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."

Comments

The media

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

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.

Hmmm...

[cujo_1111]

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.

Re:Hmmm...

[pjay_dml]

and this is the truly sad part.
we have a center/right government at power, a group usually referred to as 'conservative'. strange, that the people that are on and on about the GREATNESS of australia, etc, etc, blablub...., would endanger, what is considered to be typical australian.

it is actually quite sad to have a government that not only constantly lies to its people (and not having the character and honor, to stand up for ones mistakes), but that has completely subjugated itself, to a foreign power.
i guess one has to consider this kind of behavior an australian political tradition. it seems like australian leadership figures, suffer the same issues as regular australians.
just let me fill those non-australians in: australian, while very proud of australia, at the same time believe australia sucks when it comes to comparisons with other nations. see, the only thing auzzies are proud of are: sports, the weather and the beaches. australia has been strong in r&d, and many great discoveries and inventions actually came out of this small country. the problem: no one believes in it! yeap, thats right. while it happens all the time, its the amerikans (in their eyes) that do all the inventing, and contributing to development. the australians are world champion in belittling them selfs, unless its about sport!!!
so why would the government defend australias economic interests, when the negotiators can't and don't believe in the nations [economic] capabilities?

i guess the main reason is to be found in the tradition of australian politics, to never be truly independent. and always stay part of a greater power.

but how enforceable is it really?

[erucsbo]

The net economic impact is thus likely to be negative.
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).

Re:Baker & McKenzie FTA IP Symposium

[downunda_wookiee]

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.

What advise could you give for similar scenarios?

[pisco_sour]

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.

Damning

[acceber]

Smaller economies will always be losers in free trade agreements.

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?

Re:What about canada!?!?

[caitsith01]

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...

Re:Short Answer

[Capsaicin]

But it hasn't happened yet.

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?

Re:.au would be insane to accept this

[Ckwop]

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

Re:.au would be insane to accept this

[obeythefist]

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?