Slashdot Mirror
Australia-US Free Trade Agreement Examined
PeterBecker writes "An evalutation of the impact of the changes Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement is available from the Australian Parliamentary Library (Research Paper #14). It takes a very critical stance, with statements such as "IPRs fit awkwardly in an agreement that has the aim of advancing free trade." and "While there has not been a comprehensive economic evaluation of IPRs, the Productivity Commission has found that, as a net importer of IPRs, Australia would lose more than it gains by strengthening IPRs. The net economic impact is thus likely to be negative.". Interesting read especially for those of you who might be affected but missed the fact thanks to close to no coverage in the mainstream media."
It is entirely understandable that the mainstream media did not give this issue much attention. It really is a small thing. An examination of some of the shortcomings of a trade agreement between the U.S. and Australia does not effect most people directly.
_____
Thank you.
What is apparent is that Australia did not get the big gains in access to US agriculture it was asking for, but still agreed to some serious changes to Australian social policies which the US was demanding. While the agreement - unlike the North American Free Trade Agreement - will not allow corporations to sue the government for breaches of the agreement, it will mean restrictions on the right of Australia to regulate local content in the media, changes to Australian quarantine laws, new avenues for US pharmaceutical companies to press for greater profits from the Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme, and greater restrictions on creative products under copyright.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
except for lawyers.
The point of free trade agreements should be to open avenues of exchange, and not just of goods, but of services, ideas and the like.
If the only winners are lawyers and political kudos then it ain't really a unilateral open and honest FTA.
Maybe I just hanker back for the time of cooperation and backscratching that was the early days of the internet instead of the $$make money fast$$ and backstabbing that seems to goes on now.
It will be interesting to see how many Australian companies incorporate separate R&D subsiduaries in New Zealand or Vanuatu etc to protect themselves against the much more matured and voracious legal 'profession' in the US chasing 'possible' IPR infringements (most of which I'd assume would be to financially cripple competition instead of really protecting IPRs).
btw, what, if any, has been the Canadian experience with this - and can any parallels be drawn (or lessons learnt).
what do you mean it doesn't "effect most people directly"?
a consumers rights being limited - how direct can you get?
[too lazy to deliver more substantiating examples]
i believe the reply to your statement to be far more accurate.
why would the interest holders critically report, what they desire?
having said that, i believe (speculatively) that in the editors room the same argument was used, to kill off a journos report on the subject! i just wonder how they might have responded.....
If Only Johnny howard and the rest of our wonderful government had some balls and decided to stop arse licking dubya et. al
but i guess we would miss out on things such as this 'free' trade agreement,
fear and the 'forever threat' of terrorism as a political point scorer
iraq
not to mention an american administration and its embassy commenting on our domestic issues (read labour party)
would be nice if our sovereignty was respected and little johhny had some kahunas to protect it.
it's just unfortunate that people don't know what's good for them and are more interested in irrelevant news than items which will actually make a difference to them.
You mean like cheaper electronics, vehicles, white goods, clothing, etc...
I think you'll find that the increase in affordability of those items and many more are going to make a difference to more people than IP and copyright laws. The FTA doesn't make Australia the 51st state of the USA. What it does do is give Australia access to some of the cheaper products available in the US *and* allows Australians free access to those same markets.
Oh yeah, that chapter 17 is here.
Here in Peru, the government is currently in the middle of negotiations regarding our own US-Peru free trade agreement. There's a lot of hype about it, most people consider it to be the great economic panacea which will solve most of our terrible economic problems, and the one instrument which may single-handedly bring us out of underdevelopment. I say 'Ha!', but I don't think they really care about my opinion.
Anyway, mainstream media is nothing but sugar talk for the FTA, and have hardly noticed all of the fine print, especially regarding "enhancements" on our IP law, or other areas of our Constitution - essentially opening wide for foreign investment without any kind of protection for our inner markets.
So, to the point, as a sort of mini Ask Slashdot: how would you go about publicizing these little known issues, particularly the IP one, especially when most of the mainstream media just tries to shush any voices that are just not complying with their views? These are legitimate issues which could very possibly rally valuable support, yet none of it is being mentioned, anywhere, just the positive aspects of the agreement are publicized, particularly by the government. As far as I know, similar issues are popping all through Latin America, perhaps even other places. I would certainly appreciate any insight from Australians who've just went through this, or anybody else with similar experiences, which we may possibly adapt to our local scenarios.
http://castorexmachina.wordpress.com - Filosofía, tecnología y cultura.
What worries me is that there has been little public debate or community consultation about the free trade agreement. Such a bilateral trade negotiation places Australia in a very weak bargaining position given the relative sizes of the US and Australian economies.
What worries the Australian population is that the terms of the FTA will be unacceptable in regards to the Australian culture, health and safety, public interest and economic independence.
Makes me wonder who the government on both ends of the deal was looking out for. The best interests of the political system? Or the best interests of the people?
Trust me, if it's anything like the Australian offer YOU DON'T WANT IT.
Unless you want to be sued over the name 'Maple Syrup' until you acknowledge (a) that it is the eternal copyright of Disney-Time-Warner-General-Motors-Northrop Manufacturing Concern Inc. New York and (b) that the Canadian syrup will be marked 'Imitation UnAmerican Syrup Substitute.'
We are currently having to ridiculous disputes with the US over brand names. One is over the name 'Dockers', which is a football team here named after dock workers (the team is based in a port city). They have been sued by the US clothing company Dockers for selling football tops under the name 'Dockers,' because Dockers USA holds the trademark for clothing of that name.
The second is over the name 'ugg boots', which has been the traditional name for sheepskin boots in Australia since time immemorial, and has now been trademarked by some American jerk company who is tring to prohibit us from using it.
It all reminds me of the crazy Italians, who are trying to go around the world banning people from using the name 'Italian Food' or 'Italian Restaurant' unless they certify the business in question is acceptably Italian according to their standards of Italian-ness. At some point there should be boundaries between countries that still count for something...
Read Pynchon.
However, I am in somewhat of a quandary as to where I should redirect my vote. I'm tempted by Labor for the first time ever - Latham has made their economic policies much more palatable. However, on the other hand he's absolutely set in withdrawing our commitment in Iraq, something I think would be a very bad idea at this point. The Greens and Democrats have way too many wackos to even be a consideration.
Damn, where's a responsible voter supposed to go ?
The only way whitegoods are going to get cheaper in Australia is if they start putting in 120V 60Hz power.
Clothing (except for Levis) is about the same.
The only way cars are going to be cheaper is to switch to driving on the right side of the road.
Things that don't have special Aussie standards like computers are already about the same price as in the US. Beige box computers are cheaper as is memory. Macs and Toshiba comptuers cost a bit more.
Most of the high cost is a result of a massivly inefficient distribution systems with high margins at every step. Add in artificial increases in real estate prices to drive the rents up and you have Aussie retail prices.
The Aussie Sugar farmers sell the most expensive raw sugar in the world. Who would even want it? The only reason the US market makes sense is its ultra high taxes on processing sugar. By the time Aussie sugar ends up in American products, its cheaper to buy Hawaiian processed sugar. If the US ever fixed its sugar price manipulation, the Aussies wouldn't sell any sugar to anyone since the stuff is real cheap in places like the Caribbean.
As far as US wheat, the Aussies can't come close to the efficiencies of the Kasnas fields so I don't see wheat trade helping the Aussies at all.
I don't see what the big deal about the farming products are concerned. Both countries are major food producers and both make far more food than they can use to the point that massive amoutns of it get destroyed every day. There is no good reason a Texan would be eating an Aussie cow anymore than an Aussie would be eating a Texan cow since the local grown beast doesn't need to be shipped 1/2 over the world.
It's a tradeoff for other concessions. Australians get agricultural deliverables as a result of this.
In, what, 10-20 years? Plenty of time for other US administrations to renege.
Particularly in Australia which is largely free of corruption, back-room donation skills, that sort of thing.
Police and organised crime have generally gone hand-in-hand, as have political parties and organisations like the (Menzies/Chifley) Foundations, which seem to get peppercorn rents in prestigious buildings from the governments of the day, which they then on-lease. But it's not as bad as (parts of) the USA, that's true.
Well actually it has. The Copyright (Digital Agenda) Amendment Act 2000, inserted DMCA like provisions into out copyright law. This was to done fullfill our obligations under TRIPS (the WTO intellectual property provisions).
As far as copyright law the only major impact I can see is the longer duration of protection, in line with the Sony Bono Act. But really, the more onerous provisions are already part of our law.
Interestingly the FTA doesn't seem to be extending the exceptions of Australian copyright law to match the relatively generous 'fair use' provisions our American cousins enjoy. Wonder why that is?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Being an Australian resident and being particularly keen on seeing a developing Australian industry I have three questions I would like to ask:
ok, it seems some people still dont get it. "Why does john howard not do whats best for australians?" type thing. Easy, the global elite of the rich and powerful have banded together to rule the world. They like you to think that they are looking after the local interests, but they are not. Howard, Bush, Blair and the like are all on the same team. It is all us workers around that have to team up against them. I'm for globalization - globalization of worker solidarity. Power to the workers and peasants world wide! UNITE!
As an American, I'd say that other countries have a damned good reason to be anti-American right now - I know I sure do!
Anti-American != Anti-Bush. I'm Anti-Bush but i'm not anti-american. If one puts a mad texan in charge of the worlds only superpower then war is the natural conclusion.
Simon
I agree with that sentiment - to an extent. Bush is amazingly disliked around the world and within America, just look at Mike Moore's latest documentary. He isn't doing anything novel, it's just the Cannes equivalent of being a Karma Whore.
However, let's consider the "free" trade agreement proposed between the USA and Australia (This is a loose term, it is really being shoved forcibly down Australia's throat by John Howard and whichever parts of the american government he's working for). This agreement, as we all know, will be disastrous for Australia. It will place Australia in a position where we are essentially part of the greater american corporate community, but with even less of the same rights as the american citizens enjoy. This is a bad thing. So I'm feeling very anti-american about the american government foisting this agreement on us.
It's nothing to do with Bush. The american government sucks, and it's doing bad bad things to Australia. At least we're not getting invaded like Iraq is. The scarey part is that we have oil, too. Are we next?
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
So where does Isreal fit into this. Thought they were the going to be the 51st State?