Statement of American Bar Association delivered by Henry Judy at the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 23 May 2007 - Geneva CHAIRMAN DESAI: Thank you very much. Can I now turn to Henry Judy of the American Bar Association? HENRY JUDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Henry Judy. I'm with the American [...]
By Robin Gross. New leadership is needed at WIPO in key positions, like the chairmanship of WIPO’s copyright committee. The WIPO delegates themselves must hold WIPO accountable for its actions, by refusing to re-elect leaders who consistently ignore the explicit instructions of the WIPO General Assembly to pursue their own agenda. The proposed Broadcasting Treaty could not be a better example - where the WIPO General Assembly has told the WIPO Copyright Committee Chair Jukka Liedes that the proposed Broadcasting Treaty should be a “signal-based†approach, which still protects broadcasts from theft without creating a new set of exclusive rights. Yet Liedes continues to draft the proposals for the treaty with his preferred approach of creating new intellectual property rights for broadcasting companies. ....
I've written a chapter about the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in a new report entitled "Global Information Society Watch" published by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and (iTeM). Besides WIPO, the report includes a number of other articles about global policy-making institutions such as ICANN, ITU, UNESCO, and UNDP. The report officially launches [...]
How the trade group, the International Intellectual Property Association (IIPA) Drives the Agenda at the Office of the US Trade Representative through the "Special 301" Process by Filing Annual Reports on Intellectual Property related trade losses.
The Bush Administration’s Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) issued its much anticipated annual report of foreign countries targeted by the US for insufficiently protecting the interests of US intellectual property owners abroad. Under “Section 301†countries face crippling trade sanctions in retaliation from the US. A total of 43 countries were placed on the USTR's Section 301 Report in 2007. According to the annual review, US monopolies on producing medicine, CDs, and DVDs continue to be the main focus of US IPR foreign policy. China and Russia received a special lashing from the Bush Administration and were placed on the more serious "Priority Watch List" - as expected.
IP Justice prepared a table that summarizes the USTR Special 301 Reports from 2004-2006
IP Justice prepared a table that summarizes USTR Special 301 Reports from 2004 - 2006
IP Justice has prepared a summary of reports in anticipation of this week's release from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) of its annual "Special 301 Report" (a report-card on how well foreign countries protect the interests of large US intellectual property holders). The IP Justice table includes the last three years of USTR Special 301 Reports (2004 - 2006).
The 2007 Trade Policy Agenda and 2006 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program are submitted to the Congress pursuant to Section 163 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2213). Chapter II and Annex II of this document meet the requirements on the World Trade Organization in accordance with Sections 122 and 124 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, the report also includes an annex listing trade agreements entered into by the United States since 1984. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the preparation of this report, which was written by USTR staff. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice, Labor, and State.
"...The Transitional Review Mechanism under Section 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s Republic of China has been an important means to raise concerns about China’s implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. This process has been instrumental in helping to understand the levels of protection of intellectual property rights in China, and provides a forum for addressing the concerns of U.S. interests in this process. The United States has been active in seeking answers to questions on a wide range of intellectual property matters and in raising concerns about enforcement of intellectual property rights. The United States also continued to seek satisfactory responses to a formal request submitted to China in October 2005 seeking additional enforcement-related information pursuant to Article 63.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. During 2006, the TRIPS Council undertook reviews of the implementing legislation of Congo and Qatar, in addition to the above-referenced review of China. ..."