the Agreement are required to give the products, services and suppliers of any other Party to the Agreement treatment "no less favourable" than that they give to their domestic products, services and suppliers and not to discriminate among goods, services and suppliers of other Parties (Article III:1). Furthermore, each Party is required to ensure that its entities do not treat a locally-established supplier less favourably than another locally-established supplier on the basis of degree of foreign affiliation or ownership and do not discriminate against a locally-established supplier on the basis of country of production of the good or service being supplied (Article III:2). In order to ensure that the basic principle of non-discrimination is followed and that access to procurement is available to foreign products, services and suppliers, the Agreement lays heavy emphasis on procedures for providing transparency of laws, regulations, procedures and practices regarding government procurement.

The US of A signed TRIPS, so they have to let patents be valid for at least 20 years according to article 33.

How precisely does a 20-year monopoly on ways of accessing emergency information benefit society at large? If it doesn't, it never ought to have been granted.

You may want to look into the World Trade Organization on Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS)

The fourth point shows that the TRIPS agreement does not apply in the case of a national emergency. This allows a nation to produce its own generic drugs that have been patented.