12.06.11
Posted in Apple, Free/Libre Software, FSF, FUD, Hardware, Intellectual Monopoly, Law, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung, Tivoization at 2:52 pm by Guest Editorial Team
The Best Tool For Freedom is a Free Tool
Two friends have a good chat about free software at OSCON.
The CarrierIQ issue, even if it is part of an organized campaign to smear and ruin Android [2], is showing people the dangers of using non free software. Even one piece of non free software can betray users, so mostly free, “pragmatic” systems can be just as bad as regular non free systems. The free software community should capitalize on this awareness to change people’s attitudes towards their devices so that they will reject non free software in the future. Software freedom must be complete for users to have real conrtol and privacy.
Richard Stallman wrote an extensive review of Android back in September. It lists all of the parts of available phones that can be used maliciously against users, which surprisingly include the radio control firmware. The conclusion was unequivocal, “Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go. … While any computing system might have bugs, these devices might be bugs.”
When the CarrierIQ scandal broke, Mr. Stallman was not surprised. His comment was,
The root cause of this problem is that the users don’t control the software on these phones. So if they didn’t put in this surveillance package [Carrier IQ], they would put in some other. The users’ only protection against malicious features (surveillance, intentional restrictions, and back doors) is to insist on free software.
Anyone in the Open Source community who’s surprised should think hard about what the Free Software Society has been telling them. About four years ago at a “Web 2.0″ meeting, Eben Moglen urged the Tim O’Reilly and the Open Source community to quit, “wasting time promoting commercial products.” O’Reilly was sad that Moglen did not want to talk about protecting people’s data on other people’s computers in “the cloud,” but CarrierIQ makes it plain that those rights and protections are meaningless if the user is stripped of privacy by malware in their pocket. It might have been useful ten years ago to hide scary talk about freedom from big companies like IBM. It worked, thanks, but talk about “best tool for the job” and “pragmatic” mixes of free and non free software should now be considered counter productive and the results dangerous.
There are community alternatives to carrier issued Android. Stallman mentions Replicant, a 100% free software replacement for Android. There is also a less careful distribution called CyanogenMod that is focused on performance and includes non free software from Google and perhaps device drivers. Jeff Hoogland, the founder of Bodhi GNU/Linux, is working on Debian for cell phones and we can be sure many others are as well. In the mean time, if you must have a smart phone, it might as well be Android because there is no chance a phone from Apple or Microsoft will be liberated, but don’t expect it to be a Freedom Box the community really wants [2 and don't trust it until it's really free.
Sadly, US law is mostly a hindrance. Senator Al Franklin had some very pointed questions about possible violations of law for the company and a lawsuit has been launched against the guilty parties - Apple, HTC, Samsung, Motorola, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Carrier IQ. That's good but it will be difficult to prove what actually happened, and the free software community can do better. Like Vista and Windows 7, CarrierIQ establishes encrypted communications to hide the data transmitted. It would be better to have free software on your cell phone, so the FSF has petitioned the Librarian of Congress for a DMCA Exemption Without that, it may be against US law for people to replace the software on their phones or even to delete CarrierIQ malware.
The lack of freedom in cell phones is not a natural state but is unlikely to end without changes and enforcement of US law. Android has emerged as the top cell phone OS because it is free software and creates a productive commons for the odd hundred companies that must cooperate to make a cell phoneThe obnoxious US patent system has allowed Microsoft and Apple to practice judicial extortion that should have been blocked by US anti-trust and racketeering laws[1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Spectrum licensing itself is a technically obsolete and harmful practice but the FCC could demand adherence to technical standards, demand the publication of technical standards required to operate phones, and forbid practices such as phone locking as the price carriers pay for spectrum as it transitions to open spectrum.
We are in this hole because a long running propaganda campaign by non free software owners has played down ethical issues while convincing people that they are helpless. Billions of dollars in propaganda spending still drown out the basic truth of the situation and non free software use remains prevalent even among people who have every reason to fear spying by the rich and powerful. CarrierIQ gives us a good chance to fix that.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.25.11
Posted in Intellectual Monopoly at 10:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Knowledge withheld as a business model (and what can be done about it)
Copyrights are being contested by a form of unprecedented sharing of information, promoted greatly by the Internet and currently impeded by the rise of DRM in literature and applications (especially in mobile devices). Artificial limits on the sharing of knowledge are a business model to some. Failing to use copyrights for this purpose, some have escalated and harnessed patents, which make illegal even one’s own personal expression (and application) of ideas. What we are going through right now is a period where we can choose to use technology for the better or simply to use it for selfish and potentially malicious purposes. The decision is in our hands, but at the same time it is not in our hands because we depend on companies like Amazon and Apple to make or distribute products which a lot of people use. The matter of fact is, there are two competing camps — one that hoards and one which is being robbed. The idea that without planned obsolescence and artificial scarcity there will be no incentive to research and innovate is ludicrous and it is as case of wishful thinking in several different ways. If we look back at the industrial revolution and what made it possible, it is none of the things lawyers speak about. The light bulb has in some ways become a symbol of innovation even though it was the result of many ideas and attempts laid on top of each other. It was the sharing of understanding that improved the lives of so many people. Since to many readers this is a national holiday, we’ll keep the news lighter today. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.04.11
Posted in Apple, Intellectual Monopoly at 4:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Words you cannot use when Apple’s police is out hunting
WE often criticise intellectual monopolies for impeding knowledge, but what about language? Apple is going far too far with its brand-bullying campaigns. What brand does Apple claim to own anyway? Just the name of a fruit. And it goes after small shops that actually serve fruit because Apple is all about branding and if the brand gets ‘diluted’, then Apple can be finished as a brand. The problem is, apple is a common English word. Had the small businesses been able to take this the court, they would have won easily. Cost of litigation is high though. Perhaps this is why Apple tends to crush small businesses, this time a “tiny restaurant in Luxembourg” based on a report which says: [via Walt]
The mighty international Apple Inc. fears consumers worldwide will be confused by a tiny restaurant in Luxembourg named AppleADay. Their slogan? “Balanced Fast Food.” Apple’s response? Threaten to sue.
Can you get a better David vs Goliath story? Three young people in Luxembourg worked with a dietician to create a bistro menu of fast food that’s healthy. “We wanted to return to the original taste of the food,” said one of the owners. Local authorities gave the name their approval of the name suggested by the bistro’s communications company. The logo looks much more like a Georgia Peach logo than the Apple computer logo, but that’s before the lawyers got involved.
The insane nature of intellectual monopolies is made ever more crazy when you add proprietary software vendors to it. Microsoft claims to own the word “windows”, “lindows”, and even someone’s name (Mike Rowe). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.09.11
Posted in Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 10:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photo by dkpto @ Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic
Summary: Bad companies and selfish people are making the patent system worse for everyone; the White House is urged to bring about change, but petition signers are not of the 1% (or less) that influence and sponsor the party
BACK we go to the subject of software patents, which we have not covered quite so thoroughly as of late.
This subject is not about any one particular company. It affects everyone, including proprietary and Free software developers. It also affects non-developing members of the public because hefty tax is being silently passed to them.
It is hard to get over the news about Halliburton expanding the boundaries of software patents, bringing some more of them to Europe (or to the UK, to be more specific). At Computer Weekly, one who was previously accused of helping Microsoft’s agenda (we were not persuaded by the evidence presented to us though) writes that “The High Court has overturned a decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), explicitly confirming that technical design methods are patentable.”
As one can see in our IRC logs, the president of the FFII was rather disturbed by this. It was also brought up there that Gurry's patent boosting at WIPO (which the FFII previously pointed out) carries on with more outrageous statements:
Last June, the Swiss Press Club held a launch for the Global Innovation Index at which various speakers were invited to talk about innovation. After the head of CERN and the CEO of the Internet Society spoke about how important it was that the Web’s underlying technology hadn’t been patented, Francis Gurry, the Director General of the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), took the mic to object.
In Gurry’s view, the Web would have been better off if it had been locked away in patents, and if every user of the Web had needed to pay a license fee to use it (and though Gurry doesn’t say so, this would also have meant that the patent holder would have been able to choose which new Web sites and technologies were allowed, and would have been able to block anything he didn’t like, or that he feared would cost him money).
We also mentioned Gurry in [1, 2, 3], including leaked material from Cablegate.
These disturbing ideas from WIPO are not surprising. We have been pointing out this dangerous attitude from WIPO for quite a few years. Then there are patent lawyers and their blogs that spread more propaganda about patents and their supposed ‘benefit’ to society. Consider the post “EU confident over unitary patent plans” (too many contradictions as shown by Axel).
Other patent lawyers’ blog still tilt the balance in favour of software patents. For example:
Ultramercial v. Hulu: Computer Programs and Patentable Subject Matter
[...]
Software is patentable
Layered on top of this finding is the court’s rejection of the argument that software programming amounts to abstract subject matter. “The digital computer may be considered by some the greatest invention of the twentieth century, and both this court and the Patent Office have long acknowledged that “improvements thereof” through interchangeble software or hardware enhancements deserve patent protection. Far from abstract, advances in computer technology—both hardware and software—drive innovation in every area of scientific and technical endeavor.” Slip Op. at 12.
This holding is in tension with the Federal Circuit’s recent opinion in Cyber Source Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 2009-1358 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011), in which a panel consisting of Judges Bryson, Dyk and Prost concluded that a method of verifying a credit card transaction over the Internet constituted an unpatentable process. While the panel in Ultramercial recognized this tension, it distinguished Cyber Source as an instance of “purely mental steps.” Ultramercial Slip Op. at 13 (emphasis in original). The line, at least from the point of view of this panel, thus lies somewhere between logical steps that humans can perform without the aid of a computer versus those that require a computer to carry out.
The whole “embedded” trick is completely dishonest. To paint software as “machine” is like painting mathematics as “abacus” or comparing a musical piece to “gramophone” to justify patents on drum beats, vocals, or a short sequence of words. It is truly absurd, but patent lawyers would go as far as they can to justify more and more patents on everything which people think about and do. It is a tax on society and the lawyers take a cut from all these fees.
“To paint software as “machine” is like painting mathematics as “abacus” or comparing a musical piece to “gramophone” to justify patents on drum beats, vocals, or a short sequence of words.”How much should we be willing to remove from our thoughts and actions just to feed a redundant industry that prevents small businesses from threatening the status quo? These are mere gate keepers. Just watch Microsoft as it gets a trademark for retail store plans (no, it is not a joke). The Register says that “Microsoft has been awarded a trademark on its design for a store selling all things high tech.” (trademark registration #4036534).
How many shops are infringing? Should they all be shut down or be forced to pay Microsoft? It is a little reminiscent of the Lindows case.
The Economist, a reputable paper which is neither run by lawyers nor written by engineers, ought to view this whole pyramid/MLM scheme of a system as a bad idea. Not so long ago it posted some rants against the patent system and now it’s airing a piece titled “programmed nonsense”. To quote the relevant parts:
The message is finally getting through. When the White House opened a website earlier this month for people to create and sign petitions they feel passionate about, one immediate favourite asked the president to “direct the [USPTO] to cease issuing software patents”. The petition garnered more than 12,000 signatures in the first few days. The White House has promised to respond to any petition that collects 5,000 signatures during the first month.
Software patents and business-method patents (invariably based on some software algorithm) are unlike any other type. As a rule, mechanical, chemical, material and even biological inventions and discoveries are concerned with some novel feature that can be measured and uniquely defined. But software programs deal almost exclusively with mathematical relationships that are well known and widely used. In writing software, programmers do not have to make novel, serendipitous discoveries, as inventors in other fields do. In many ways, that makes programming a good deal easier, and certainly more predictable, than inventing.
The corporate press can say the truth, unlike all those “IP” people who run blogs for patent lawyers or even “UN”-painted bodies like WIPO, which is also run by the “IP” crowd. Why are those foxes allowed to have so much influence over the hen house, aka White House? The republic needs to be run for the benefit of the people, not parasites. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.19.11
Posted in America, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 4:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Job cremation
Summary: The USPTO (shown above) comes under more fire as a so-called ‘reform’ fails to make it harmonious with science, technology, and human rights
THE USPTO IS happily granting software patents/monopolies and processing some patent-pending ones on green energy, demonstrating that it is still dissociated from the betterment of society and instead dedicated to protectionism.
The First Amendment is said to be violated by some particular types of patents, according to TechDirt which argues:
Do Patents On Medical Diagnostics Violate The First Amendment?
We’ve been following the extremely worrisome Prometheus Laboratories v. Mayo Collaborative Services case for a while now. This is the case in which Prometheus patented some basic medical diagnostics tests, and then sued the Mayo Clinic for daring to do similar diagnostics without paying up. Tragically, CAFC, the court of appeals for the Federal Circuit, has ruled that it’s just fine and dandy to patent a diagnostic test. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal on this in the upcoming term, and folks at the Cato Institute have filed a very interesting amicus brief, arguing that such a diagnostic test should not be patentable on two key points. I don’t know that it’ll convince the court, but they try out the argument that doing so would actually be a First Amendment violation, and even cite the famous Eldred case to make their argument (emphasis mine in the quote here):
As we explained yesterday, antitrust concerns too help shed doubt on the legitimacy of the patent system. Google may have bought some more patents from IBM (mentioned in the context of software patents in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]), but deterrence does not work when Microsoft uses patent trolls to wage anti-competitive legal wars. This whole systems looks more and more like s sham. Even NPR did a show about it about 3 days ago. To quote a part of it:
BLOCK: What is the broader goal in terms of job creation here?
SYDELL: Well, this is what they say. What they say is if we speed things up and we get that backlog cleared up, then there are all these startups that are just waiting to move to the next phase of financing and get their products to market. And they’ll be able to do that and they’ll hire people in the process. So that’s what they’re saying.
BLOCK: And what about those businesses, Laura, or inventors, entrepreneurs – do they think that the law will, in fact, encourage hiring, make them hire more people?
SYDELL: No, I’m not hearing that largely at all. I’m hearing a lot of skepticism about the bill. I think one of the problems that entrepreneurs and startups face is that there are a lot of bad patents that are out there, particularly in the realm of software and business method. And the bill doesn’t really do anything to address that.
So one of the problems that you have is you have a lot of these, they call them patent trolls. They’re companies that buy up patents, particularly broad patents. They buy them up and they go out and they sue startups and they demand licensing fees. And this has put a lot of startups out of business. And this bill doesn’t really do anything to address that problem.
The Patent Office has granted, for example, in 2000, they granted a patent for a method of making toast. Really, seriously.
BLOCK: Laura, what other solutions would there be to this problem of bad patents that you’re talking about that wouldn’t involve Congress?
SYDELL: The courts could step in. And, in fact, it is the courts who initially pushed to have, for example, software patents and business method patents granted. So they could pull back and there is some evidence they are. But I think it could be a long time before they address it directly. And people are concerned about that.
I think a lot of people wish Congress would revisit this soon. And they’re worried that because they just granted and created this new act it’ll be a long time before Congress steps in again, which really would be the fastest and most efficient way to address the problem.
BLOCK: NPR’s Laura Sydell. We were talking about the new U.S. patent bill that was signed into law by President Obama today.
There are more news articles about it, e.g. [1, 2], but only few mention software patents. The government which signed this ridiculous bill ignores the real issues, spews out a load of nonsense which contradicts research, and one GNU/Linux advocate had this to say on Saturday:
Patent "reform"? Not really.
From: Homer
Date: Saturday 17 Sep 2011 14:38:53
Groups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Apparently "patent reform" happened already, and nobody noticed. But
what exactly happened, and what effect will it have on patent trolls
like Myhrvold, Apple, Microsoft and Oracle, perhaps the biggest threats
to Linux, Free Software and innovation in general?
[quote]
Late last night the Senate voted 89-9 to pass the America Invents Act
that would radically reshape patent laws, and President Obama is
expected to sign it without delay. It's the first such significant bill
in 60 years, and it has one key component: It moves the onus from merely
"inventing" a patentable idea first to becoming the person who actually
files for an innovation first.
...
But "first to invent" has some big pitfalls, including the ability of an
inventor to totally gut the hopes of someone else with a similar or
identical idea, and who then files for a patent--because the original
inventor, without necessarily having to make any move toward realizing
the innovation, can claim they invented it. A complex legal battle may
then ensue, and perhaps the second filer may choose to settle privately,
license the idea, or fight the situation in an expensive court case.
This trolling completely destroys the idea that a successful new thing
is built on 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration--a troll, perhaps even a
rich troll who's made money from previous innovations they've dreamed up
(or, more materialistically, bought from someone), can simply keep the
legal upper hand by saying they're the real innovator without actually
building anything.
[/quote]
http://www.fastcompany.com/1779071/first-to-file-a-patently-obvious-reform
Sorry (and excuse the pun) but this is patently wrong. Invention is
invention, not manufacturing; it's the idea (strictly - the method) not
the implementation. If you're not the first to have a particular idea,
then you're not its inventor. Period. This "reform" simply transforms
"invention" into a brawl, where being the first to find or create
something doesn't necessarily secure ownership - you can be mugged for
it by someone more powerful.
Is this really all the "America Invents Act" has to offer? Is this the
best "reform" congress could come up with? Pathetic.
/Real reform/ would have been a re-examination and redefinition of what
exactly is patentable, a more rigorous patent examination process (or,
let's be honest, /any/ patent examination process), and stricter (or
again - /any/) remedies against those who persistently file trivial
claims.
/Real reform/ would have made patents non-transferable, thus completely
solving the problem of patent harvesting by non-practising entities.
/Real reform/ would have made it impossible to patent something as
trivial and non-inventive as a "rounded rectangle" or a "record button".
But no, that's not what the "America Invents Act" has done at all. All
it's done is make innovation impossible for anyone who lacks the
financial means to bribe the USPTO, and allows the wealthy to steal
others' ideas. The US patent system was already an abomination, but now,
incredibly, it's actually an order of magnitude /worse/.
Apart from anything else, it seems to completely undermine the premise
of "prior art", since apparently the only thing that counts now is being
the "first to file", regardless of who actually came up with, or even
implemented, the idea first.
Consider the case of IP Innovation LLC and the Technology Licensing
Company (ex-Microsoft employees, and likely just two of Myhrvold's many
shell companies) vs. Red Hat & Novell, where the litigants claimed
they'd "invented" multiple workspaces. Of course, their definition of
"invented" was "harvested patents from Xerox".
Unfortunately for the patent trolls, those patents were granted in 1991,
some 6 years /after/ multiple workspaces ("screens") had already been
implemented on the Amiga, and so they lost the case. Indeed Commodore
implemented the concept as a commercial product in 1985, a full year
before it was even first implemented internally by Xerox PARC, and the
Amiga implementation was based on ideas devised by Jay Miner (of the
original "Amiga Corporation") as far back as 1982, some two years before
it was even first imagined at Xerox PARC.
But that prior art would apparently mean nothing in the new patent
regime, since neither Jay Miner nor Commodore thought to patent the
concept of multiple workspaces, despite clearly being the inventors and
first implementers of the concept. Xerox PARC was the "first to file",
and that's all that matters in a gun-slinger economy. Anyone with enough
money can now file patents against other people's prior art, use them as
weapons to extort money, from anyone - including the /actual/ inventors,
then pass those weapons on to other gun-slingers to do likewise.
Meanwhile those same gun-slingers remain free to claim "invention" of
every trivial speck of dust in the world, completely unchallenged until
they turn up in the "great" troll-friendly State of Texas, and either
win on the basis of the corrupt court's pro-patent bias, or bleed their
victims dry in the process.
So much for "patent reform".
It’s all about inflating the elevating the amount of patents (under the assumption that patents have real value, as legal types wish us to believe), but if the assumption is that this bill will give more jobs to patent lawyers, maybe they have a point. Just creating more and more monopolies is like overprinting money, which devalues the currency but works well for the mint. Watch McKool Smith in the news last week, pulling $391,000,000 from an actual practicing company based on this press release:
Attorneys from McKool Smith have secured a $391 million court judgment in favor of firm client Versata Software Inc., a pioneer in front-office enterprise software, following a successful patent infringement lawsuit against global software giant SAP America Inc. and its German-based parent company SAP AG (NYSE: SAP).
That is some really expensive “patent infringement”. Notice that SAP America Inc. is the target. The USPTO really needs to get its act together or go away. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Cablegate, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft at 3:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A look at cables where Microsoft’s Craig Mundie (one of the very top chiefs) is mentioned as involved
According to the following Cablegate cable, “Microsoft Chief Research and Strategy Officer Craig Mundie to Peking University Guanghua School of Management Dean Zhang Weiying emphasized China’s need to create an environment that would allow innovators to be financially rewarded for the risks they took to innovate. They cited the need for real intellectual property rights…”
In other public talks, Mundie was bashing the GPL. It matters because Mundie is influential [1, 2] and he speaks to influential people (he is also among those attending Bilderberg meetings). The following two cables help us see where he’s making these engagements (see ¶7 in the first cable and 1045-1145 for the middle eastern programme in the second cable).
VZCZCXRO8717
RR RUEHCN RUEHGH
DE RUEHGH #7085/01 3310818
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 270818Z NOV 06
FM AMCONSUL SHANGHAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5292
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHINGTON DC
INFO RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 0028
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK 0101
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 0006
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0001
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 0012
RUEHGP/AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE 0020
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0642
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0001
RUEHCN/AMCONSUL CHENGDU 0331
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 0421
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0001
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0004
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0001
RUEHSH/AMCONSUL SHENYANG 0334
RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI 0303
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS 0001
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0008
RUEHGZ/AMCONSUL GUANGZHOU 0313
RUEHGH/AMCONSUL SHANGHAI 5610
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 SHANGHAI 007085
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
USDOC FOR 4420/ITA/MAC/CEA/MCQUEEN
USDOC ALSO PASS TO NIST AND BEA
STATE PASS USTR
USTR FOR STRATFORD/WINTER/MCCARTIN/ALTBACH/READE
TREASURY FOR OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT
TREASURY FOR OASIA/ISA -- DOHNER, HAARSAGER AND CUSHMAN
GENEVA PASS USTR
PARIS PASS TO USOECD
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON [Economic Conditions], EFIN [Financial and Monetary Affairs], EINV [Foreign Investments],
ETRD [Foreign Trade], PGOV [Internal Governmental Affairs],
PREL [External Political Relations], CH [China (Mainland)],
WTO [World Tourism Organization]
SUBJECT: INNOVATION REQUIRED FOR CHINA'S ECONOMIC GROWTH
REF: BEIJING 23856
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The National Bureau of Statistics and the
U.S.-based Conference Board hosted a national forum on
Innovation and China Economic Growth October 20- 22 in Suzhou,
Jiangsu Province. During the conference, PRC officials from the
Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC),
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), People's Bank of China
(PBOC) and the Shanghai Stock Exchange, as well as
representatives of foreign multinational corporations, discussed
"self-innovation" and identified systemic changes necessary to
foster innovation in China. The systemic changes included:
increased IPR protection, financial sector liberalization,
openness to the world, and creation of a society in which
failure was acceptable. End summary.
---------------------------
CHINA: Big, but not Strong
---------------------------
¶2. (U) CPPCC Vice Chairwoman Zhang Meiying stressed in her
keynote address the importance that China's leadership has
placed on innovation. Zhang said that while China's total GDP
made it the fourth largest economy in the world, on a per capita
basis, China ranked only 110th in the world. This showed that
China was a big country, but not a strong country. According to
Zhang, under President Hu Jintao's leadership, China has decided
that the way to create strength from size is through self
innovation.
¶3. (U) Zhang said that rapid growth over the past twenty years
had placed strains on national resources that would lead to
decreased economic development. China needed to rely on
innovation to create a foundation for sustainable growth. China
had a low proportion of clean, high-technology industries.
China's leadership realized that the environment was not a free
commodity and that environmental damage would devour many of
China's economic gains. While China manufactured low-technology
items, it was dependent on other countries for its
high-technology needs. Additionally, China's consumption of
energy and raw materials per unit of production far exceeded
that of developed world and was not sustainable, she said. If
China did not develop its own human resources, China would
continue to be only the manufacturing base for the rest of the
world.
¶4. (U) According to Zhang, in major industries, such as the
petroleum and electronics industries, China was dependent on
imported technology for 75-80 percent of its needs. She said
that China needed to learn to innovate to create its own core
technologies. She said that China needed to "digest
technologies from other countries" before it could "re-innovate
these technologies for other purposes." China needed to
generously fund its own scientists to insure its "leap-frog in
development." She also criticized the "longstanding planned
economy mindset" in China that meant that companies were too
passive -- not taking on risks or investing in the future. As a
result, she said, these companies were not positioned for
success, and China lagged behind. Zhang's speech was widely
quoted and referred to by other government speakers during the
course of the weekend conference.
SHANGHAI 00007085 002 OF 004
-------------------
What is Innovation?
-------------------
¶5. (SBU) When asked how the Chinese government defined
"self-innovation," National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) China
National Research Association Secretary General Zhang Zhongliang
said: "China is a big country, but it has no power. China needs
to import 90 percent of its technology. China needs to develop
its own name-brands and self-proprietary technology so that it
can build a strong economy. To be a strong country, China needs
to develop its own innovative abilities."
¶6. (U) In his talk, Development Research Center of the State
Council (DRC) Deputy Director Liu Shijin outlined what was meant
by self-innovation. He said that the three kinds of innovation
are prime innovation, re-innovation, and the integration of
innovation from abroad into China. Liu said that foreign
companies with investments or joint ventures in China had
expressed their concern with China's emphasis on self-innovation
and begun to limit their investment in innovative areas. He
tried to put them at ease by explaining that any innovation done
in China by foreign companies located here was actually "Chinese
self-innovation" because ultimately these companies would
contribute to the building of China and its capabilities.
Ministry of Commerce Vice Minister Shang Ming was more explicit
when he said, "Self-innovation does not rule out the importation
of innovative technologies from abroad."
--------------------------------------------- ----------
Requirements for Innovation - IPR and Financial Reforms
--------------------------------------------- ----------
¶7. (U) Multiple speakers from Microsoft Chief Research and
Strategy Officer Craig Mundie to Peking University Guanghua
School of Management Dean Zhang Weiying emphasized China's need
to create an environment that would allow innovators to be
financially rewarded for the risks they took to innovate. They
cited the need for real intellectual property rights to protect
innovation and a competitive financial sector that fostered
"innovations" such as venture capital and other mechanisms for
the efficient distribution of financial resources.
¶8. (U) People's Bank of China Vice Governor Su Ning said that
due to increased global competition, China needed to tear down
restrictions in the financial sector. He said that Chinese
banks needed to reform and innovate in order to increase their
margins of profitability. He also said that China needed to
reform its regulatory framework to allow for financial products
such as bonds, funds, options and other ways to diversify
financial risk. He stressed that China needed a unified credit
database to enable efficient access to financing.
¶9. (U) Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) President Zhu Congjiu noted
that while there was 30 trillion RMB (about USD 3.8 trillion)
worth of capital available in China, Chinese companies had a
"weak capability to engage in venture capital." He said this
SHANGHAI 00007085 003 OF 004
was why quality companies chose to go public abroad, rather than
in China. It also meant, he added, that 83 percent of all
venture capital in China was from foreign sources. According to
Zhu, the SSE planned to make the reforms necessary to keep
Chinese companies in China by creating an environment where they
would have access to the capital they needed domestically. In
response to a question, Zhu admitted that for the financial
sector, "innovation" actually meant reforming the Chinese system
to be more like the international financial market standard.
--------------------------------------------- ---
Innovative Translation -- Some Words Left Unsaid
--------------------------------------------- ---
¶10. (SBU) The conference theme as translated in English was
"Innovation and China Economic Growth." In Chinese, however,
the title was "Self-Innovation (Zizhu Chuangxin) and China
Economic Growth." Chinese government speakers all used the word
"self-innovation," but the translators uniformly translated it
as "innovation." Conference speaker European Union Economics
and Regional Officer Leila Fernandez-Stembridge noted to Econoff
that this appeared to be an intentional "mistranslation." Price
Waterhouse Coopers Senior Advisor Kenneth DeWoskin, another
conference speaker, speculated that a political decision had
been made to de-emphasize the Chinese-centric focus on "self" in
an attempt to soften the tone of the conference.
---------------------------------------
When Innovation Means Using an Airbrush
---------------------------------------
¶11. (SBU) DeWoskin noted to Econoff that the "palpable unspoken
undercurrent" had been the sacking of NBS head Qiu Xiaohua eight
days before the conference in connection with the Shanghai
pension corruption scandal. No mention of Qiu was made
publicly, even when Xie was introduced as only having been on
the job for a week. An NBS employee who helped organize the
conference materials told Econoff about the "huge amount of
work" that he had to re-do in replacing Qiu Xiaohua's
information and name with that of new leader Xie Fuzhen in all
of the many professionally produced bound conference materials.
An NBS press officer commented that his office had been given no
notice of the sacking and been inundated with "questions we
cannot answer."
-------------------------------------
Challenges Facing Innovation in China
-------------------------------------
¶12. (SBU) Sixteen non-governmental speakers at the conference,
including Sun Microsystems Vice President Piper Cole, GE China
Technology Center Managing Director Bijan Dorri, and The
Conference Board Executive Vice President Gail Fosler, China
were tasked with outlining how China could create and nurture an
environment that led to innovative people and companies. These
speakers described several challenges that China faced to its
SHANGHAI 00007085 004 OF 004
drive for self-innovation, including:
- China needed to stay open to the world. Innovation would be
greatly hampered in a closed system.
- China needed to avoid "nationalizing" or "branding" its
innovations in a way that would limit its global reach. By
creating a "China standard" different from global standards,
China would shut itself out of competition.
- China needed to protect intellectual property rights in order
to protect those who had taken risk.
- China needed to create the financial market conditions that
would support venture capital in order to reward risk takers.
- China needed to create a social milieu in which failure was
acceptable. If the price of failure was too high, no one would
take any risks.
- China needed to develop educational systems that continued to
foster interest in math and science.
¶13. (SBU) Chinese government speakers appeared receptive and
largely agreed to the above list of prescriptions. However,
they tended to stress the importance of Chinese brands and
standards being the mark of Chinese innovation. As one speaker
commented, "We hope that the day will come when the label does
not read 'Made in China' but 'Created in China.'"
¶14. (SBU) Comment: Innovation -- or self-innovation -- has
clearly been identified as the next necessary step in China's
economic development strategy. While the mission is clear,
China still faces enormous systemic economic, legal, educational
and social barriers to create an innovation-friendly environment.
JARRETT
VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB
DE RUEHC #2095 0361847
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 051838Z FEB 10
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHGB/AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD PRIORITY 0000
RUEHLB/AMEMBASSY BEIRUT PRIORITY 0000
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO PRIORITY 0000
RUEHDO/AMEMBASSY DOHA PRIORITY 0000
RUEHKU/AMEMBASSY KUWAIT PRIORITY 0000
RUEHMK/AMEMBASSY MANAMA PRIORITY 0000
RUEHMS/AMEMBASSY MUSCAT PRIORITY 0000
RUEHRH/AMEMBASSY RIYADH PRIORITY 0000
RUEHYN/AMEMBASSY SANAA PRIORITY 0000
INFO RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEAFCC/FCC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY
RUEHAM/AMEMBASSY AMMAN 0000
UNCLAS STATE 012095
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECIN [Economic Integration and Cooperation],
ECPS [Communications and Postal Systems], EINT [Economic and Commercial Internet], MARR [Military and Defense Arrangements],
MCAP [Military Capabilities], PREL [External Political Relations],
XF [Middle East]
SUBJECT: GULF REGION COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE 2010 UPDATE
REF: 09 STATE 122229
¶1. This is an action request. See paragraph 6.
¶2. SUMMARY. Reftel announced a by-invitation-only Gulf Region
Communications Conference (GRCC) in Amman, Jordan, 21-23
February 2010, co-hosted by United States Central Command
(USCENTCOM) and the Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF). Reftel
requested posts deliver a hold-the-date request to regional
civilian and/or government attendees pending release of
formal invitations. A separate notification was distributed
to military attendees through military channels. On 4
February 2010, USCENTCOM forwarded to posts, in care of the
security assistance offices, hard copy and electronic
versions of the formal GRCC invitations, along with RSVP
registration information and conference agenda, for delivery
to attendees. Invitations are co-signed by Commander,
USCENTCOM and by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, JAF.
This cable requests posts deliver invitations and an update
notification to regional civilian and/or government attendees
to further highlight the conference and encourage
participation. In order to ensure timely delivery of
invitations, please deliver update notifications based on
receipt of, and in conjunction with, the electronic
invitations, and forward hard copy versions when they arrive.
Draft update notification language is provided in paragraph
¶6. END SUMMARY
¶3. For reference, the following is the text for USCENTCOM's
half of the formal joint invitation.
Dear Mr. Communications Minister,
On behalf of United States Central Command, I am pleased to
invite you to attend the 2010 Gulf Region Communications
Conference in Amman, Jordan during 21-23 February 2010.
The conference follows last year's inaugural conference in
Bahrain. Again, our intent is to gather regional
communications representatives to collaborate on topics of
mutual interest in a Regional forum. Ministers of
communications, communications regulatory commissioners, and
senior military communicators from each of eleven Gulf Region
states are invited to participate. Also, senior United
States communications representatives from the federal,
military, and private sectors are invited. Regional private
sector representatives will also be invited.
Conference participants will be able to address regional
communications capabilities and concerns and discuss
opportunities to support regional stability and security
efforts. The enclosed conference agenda is provided for your
information.
We would be honored to have you join us. Mr. John Simpson,
the Central Command point of contact (813-827-3931,
simpsoja@centcom.mil), will accept replies. A detailed
conference information packet will be sent separately.
With warm regards,
DAVID H. PETRAEUS
General, U.S. Army
Commander,
United States Central Command
¶4. Also for reference, the following is the text for JAF's
half of the formal joint invitation.
Dear Honorable Minister,
On behalf of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, I am pleased to
invite you to attend the 2010 Gulf Region Communications
Conference (GRCC) in Amman, Jordan during 21-23 February 2010.
We believe last year's conference in Bahrain was a great
success, and we are looking forward to hosting distinguished
communicators within the Kingdom of Jordan.
This next GRCC will enable us, as partners, to continue our
examination and discussion of the Region's most significant
communications concerns. We are hopeful that this forum and
its actions will lead to improved capabilities, stability,
and security within the Gulf Nations and across the Region.
Communications ministers and regulatory commissioners, and
senior military communicators from each of eleven Gulf Region
states are invited to participate. Also, senior United States
communications representatives from the federal, military,
and private sectors are invited. Representatives of the Gulf
Region's private sector will also be invited. The enclosed
conference agenda is provided for your information.
We would be honored to have you join us in the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan.
With utmost respect,
General
Khaled J. Al-Sarayreh
Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff
Jordan Armed Forces
¶5. The agenda's structure and content reflect extensive
collaboration with JAF, including integration of
JAF-recommended panel discussions. Each participating nation
will be given one speaking part (seat) on each panel and one
speaking part (five minute presentation) during closing
remarks. All attendees will be invited to participate in
roundtable discussions. For reference, the GRCC Agenda
follows:
21-23 February 2010
Grand Hyatt Hotel
Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Sunday, 21 February
Arrival of conference participants and registration at Grand
Hyatt Hotel, Amman, Jordan, Telephone: 962-6-456-1234
1830-2000
RECEPTION (Hotel Location TBD) - For ministers and
distinguished visitors (DVs)
HOST: U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM)
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National Dress
Monday, 22 February
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress/Class A Uniform
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National
Dress/Class A Uniform
0800-0850
NO-HOST BREAKFAST
0900-0905
CONFERENCE WELCOME (Hotel Grand Ballroom) - Brigadier General
Ghazi Salem Salman al-Jobor, Director of the Special
Communications Commission, Jordan Ministry of Defense
0905-0910
TRANSLATION EQUIPMENT FAMILIARIZATION
0910-0930
CONFERENCE OPENING REMARKS - USCENTCOM and Kingdom of Jordan
Representatives (TBD)
0930-1000
PRESENTATION 1 - His Excellency Marwan Juma, Jordan Minister
of Information and Communications Technology
TOPIC: Sector Policy--Mobile Communications, Fixed Services,
and Regional Connectivity
1000-1030
PRESENTATION 2 - Jordan Telecommunications Regulatory
Commission
TOPIC: Regulation of Telecommunications
1030-1045
BREAK
1045-1145
PRESENTATION 3 - Mr. Craig Mundie, Chief Research and
Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation, United States
TOPIC: Cloud Computing
1145-1245
PANEL DISCUSSION 1 - Industry/Government Representatives
TOPIC: Implementing Cloud Computing Solutions to
Information Exchange Challenges
1245-1345
LUNCH (Hotel Restaurant TBD) - For ministers and DVs
HOST: Jordan Ministry of Information and Communications
Technology
1400-1415
GROUP PHOTO SESSION (Hotel Location TBD)
1415-1515
ROUNDTABLE 1 - Roundtable Moderator, TBD
TOPIC: Policy and Regulation Perspective--Improving
Telecommunications across the Region and across the
Commercial, Government, and Military Sectors
1515-1535
PRESENTATION 4A - Brigadier General Ghazi Salem Salman
al-Jobor, Jordan Ministry of Defense
TOPIC: Mobile Communications in Support of Relief Operations
1535-1555
PRESENTATION 4B - Brigadier General Mowafaq Assaf, Royal
Jordanian Air Force
TOPIC: Fiber Infrastructure in Support of Government and
Civilian Agencies
1555-1655
PANEL DISCUSSION 2 - Military Communicators
TOPIC: Mobile, Fixed, and Fiber Communications
1655-1830
FREE TIME
1830-1900
COCKTAILS (Hotel Location TBD) - For ministers and DVs
HOST: USCENTCOM
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National Dress
1900-2100
DINNER (Hotel Location TBD) - For ministers and DVs
HOST: Jordan Telecommunications Regulatory Commission
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National Dress
Tuesday, 23 February
ATTIRE/GENTLEMEN: Business/National Dress/Class A Uniform
ATTIRE/LADIES: Business (dress, pants outfit)/National
Dress/Class A Uniform
0800-0850
NO-HOST BREAKFAST
0900-0915
ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS (Hotel Grand Ballroom) - Brigadier
General Ghazi
0915-0945
PRESENTATION 5 - Lieutenant General Carroll F. Pollett,
United States Army, Director, Defense Information Systems
Agency
TOPIC: Synchronizing Commercial, Government, and Military
Communications Priorities in the United States
0945-1015
PRESENTATION 6 - Mr Sami Smeirat, Chief Executive Officer,
Orange Company, Jordan
TOPIC: Regional Reach
1015-1030
BREAK
1030-1130
ROUNDTABLE 2 - Roundtable Moderator
TOPIC: Synchronizing Wireless Challenges and Potential
Solutions
1130-1200
PRESENTATION 7 - Mr. Nidal Qanadilo, Investment Manager,
Jordan Ministry of Information and Communications Technology
TOPIC: Fiber Communications in Support of E-learning,
E-government, and Rural Areas
1200-1300
LUNCH (Hotel Restaurant TBD) - For ministers and DVs
HOST: USCENTCOM
1345-1415
ROUNDTABLE 3 - Roundtable Moderator
TOPIC: Regional Fiber Backbone Solutions to Civilian,
Government and Military Challenges
1415-1445
ROUNDTABLE 4 - Brigadier General Donahue, Roundtable Moderator
TOPIC: 2010 Conference Action Items and 2011 Conference
Theme and Topics
1445-1500
BREAK
COUNTRY REMARKS
1500-1510, Kingdom of Bahrain
1510-1520, Arab Republic of Egypt
1520-1530, Republic of Iraq
1530-1540, State of Kuwait
1540-1550, Republic of Lebanon
1550-1600, Sultanate of Oman
1600-1610, State of Qatar
1610-1620, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
1620-1630, United Arab Emirates
1630-1640, Republic of Yemen
1640-1700
CLOSING REMARKS - USCENTCOM and Jordan Representatives TBD
1700
CONFERENCE CONCLUDES
¶6. Action Request: Washington agencies request posts ensure
delivery of invitations and deliver the following update
notification regarding GRCC 2010 to the appropriate regional
civilian and/or government attendees by 8 February 2010.
Please notify the USCENTCOM and State POCs in paragraph 7 on
completion of action by 10 February 2010. Email replies are
acceptable.
Dear (Embassies, please address invitations to appropriate
individuals listed),
ABU DHABI:
-- His Excellency Muhammad bin Ahmad Alqamzi, Chairman
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
-- His Excellency Mohamed Nassar Al Ghanim, Director General
and Board Member Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
BAGHDAD:
-- His Excellency Farooq Abdulqadir Abdulrahman, Minister of
Communications
-- Barhan Shawi Al-Tamimi, DG, Communications & Media
Commission
-- His Excellency Mazin Hashim Al-Haboubi, CEO Deputy for
Administrative Affairs
BEIRUT:
-- His Excellency Mr. Charbel Nahas, Minister of
Telecommunications
-- Dr. Kamal S. Shehadi, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
of Telecommunications Regulatory Agency
CAIRO:
-- His Excellency Dr. Tarek Kamel, Minister of Communications
and Information Technology
-- Dr. Amr Badawy, Executive President of National
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
DOHA:
-- His Excellency Dr. Hessa Al-Jaber, Secretary General
Supreme Council of Information & Communications Technology
-- Mister William Fagan, Director, Supreme Council of
Information & Communications Technology
KUWAIT:
-- Dr. Mohammed Mohsen Al-Busairi, Minister of Communications
MANAMA:
-- Dr. Mohammed Al Amer, Chairman and Acting General
Director, Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
MUSCAT:
-- His Excellency Dr. Khamis bin Mubarak al Alawi, Minister
of Transportation and Communications
-- His Excellency Mohammed Nasser Al-Khusaibi, Chairman,
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
RIYADH:
-- Mister Mohammed Jameel bin Ahmed Mulla, Minister of
Communications and Information Technology
-- Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Jafari, Governor Communications and
Information Technology Commission
SANAA:
-- His Excellency Kamal Al-Jabri, Minister of
Telecommunications & Information Technology
United States Central Command and the Jordanian Armed Forces
will co-host the by-invitation-only Gulf Region
Communications Conference (GRCC) 2010 in Amman, Jordan on
21-23 February 2010. Formal invitations have been distributed
to you separately along with details regarding RSVPs and
registration and the conference agenda. GRCC 2010 will
continue GRCC 2009 multilateral engagement on regional
telecommunications and information sharing capabilities and
will foster cooperation among our respective entities in
order to overcome challenges, to include crisis response
and/or disaster relief missions.
GRCC 2010 presentations and discussions support a theme of
Synchronizing Commercial, Government and Military
Communications Priorities. GRCC 2010 adds panel discussions
to the GRCC 2009 conference format of presentations and
roundtables. Each nation attending the conference will be
given one seat for a national representative on each panel.
As with GRCC 2009, roundtable discussions will be open to
participation by all attendees. Each nation attending the
conference will also be given five minutes for one national
representative to present closing remarks. Please identify to
the conference co-hosts as soon as possible those individuals
who will represent (post, please insert here your nation) on
each panel and present closing remarks.
I encourage you to attend the conference.
Sincerely,
(DoS originator name)
(DoS originator title)
U.S. Department of State
¶7. CENTCOM point of contact for the conference:
Jim Ramirez DAFC
U.S. Central Command
Deputy, Strategic C4 Architecture Programs and Policy
Division
* (813) 827-5816 DSN 651-5816
* ramirejs@centcom.mil
* ramirejs@centcom.smil.mil
State Department points of contact for the conference:
COL Dave Huggins
Senior Military Advisor, Near Eastern Affairs Bureau
* (202) 647-3945
* HugginsWD@state.sgov.gov
Steve Simpson
Communications and Information Policy / Middle East
Energy, Economic, and Business Affairs
* (202) 647-5306
* SimpsonSC@state.gov
* SimpsonSC@state.sgov.gov
CLINTON
Yes, that latter cable is signed by Clinton. Interestingly enough, Mundie is doing politics. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.17.11
Posted in Cablegate, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 5:02 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: 3 cables from Brussels and Geneva, all demonstrating growing acceptance of artificial trans-Atlantic monopolies with similar trends within Europe itself
According to EU authorities, there is no reason to worry about expanding the scope of patents, opening the door to increased litigation and damages.
In the following 3 cables we see the subject brought up several times. In the second cable, “Lorrain added that patent harmonization would be interesting, along with a discussion on copyrights and other current IPR issues.”
The third cable says: “A key area that would further innovation in the seed industry would be patent harmonization of plant protection, as the existing rules under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) allow for protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. As a result, there are varying degrees of patent protection for plants from one territory to another. ”
We wrote about TRIPS in [1, 2, 3, 4]. The three cables from 2008 and 2009 are as follows:
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Cablegate, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 4:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The position of the Nicolas Sarkozy regime on intellectual monopolies including patents
POOR CHINA. The West is too obsessed with (afraid of) this highly productive nation that exports almost everything people buy in the shops if it’s economic to transport by ship. Japan et al. try to limit China's trade using intellectual monopolies, which can impede domestic production under independent brands (Apple, for instance, is notorious for shutting down competing factories in China under the pretext of “IPR”). In any event, according to the following Cablegate cable (under ¶4), the Nicolas Sarkozy regime “recently ratified the London protocol and would support adoption of a Community patent during its presidency, he said. “Common reflection” on patent harmonization issues was a potential area for TEC discussion. France also was supportive of the International Anti-counterfeiting and Piracy Agreement (?) (ACTA).”
The information came from Novelli, who “had accompanied President Sarkozy to China in late 2007 and the message on IPR had been “very firm.” Pushing together for a stronger Chinese approach on IPR was important.” Important to who? Surely not the Chinese population.
The position from Paris and EU authorities matters a lot and the cable below is not so out of date. It’s also about ACTA.
VZCZCXYZ7332
RR RUEHWEB
DE RUEHFR #0386/01 0641756
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 041756Z MAR 08
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2152
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS PARIS 000386
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT PASS USTR
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON [Economic Conditions], ETRD [Foreign Trade],
ENRG [Energy and Power], PREL [External Political Relations],
EAGR [Agriculture and Forestry], EUR, FR [France; Corsica]
SUBJECT: FRENCH RECEPTIVE TO A/S SULLIVAN'S PITCH ON TEC
REF: 2/11 PARIS POINT ON FRENCH GMO LAW
¶1. (U) Embassy Action Request Para 14.
¶2. (SBU) Summary: In February 13-14 meetings French Trade
Minister Novelli, MFA Economic Director Masset and PM
Diplomatic Advisor Lapouge told A/S Dan Sullivan they would
be supportive of the Trans-Atlantic Economic Council (TEC)
as an important part of France's EU presidency. On other
issues Novelli said France would pay attention to
"reciprocity" in EU foreign economic relations during its
presidency. France's position on agricultural bio-
technology was evolving, with the amended draft law on GMOs
recently approved by the French Senate a more "balanced"
approach than that of the initial draft. Lapouge said
energy supply issues would figure among France's EU
presidency priorities and briefed on PM Fillon's early
February trip to Kazakhstan. End summary.
Novelli on TEC, 100% Screening, IPR
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
¶3. (SBU) In a February 13 meeting A/S Sullivan, accompanied
by Ambassador Stapleton and SE Boyden Gray, told French
Trade Junior Minister Herve Novelli the U.S. hoped France
would put the TEC high on its agenda for the French EU
presidency. He underscored that the TEC not only could
help deepen transatlantic economic relationship by reducing
and harmonizing regulatory barriers, but also it has a much
broader strategic rationale: enabling the U.S. and EU to
more closely coordinate economic policies vis-`-vis rising
economic powers. France's endorsement would be key to a
successful TEC, and one that helped ensure the
institution's longevity. Novelli said the GOF saw the TEC
as "very important" and the French presidency could "play a
key role" in advancing it. But the May TEC and June U.S.-
EU Summit would precede the French presidency and it would
be important to focus on these first.
¶4. (SBU) Novelli described cargo security and IPR as GOF
priorities (both in and out of the TEC). U.S. requirements
for 100% screening of containers were a top French concern
given the "costs it would impose" on trans-Atlantic trade.
Novelli saw convergence in U.S. - French interests on IPR.
France recently ratified the London protocol and would
support adoption of a Community patent during its
presidency, he said. "Common reflection" on patent
harmonization issues was a potential area for TEC
discussion. France also was supportive of the
International Anti-counterfeiting and Piracy Agreement (?)
(ACTA). Novelli had accompanied President Sarkozy to China
in late 2007 and the message on IPR had been "very firm."
Pushing together for a stronger Chinese approach on IPR was
important.
Environmental Issues
- - - - - - - - - -
¶5. (SBU) In the wake of its late 2007 "Grenelle"
environmental pact France would be "exemplary" on cutting
carbon emissions. The GOF was considering a variety of
eco-taxes (and had already implemented some) as part of
this effort. It would use its EU presidency to encourage
an "awakening" on the use of such measures among its EU
partners. Cuts in CO2 emissions were inevitable, Novelli
said, the key would be to do so without impacting French
productivity. (Note: Novelli said nothing about France's
proposal for a carbon tax on imports from countries that do
not impose binding limits on CO2 emissions. End note)
A/S Sullivan underscored U.S. - EU convergence on climate
change, especially through the Major Economies process.
¶6. (SBU) Sullivan raised the issue of GMOs, and Novelli
said the GOF's position was evolving. The French Senate
had passed a "more balanced" amended version of the GMO law
than the one presented to parliament (ref). The position
of Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development Borloo
was shifting, Novelli claimed, "in spite the views of
environmental groups." France's current ban on MON810
"could be lifted," he said, though he did not specify the
timing or circumstances of a possible rescission.
Reciprocity
- - - - - -
¶7. (SBU) Novelli previewed other priority issues within his
remit for the French presidency. The GOF would pursue a
European Small Business Act, to include regulatory
simplification and access to public procurement. The GOF
had presented its ideas in Brussels to "enrich the debate"
and the Commission was preparing an initial draft. The GOF
would encourage movement towards freer trade and investment
regimes, but on the basis of reciprocity. The GOF wanted
Europe to be "as open as our partners," but it would demand
a level playing field. Discussion on EU trade defense
measures was a possible "element" in France's strategy for
pursuing reciprocity.
¶8. (SBU) France continued to hope for a Doha deal, Novelli
said, but it "must be balanced." The GOF felt the
Commission had done the "maximum," in fact surpassing
negotiating mandates on agriculture and industrial access.
France would not "sacrifice its interests" for the sake of
a deal. Sullivan underscored very strong U.S. commitment
to getting a "good, ambitious" agreement. He also noted
the importance of maintaining a public commitment to open
trade and investment, saying that foreign direct investment
was a net benefit regardless of reciprocal limitations that
partners might impose.
TEC Strategic Dialogue Timely
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
¶9. (SBU) In a separate meeting MFA Economic Director
Christian Masset echoed Novelli's support for the TEC. He
warmed to A/S Sullivan's description of the strategic
nature of the TEC as demonstrated by the dialogue that had
occurred over lunch at the November meeting. Such dialogue
could be particularly useful given that France would host
EU summits with a number of key developing economies during
its presidency, including China and India.
¶10. (SBU) Masset expanded on the French EU presidency
priorities of climate change and energy. The GOF would
look to move forward with Phase II of the Emissions Trading
System, the framework directive on renewables, and a
directive for carbon capture and storage. To reach 2020
reduction goals, half of the gains would come through the
functioning of the ETS, the other half from sectors not
covered by the trading system. It would take strong action
in both areas to achieve EU goals.
¶11. (SBU) On energy security, France would "put more
emphasis" on dialogue with the Central Asia/Caspian region
on diversification. Masset was keen on A/S Sullivan's
views on the region, and Sullivan highlighted elements of
his latest trip to Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan.
Masset and Sullivan also touched on eventual membership of
India and China in the IEA (septel).
PM Fillon in Kazakhstan
- - - - - - - - - - - -
¶12. (SBU) PM Fillon's diplomatic advisor Jacques Lapouge
briefed Sullivan on the Prime Minister's early February
visit to Kazakhstan (the first such visit in 15 years).
Calling the trip "pretty encouraging," Lapouge said Fillon
brought a message of support for development of westward
hydrocarbon supply routes. Supply diversification would,
in fact, be a theme of the French EU presidency. Lapouge
said Nazarbayev talked to Fillon about shipping product
across the Caspian, as well as a possible pipeline skirting
the southern shore of the Caspian. He expressed continued
interest in a pipeline to Iran.
¶13. (SBU) On other issues, Lapouge responded positively to
A/S Sullivan's briefing on TEC (though an advisor had heard
disappointment at EU technical levels over a perceived lack
of progress on EU issues at the first TEC). On G8, the
former Sous-Sherpa questioned whether there was sufficient
follow-through in meeting commitments, notably on ODA. The
body's "credibility is at stake," Lapouge thought. On IPR,
the Heilegendamm Process must aim high and not be pulled
down to the lowest common denominator. Lapouge indicated
the French were interested in keeping alive their proposal
for a FATF-like body for IPR in G8 discussions.
Embassy Action Request
- - - - - - - - - - -
¶14. (SBU) French views on energy supply diversification
opportunities in the Caspian Basin are evolving. With the
GOF ready to engage more actively on energy diplomacy in
the region during its EU presidency, this is an auspicious
time to contribute to French thinking. Post encourages the
visit of an appropriate Department, or inter-agency,
delegation to Paris in the coming months for in-depth
discussions with French counterparts on these issues.
¶15. (U) A/S Sullivan has cleared this cable.
ROSENBLATT
In the next post we shall look at cables from Brussels. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
