ACTA Set To Cover Not Just Copyrights & Trademarks, But Seven Areas Of IP
from the stretching-the-law dept
The folks who created ACTA were already sneaky enough in describing it as an “anti-counterfeiting” agreement, when they knew all along it went way beyond issues related to counterfeiting. For a while, it’s been obvious that it was also very much (perhaps more than counterfeiting) about copyright, but it’s actually about much more than that. We already mentioned that it is designed to cover patents as well. Now, KEI has looked at another leaked draft document, and notes that the draft sneaks in the fact that it’s designed to cover seven different areas of intellectual property. In typical sneaky fashion, it doesn’t come out and list them directly, but in the definitions section, defines “intellectual property” as “refers to all categories of intellectual property that are the subject of section 1 through part 7 of Part II of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.” Basically, it’s saying that it’s accepting the definition in a totally different document, from TRIPs. So, what’s in that document?
- Copyright and Related Rights
- Trademarks
- Geographical Indications
- Industrial Designs
- Patents
- Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits
- Protection of Undisclosed Information
Note how little of that has anything to do with counterfeiting — which is mostly just a trademark issue.
Filed Under: acta, copyright, counterfeiting, intellectual property, patents, trademark
Comments on “ACTA Set To Cover Not Just Copyrights & Trademarks, But Seven Areas Of IP”
dear God IC layouts designs are patentable!?!!?
explain why that happened please
Re: Re:
Apparently they are not patentable. If they were patentable, they would not need their own separate protection.
Both Industrial Designs and Layout-Design seem very broad. I thought business patents were bad, but these seem utterly arbitrary and designed to protect the status quo.
How will upstarts be able to innovate when corporations have monopolies not only on their patents, their busines model, their copyrights, and arbitrarily on their designs?!
Re: Re: Status Quo
“Status Quo” is exactly correct.
Will the wars of the next generation be over “Hey, you infringed on our (bullshit) treaties!”?
Re: Re: Re: Status Quo
sadly, yes.
The corporations holding patents, and the governments they controls will sooner or later go up against the people they “server” or “protect”.
There are many things that are good to fight for. patents and the right to create *should* not be one of them. it will pointless and all around bloody when it happens.
unless 1984 comes first, then we are all screwed.
Re: Re:
IC topography protection has been part of US law since the enactment of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984. It can be found at 17 U.S.C. §§ 901-914.
Importantly, the protection provided is very narrow in scope.
Re: ACTA and IC
I haven’t seen the provision but nothing in this post says ICs will be patentable. Even ACTA couldn’t pull that off (watch your back Bikey).
I’m saddened by ACTA. 🙁
Re: Re:
Be happy its the new drug war, un winable, it will make private corporations a ton of money, it allows the government to say its not our fault you are poor and stupid its those pesky pirates, it will take 20 years for it to come crashing down, it will create a huge interneational bureaucracy, limit those pesky freedoms, and generally limit the advancement of science.
So rejoice MrSonPopo we are one step closer to a world government.
bait and switch
Talk about bait and switch! They start by claiming that it’s all about counterfeiting, which is just one of the may forms of trademark infringement and which resonates negatively with everyone or, at least, almost every one, and then they go ahead and include EVERYTHING IP-related in it.
The seven deadly sins. Very appropriate.
Re: Re:
“The seven deadly sins. “
Funny you mention that with how big pharma is already able to deny access to generic meds … very deadly …
so you have the same angle on the wire connecting circuits that I do, you must have stolen my IP and I must sue
each of those items has everything to do with counterfeit goods. from stealing trademarks to copyright design including ic layouts. it is all part of the same deal. how could you fake a gucci bag without faking the gucci logo?
Re: Re:
logos are already protected under current trademark law. copyrights and patents are also covered (more than adequately) under existing law. having patents extend to ic (integrated circuit) layouts is stupid. that would be like patenting the layout of a room to improve feng shui. ACTA is trying to add more draconian “protections” to existing law under the auspices of int’l consensus on enforcement of IP and thereby side stepping the legislative process. It’s a smoke screen.
Re: Re:
Faking the Gucci logo is a trademark offense; as the article notes, couterfeiting is really just a subset of trademark.
Also, counterfeiting is essentially a crime against the consumer, who thinks he’s buying brand quality, not the company in question (people who can afford Gucci don’t buy knock-offs, and vice versa).
Re: Re: Re:
Why don’t they do their normal legislative garbage and just pass a law requiring all counterfeit/knock-off reproductions to have a permanent tag which say “copy” (or something like that)?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why don’t they do their normal legislative garbage and just pass a law requiring all counterfeit/knock-off reproductions to have a permanent tag which say “copy” (or something like that)?
Because they like to bury other pork in the legislation, plus someone’s probably going to make a big load of cash off something, somehow.
Re: Re: Re:
people who can afford gucci might end up buying fake by mistake. counterfeiting is a crime against the consumer and the original producer. it defrauds the consumer and can tarnish the name and reputation of the original producer. to say that these items have nothing to do with counterfeiting shows masnick doesnt understand the concept very well and is just disagreeing with acta no matter what.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trademark was #2 in the list of 7 things. I think “…how little of that…” describes 1/7 pretty well. Trademark law is well established, and defines what is and is not counterfeit. Mike is pointing out that the ACTA is getting it’s definition of IP from a different document that describes IP in 7 terms, 6 of which do not cover counterfeiting goods. They may be related, but counterfeiting is a trademark issue.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I think the only thing we’re being shown is your lack of reading comprehension.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Oops, replied to wrong one.
LOL
I have one thing to say about offering IP protection for graphical indications:
😛
Remember
That under the United States Constitution that a Senate Ratified Treaty is the supreme law of the land.
What's next?
ACTA folks working hard… Well I guess this is what the future will hold!
ACTA: The Anti-Citizen Trade Agreement
If the 20th century was the American century than the 21st century will be the century of the citizen.
“Consumer. There called consumers, not citizens.”
I rest my case.
logos are already protected under current trademark law. copyrights and patents are also covered (more than adequately) under existing law. having patents extend to ic (integrated circuit) layouts is stupid. that would be like patenting the layout of a room to improve feng shui. ACTA is trying to add more draconian “protections” to existing law under the auspices of int’l consensus on enforcement of IP and thereby side stepping the legislative process. It’s a smoke screen.