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
09.15.11
Posted in Bill Gates, Cablegate, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft at 5:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: How Microsoft and Bill Gates are seen by US diplomats who try to shame Kazakhstan into accepting laws that would harm the population
THE FOLLOWING triplet of Cablegate cables shows what we already knew — that in a cumulative transmission we can learn about US pressure for Kazakhstan to change its laws until they better align with US laws (think DMCA). The same shame game is being used to pressure just about any country to become more of a colony and Microsoft does its role through a company called Samgau, with Bill Gates getting personally involved despite having claimed that he moved on.
Kazakhstan Kazakhstan was going to move to ODF (which has no patent-imposed limitations) after Microsoft had lobbied there.
VZCZCXYZ0009
RR RUEHWEB
DE RUEHTA #0584/01 0790430
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 190430Z MAR 08
FM AMEMBASSY ASTANA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 2069
UNCLAS ASTANA 000584
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
STATE FOR SCA/CEN (O'MARA) and EB/TPP/IBE (JBOGER)
STATE PASS USTR FOR JCHOE-GROVES
COMMERCE FOR ITA/MAC/OIPR (CPETERS)
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD [Foreign Trade], KIPR [Intellectual Property Rights],
ECON [Economic Conditions], KZ [Kazakhstan]
SUBJECT: KAZAKHSTAN: SPECIAL 301
REF: (A) STATE 09475 (B) 06 ASTANA 009 (C) 07 ASTANA 0454
-------
SUMMARY
-------
¶1. (SBU) Over the past year, the Government of Kazakhstan (GOK) has
continued to demonstrate a commitment to the development and
modernization of its IPR protection regime. Despite an increase in
the domestic production of pirated CD's and DVD's in Kazakhstan's
two largest cities, the GOK, and more specifically the IPR Committee
of the Ministry of Justice, continues to move forward in meeting
international standards and addressing the concerns of the
international community for the enhanced protection of IPR on the
legislative, judicial, and enforcement fronts. Facing a continuing
challenge to stem the flow of pirated goods from Russia and China,
the GOK has also proposed legislation to further empower customs
officials to seize counterfeit materials before they enter the
country. Although criminal sentencing remains at low levels, and
the lack of a public perception of the seriousness of IPR violations
is problematic, ongoing educational programs and proposed
legislative changes set to come to parliament for ratification in
late spring 2008 are expected to significantly improve the IPR
environment. Therefore, post recommends continuing Kazakhstan's
exclusion from the Special 301 Watch List. End Summary.
--------------------------------------------- ----
ENFORCEMENT INCREASES, BUT CRIMINAL SENTENCES LAG
--------------------------------------------- ----
¶2. (SBU) IPR enforcement efforts continue to increase, and the
numbers of convictions for administrative and criminal offenses grew
in the last year. According to combined 2007 statistics released by
the Ministry of Justice IPR Committee, and the Procurator General,
-- 1971 IPR-related raids were conducted. As a result of these
raids, 1418 entities (organizations and individuals) were charged
with administrative penalties;
-- 2670 administrative cases were initiated;
-- 20,250,755 KZT ($168,056) was collected in administrative fines
(compared to 14,385,725 KZT, or $116,013 in 2006);
-- 229,979 counterfeit copies valued at 132,369,884 KZT ($1,098,505)
with unlicensed or illegal trademarks were confiscated (compared to
121 million KZT, or $975,806, in 2006); and
-- 658 criminal cases were initiated (compared to 268 in 2006).
¶3. (SBU) Of the 658 criminal cases initiated in 2007, 447 were sent
to courts. Of these, 108 people were convicted under Part 1 of
Article 184 of the Criminal Code, one person was convicted under
Part 2, and 54 under Part 3. (NOTE: Parts 1-3 of Article 184
represent, in order, increasing categories of severity in both the
level of the offense and severity of punishment, based on amount of
damage, scale of the offense, repetition of the violation, etc. End
note.) Penalties for those convicted of violations of Article 184
vary. They include fines ranging from 100 to 700 times the Monthly
Calculation Unit (one Monthly Calculation Unit is currently set to
1,168 tenge, or $9.60), the confiscation of 5 to 10 months' wages,
community service of 100 to 240 hours, or imprisonment from 2 to 5
years and the possible confiscation of property.
¶4. (SBU) Despite the relatively high number of criminal
convictions, no data has been made available regarding sentencing.
According to an official at the General Prosecutor's Office, this
most likely indicates that no individuals have been incarcerated,
and that the criminal sentences were either reduced to
administrative penalties, or suspended. (Comment: The lack of jail
sentences remains of concern, indicating a continued perception
within the courts that copyright infringement alone, in the absence
of other criminal violations, does not merit incarceration. End
Comment.)
----------------------------
NEW AND CONTINUED CHALLENGES
----------------------------
¶5. (SBU) Outside of Kazakhstan's two largest cities (Almaty and
Astana), the vast majority of pirated media available originates in
Russia and China. Russia -- with its many railway links to northern
Kazakhstan -- presents a particular challenge for Kazakhstani
authorities. As noted by the IIPA, customs officials continue to
lack the ex officio authority required to seize counterfeit
materials at the borders, when they are discovered.
¶6. (SBU) According to private industry representatives, 2007 has
witnessed an increase in the availability and sales, particularly in
Almaty and Astana, of domestically produced counterfeit CD's and
DVD's. This is largely due to the increasing availability of
pirating technology and the willingness of small-time media pirates
to engage the police in the "cat and mouse" game of street sales.
Industry representatives assert that local police charged with
enforcing the prohibition of street sales are often unmotivated and
indifferent to the presence of such vendors, if not directly paid to
ignore them.
¶7. (SBU) The pursuit of rulings against IPR violators in civil
courts remains problematic because of legal norms carried over from
Soviet times. According to the Prosecutor General's office and
private industry representatives, this is particularly so when
licensed copyright holders attempt to sue vendors of pirated
material for damages. Under current IPR legislation, plaintiffs are
subjected to an unnecessarily heavy burden of proof, whereby they
are required to demonstrate a direct contractual link to the artist
or author whose pirated material is being illegally sold. (Note: An
example would be a direct contract between a performer and record
store. End note.) If a licensed copyright holder or distributor can
not substantiate this direct linkage, they can not, in the eyes of
the court, demonstrate financial damages caused by illegal sales.
In addition, civil claims must also be brought in a court in the
region where the infringement is alleged to have occurred. Regional
courts tend to lack regular exposure to -- and knowledge of -- this
relatively new and complex area of law, which has historically
inhibited the successful prosecution of violations.
------------------------
OPTICAL MEDIA PROTECTION
------------------------
¶8. (SBU) Two plants in Kazakhstan produce optical discs. One
specializes in films and music, the other in software. Both plants
have source identification codes (SID's) issued by the IFPI
(International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) and, as IIPA
notes, provide samples of their products for use as forensic
evidence.
----------------------------
SOFTWARE INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT
----------------------------
¶9. (SBU) According to local Microsoft representatives, all newly
procured government computers have licensed software. While some
older government computers may still be loaded with unlicensed
software, overall the Microsoft representative expressed strong
satisfaction with the government procurement situation. Most
recently, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the CEO of Samgau
(Kazakhstan's state-owned technology and innovation holding company)
signed an MOU on plans for future cooperation in the development of
educational technologies, as well as collaboration in IPR protection
and enforcement. Microsoft is recognized for its successful
engagement in defense of IPR in Russia; its enhanced partnership
with the GOK is expected to improve IPR protective capacity in
Kazakhstan, with a particularly heavy focus on the prevention of
internet-related piracy.
¶10. (SBU) Despite the positive relations developing between
Microsoft and the GOK, Microsoft representatives recommend that
Kazakhstan be placed on the Special 301 Watch List. Recent findings
from Microsoft-funded research indicated that levels of privately
used pirated (or unlicensed) software remains extremely high.
According to their data, 92.9 percent of privately owned PC's in
Kazakhstan utilize of illegally obtained software. (Note: Their data
also indicated that the overwhelming majority of respondents
believed piracy rates would decrease if the prices of commercially
available software were to be lowered. This opinion was also shared
by the General Prosecutor's Office. End note.)
--------------------------------------------- -----
SCHEDULED AND ENACTED IPR LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENTS
--------------------------------------------- -----
¶11. (SBU) During the reporting period, Kazakhstan continued to
pursue legislative changes that strengthen the government's hand in
protecting intellectual property rights. The legal basis for
preventing and prosecuting IPR violations remains the "Law on
Amending Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the
Issues of Intellectual Property", which entered into force on
November 26, 2005. This law amended the country's Criminal Code,
Criminal Procedure Code, Civil Code, Administrative Code, and the
Copyright Law as they pertain to the protection of intellectual
property (ref B). Amendments to the Patent Law were ratified in
2007, significantly simplifying the patent system (as compared with
the old Soviet two-stage system) and bringing it into closer
conformity with international standards.
¶12. (SBU) Proposed amendments to the Copyright Law, Law on Trade
Marks, Law on Licensing, and Customs Code are currently being
evaluated by independent experts. Proposed amendments to the
Copyright Law have been praised by private industry representatives
in as much as they directly address the weaknesses hindering
copyright enforcement in civil courts (see para 7 above). New
amendments will relieve IPR holders of the heavy burden of proof,
and will facilitate effective law enforcement. In accordance with
WIPO requirements, the draft amendments also detail the use of
technical means for the protection of copyrights, specifically
prohibiting the removal of any types of technical or coded copyright
protection technologies. The IPR Committee is confident that the
proposed amendments to the Licensing Law stipulating mandatory
licensing for the commercial reproduction of any copyright protected
audio and visual recordings meet WTO requirements. These amendments
are scheduled to come before Parliament in late May-early June
2008.
¶13. (SBU) Amendments to Customs Legislation granting ex officio
authority to customs agents are scheduled to come before Parliament
in November 2008. These amendments will grant customs agents the
authority to more readily seize counterfeit goods at the border,
which has long been recommended by the International Intellectual
Property Alliance (IIPA.)
-------------------------------------
IIPA REPORTING AND CONCERNS ADDRESSED
-------------------------------------
¶14. (SBU) Over the last several years, IIPA reporting has
consistently reiterated several concerns regarding the development
and efficacy of IPR protective measures in Kazakhstan. They have
also, however, continued to report several significant inaccuracies.
¶15. (SBU) The IIPA report states that "only the Ministry of Justice
(Copyright Office) and not the police can bring charges for
[administrative violations]" and recommends "that the existing
police authority be broadened to include administrative violations
as well." Article 620 of the Administrative Violations Code
specifically provides such powers to the police.
¶16. (SBU) The IIPA's assertion that the 2004 statutes only provide
for a 50-year term of copyright protection is inaccurate, as the
November 2005 amendments specifically provide for the extension of
copyright protection to 70 years, in keeping with international
standards.
¶17. (SBU) The IIPA repeats another error from its 2006 and 2007
reports, overstating the minimum damages threshold for criminal
prosecution. IIPA misinterprets what it calls "the key amendment"
in the November 2005 legislation. i.e., the change to Article 184 of
the Criminal Code, which repealed the undefined "huge damage"
threshold for criminal cases and replaced it with a threshold of 100
Monthly Calculation Units (MCU's). The IIPA incorrectly reported
that one MCU is the equivalent of 36,495 tenge ($304), when in fact
it is currently set to just 1,168 tenge ($9.60). Thus, the IIPA
overstates the all-important minimum damages threshold for criminal
prosecution by a factor of more than thirty.
¶18. (SBU) The IIPA cites Kazakhstan's need to establish a legal
basis for the confiscation and destruction of equipment used in the
criminal manufacture of pirated goods. The IPR Committee continues
to assure post that a combination of statutes in the Criminal Code
and the Criminal Procedure Code constitutes an adequate provision
for the confiscation of such equipment. Moreover, the IPR Committee
has stated that such confiscations are routinely carried out and do
not require a court order. A court order is necessary only to
destroy such equipment -- a procedural requirement which the IPR
Committee defends as necessary to preserve potentially material
evidence. It should also be noted that the abovementioned proposed
amendments to the Copyright Law will require judges, in the event of
a conviction, to make a ruling regarding the named piracy equipment.
This provision is expected to increase occasions in which
confiscated equipment will be destroyed.
-------
COMMENT
-------
¶19. (SBU) Kazakhstan's continued progress on and commitment to IPR
protection merits its continued exclusion from the Special 301 Watch
List. The efforts of the IPR Committee within the Ministry of
Justice are expected to bear fruit in 2008 in the ratification of
amendments to numerous IPR-related laws. Post takes growing private
sector participation in the enforcement of IPR as a very positive
indicator of progress. At this stage, acknowledging Kazakhstan's
significant achievements while stressing to the GOK that they must
continue to enhance their IPR efforts is a better approach to
facilitate further U.S.-Kazakhstani IPR cooperation and achieve
results on the grounds than returning Kazakhstan to Watch List
status. End Comment.
ORDWAY
Another earlier transmission:
VZCZCXYZ0002
RR RUEHWEB
DE RUEHTA #0555/01 0790307
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 190307Z MAR 08
FM AMEMBASSY ASTANA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 2042
UNCLAS ASTANA 000555
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
STATE FOR SCA/CEN (O'MARA) and EB/TPP/IBE (JBOGER)
STATE PASS USTR FOR JCHOE-GROVES
COMMERCE FOR ITA/MAC/OIPR (CPETERS)
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD [Foreign Trade], KIPR [Intellectual Property Rights],
ECON [Economic Conditions], KZ [Kazakhstan]
SUBJECT: KAZAKHSTAN: SPECIAL 301
REF: (A) STATE 09475 (B) 06 ASTANA 009 (C) 07 ASTANA 0454
-------
SUMMARY
-------
¶1. (SBU) Over the past year, the Government of Kazakhstan (GOK) has
continued to demonstrate a commitment to the development and
modernization of its IPR protection regime. Despite an increase in
the domestic production of pirated CD's and DVD's in Kazakhstan's
two largest cities, the GOK, and more specifically the IPR Committee
of the Ministry of Justice, continues to move forward in meeting
international standards and addressing the concerns of the
international community for the enhanced protection of IPR on the
legislative, judicial, and enforcement fronts. Facing a continuing
challenge to stem the flow of pirated goods from Russia and China,
the GOK has also proposed legislation to further empower customs
officials to seize counterfeit materials before they enter the
country. Although criminal sentencing remains at low levels, and
the lack of a public perception of the seriousness of IPR violations
is problematic, ongoing educational programs and proposed
legislative changes set to come to parliament for ratification in
late spring 2008 are expected to significantly improve the IPR
environment. Therefore, post recommends continuing Kazakhstan's
exclusion from the Special 301 Watch List. End Summary.
--------------------------------------------- ----
ENFORCEMENT INCREASES, BUT CRIMINAL SENTENCES LAG
--------------------------------------------- ----
¶2. (SBU) IPR enforcement efforts continue to increase, and the
numbers of convictions for administrative and criminal offenses grew
in the last year. According to combined 2007 statistics released by
the Ministry of Justice IPR Committee, and the Procurator General,
-- 1971 IPR-related raids were conducted. As a result of these
raids, 1418 entities (organizations and individuals) were charged
with administrative penalties;
-- 2670 administrative cases were initiated;
-- 20,250,755 KZT ($168,056) was collected in administrative fines
(compared to 14,385,725 KZT, or $116,013 in 2006);
-- 229,979 counterfeit copies valued at 132,369,884 KZT ($1,098,505)
with unlicensed or illegal trademarks were confiscated (compared to
121 million KZT, or $975,806, in 2006); and
-- 658 criminal cases were initiated (compared to 268 in 2006).
¶3. (SBU) Of the 658 criminal cases initiated in 2007, 447 were sent
to courts. Of these, 108 people were convicted under Part 1 of
Article 184 of the Criminal Code, one person was convicted under
Part 2, and 54 under Part 3. (NOTE: Parts 1-3 of Article 184
represent, in order, increasing categories of severity in both the
level of the offense and severity of punishment, based on amount of
damage, scale of the offense, repetition of the violation, etc. End
note.) Penalties for those convicted of violations of Article 184
vary. They include fines ranging from 100 to 700 times the Monthly
Calculation Unit (one Monthly Calculation Unit is currently set to
1,168 tenge, or $9.60), the confiscation of 5 to 10 months' wages,
community service of 100 to 240 hours, or imprisonment from 2 to 5
years and the possible confiscation of property.
¶4. (SBU) Despite the relatively high number of criminal
convictions, no data has been made available regarding sentencing.
According to an official at the General Prosecutor's Office, this
most likely indicates that no individuals have been incarcerated,
and that the criminal sentences were either reduced to
administrative penalties, or suspended. (Comment: The lack of jail
sentences remains of concern, indicating a continued perception
within the courts that copyright infringement alone, in the absence
of other criminal violations, does not merit incarceration. End
Comment.)
----------------------------
NEW AND CONTINUED CHALLENGES
----------------------------
¶5. (SBU) Outside of Kazakhstan's two largest cities (Almaty and
Astana), the vast majority of pirated media available originates in
Russia and China. Russia -- with its many railway links to northern
Kazakhstan -- presents a particular challenge for Kazakhstani
authorities. As noted by the IIPA, customs officials continue to
lack the ex officio authority required to seize counterfeit
materials at the borders, when they are discovered.
¶6. (SBU) According to private industry representatives, 2007 has
witnessed an increase in the availability and sales, particularly in
Almaty and Astana, of domestically produced counterfeit CD's and
DVD's. This is largely due to the increasing availability of
pirating technology and the willingness of small-time media pirates
to engage the police in the "cat and mouse" game of street sales.
Industry representatives assert that local police charged with
enforcing the prohibition of street sales are often unmotivated and
indifferent to the presence of such vendors, if not directly paid to
ignore them.
¶7. (SBU) The pursuit of rulings against IPR violators in civil
courts remains problematic because of legal norms carried over from
Soviet times. According to the Prosecutor General's office and
private industry representatives, this is particularly so when
licensed copyright holders attempt to sue vendors of pirated
material for damages. Under current IPR legislation, plaintiffs are
subjected to an unnecessarily heavy burden of proof, whereby they
are required to demonstrate a direct contractual link to the artist
or author whose pirated material is being illegally sold. (Note: An
example would be a direct contract between a performer and record
store. End note.) If a licensed copyright holder or distributor can
not substantiate this direct linkage, they can not, in the eyes of
the court, demonstrate financial damages caused by illegal sales.
In addition, civil claims must also be brought in a court in the
region where the infringement is alleged to have occurred. Regional
courts tend to lack regular exposure to -- and knowledge of -- this
relatively new and complex area of law, which has historically
inhibited the successful prosecution of violations.
------------------------
OPTICAL MEDIA PROTECTION
------------------------
¶8. (SBU) Two plants in Kazakhstan produce optical discs. One
specializes in films and music, the other in software. Both plants
have source identification codes (SID's) issued by the IFPI
(International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) and, as IIPA
notes, provide samples of their products for use as forensic
evidence.
----------------------------
SOFTWARE INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT
----------------------------
¶9. (SBU) According to local Microsoft representatives, all newly
procured government computers have licensed software. While some
older government computers may still be loaded with unlicensed
software, overall the Microsoft representative expressed strong
satisfaction with the government procurement situation. Most
recently, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the CEO of Samgau
(Kazakhstan's state-owned technology and innovation holding company)
signed an MOU on plans for future cooperation in the development of
educational technologies, as well as collaboration in IPR protection
and enforcement. Microsoft is recognized for its successful
engagement in defense of IPR in Russia; its enhanced partnership
with the GOK is expected to improve IPR protective capacity in
Kazakhstan, with a particularly heavy focus on the prevention of
internet-related piracy.
¶10. (SBU) Despite the positive relations developing between
Microsoft and the GOK, Microsoft representatives recommend that
Kazakhstan be placed on the Special 301 Watch List. Recent findings
from Microsoft-funded research indicated that levels of privately
used pirated (or unlicensed) software remains extremely high.
According to their data, 92.9 percent of privately owned PC's in
Kazakhstan utilize of illegally obtained software. (Note: Their data
also indicated that the overwhelming majority of respondents
believed piracy rates would decrease if the prices of commercially
available software were to be lowered. This opinion was also shared
by the General Prosecutor's Office. End note.)
--------------------------------------------- -----
SCHEDULED AND ENACTED IPR LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENTS
--------------------------------------------- -----
¶11. (SBU) During the reporting period, Kazakhstan continued to
pursue legislative changes that strengthen the government's hand in
protecting intellectual property rights. The legal basis for
preventing and prosecuting IPR violations remains the "Law on
Amending Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the
Issues of Intellectual Property", which entered into force on
November 26, 2005. This law amended the country's Criminal Code,
Criminal Procedure Code, Civil Code, Administrative Code, and the
Copyright Law as they pertain to the protection of intellectual
property (ref B). Amendments to the Patent Law were ratified in
2007, significantly simplifying the patent system (as compared with
the old Soviet two-stage system) and bringing it into closer
conformity with international standards.
¶12. (SBU) Proposed amendments to the Copyright Law, Law on Trade
Marks, Law on Licensing, and Customs Code are currently being
evaluated by independent experts. Proposed amendments to the
Copyright Law have been praised by private industry representatives
in as much as they directly address the weaknesses hindering
copyright enforcement in civil courts (see para 7 above). New
amendments will relieve IPR holders of the heavy burden of proof,
and will facilitate effective law enforcement. In accordance with
WIPO requirements, the draft amendments also detail the use of
technical means for the protection of copyrights, specifically
prohibiting the removal of any types of technical or coded copyright
protection technologies. The IPR Committee is confident that the
proposed amendments to the Licensing Law stipulating mandatory
licensing for the commercial reproduction of any copyright protected
audio and visual recordings meet WTO requirements. These amendments
are scheduled to come before Parliament in late May-early June
2008.
¶13. (SBU) Amendments to Customs Legislation granting ex officio
authority to customs agents are scheduled to come before Parliament
in November 2008. These amendments will grant customs agents the
authority to more readily seize counterfeit goods at the border,
which has long been recommended by the International Intellectual
Property Alliance (IIPA.)
-------------------------------------
IIPA REPORTING AND CONCERNS ADDRESSED
-------------------------------------
¶14. (SBU) Over the last several years, IIPA reporting has
consistently reiterated several concerns regarding the development
and efficacy of IPR protective measures in Kazakhstan. They have
also, however, continued to report several significant inaccuracies.
¶15. (SBU) The IIPA report states that "only the Ministry of Justice
(Copyright Office) and not the police can bring charges for
[administrative violations]" and recommends "that the existing
police authority be broadened to include administrative violations
as well." Article 620 of the Administrative Violations Code
specifically provides such powers to the police.
¶16. (SBU) The IIPA's assertion that the 2004 statutes only provide
for a 50-year term of copyright protection is inaccurate, as the
November 2005 amendments specifically provide for the extension of
copyright protection to 70 years, in keeping with international
standards.
¶17. (SBU) The IIPA repeats another error from its 2006 and 2007
reports, overstating the minimum damages threshold for criminal
prosecution. IIPA misinterprets what it calls "the key amendment"
in the November 2005 legislation. i.e., the change to Article 184 of
the Criminal Code, which repealed the undefined "huge damage"
threshold for criminal cases and replaced it with a threshold of 100
Monthly Calculation Units (MCU's). The IIPA incorrectly reported
that one MCU is the equivalent of 36,495 tenge ($304), when in fact
it is currently set to just 1,168 tenge ($9.60). Thus, the IIPA
overstates the all-important minimum damages threshold for criminal
prosecution by a factor of more than thirty.
¶18. (SBU) The IIPA cites Kazakhstan's need to establish a legal
basis for the confiscation and destruction of equipment used in the
criminal manufacture of pirated goods. The IPR Committee continues
to assure post that a combination of statutes in the Criminal Code
and the Criminal Procedure Code constitutes an adequate provision
for the confiscation of such equipment. Moreover, the IPR Committee
has stated that such confiscations are routinely carried out and do
not require a court order. A court order is necessary only to
destroy such equipment -- a procedural requirement which the IPR
Committee defends as necessary to preserve potentially material
evidence. It should also be noted that the abovementioned proposed
amendments to the Copyright Law will require judges, in the event of
a conviction, to make a ruling regarding the named piracy equipment.
This provision is expected to increase occasions in which
confiscated equipment will be destroyed.
-------
COMMENT
-------
¶19. (SBU) Kazakhstan's continued progress on and commitment to IPR
protection merits its continued exclusion from the Special 301 Watch
List. The efforts of the IPR Committee within the Ministry of
Justice are expected to bear fruit in 2008 in the ratification of
amendments to numerous IPR-related laws. Post takes growing private
sector participation in the enforcement of IPR as a very positive
indicator of progress. At this stage, acknowledging Kazakhstan's
significant achievements while stressing to the GOK that they must
continue to enhance their IPR efforts is a better approach to
facilitate further U.S.-Kazakhstani IPR cooperation and achieve
results on the grounds than returning Kazakhstan to Watch List
status. End Comment.
ORDWAY
And the final transmission from a couple of days earlier was as follows:
VZCZCXYZ0008
RR RUEHWEB
DE RUEHTA #0525/01 0771133
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 171133Z MAR 08 ZDK
FM AMEMBASSY ASTANA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 2019
UNCLAS ASTANA 000525
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
STATE FOR SCA/CEN (O'MARA) and EB/TPP/IBE (JBOGER)
STATE PASS USTR FOR JCHOE-GROVES
COMMERCE FOR ITA/MAC/OIPR (CPETERS)
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD [Foreign Trade], KIPR [Intellectual Property Rights],
ECON [Economic Conditions], KZ [Kazakhstan]
SUBJECT: KAZAKHSTAN: SPECIAL 301
REF: (A) STATE 09475 (B) 06 ASTANA 009 (C) 07 ASTANA 0454
-------
SUMMARY
-------
¶1. (SBU) Over the past year, the Government of Kazakhstan (GOK) has
continued to demonstrate a commitment to the development and
modernization of its IPR protection regime. Despite an increase in
the domestic production of pirated CD's and DVD's in Kazakhstan's
two largest cities, the GOK, and more specifically the IPR Committee
of the Ministry of Justice, continues to move forward in meeting
international standards and addressing the concerns of the
international community for the enhanced protection of IPR on the
legislative, judicial, and enforcement fronts. Facing a continuing
challenge to stem the flow of pirated goods from Russia and China,
the GOK has also proposed legislation to further empower customs
officials to seize counterfeit materials before they enter the
country. Although criminal sentencing remains at low levels, and
the lack of a public perception of the seriousness of IPR violations
is problematic, ongoing educational programs and proposed
legislative changes set to come to parliament for ratification in
late spring 2008 are expected to significantly improve the IPR
environment. Therefore, post recommends continuing Kazakhstan's
exclusion from the Special 301 Watch List. End Summary.
--------------------------------------------- ----
ENFORCEMENT INCREASES, BUT CRIMINAL SENTENCES LAG
--------------------------------------------- ----
¶2. (SBU) IPR enforcement efforts continue to increase, and the
numbers of convictions for administrative and criminal offenses grew
in the last year. According to combined 2007 statistics released by
the Ministry of Justice IPR Committee, and the Procurator General,
-- 1971 IPR-related raids were conducted. As a result of these
raids, 1418 entities (organizations and individuals) were charged
with administrative penalties;
-- 2670 administrative cases were initiated;
-- 20,250,755 KZT ($168,056) was collected in administrative fines
(compared to 14,385,725 KZT, or $116,013 in 2006);
-- 229,979 counterfeit copies valued at 132,369,884 KZT ($1,098,505)
with unlicensed or illegal trademarks were confiscated (compared to
121 million KZT, or $975,806, in 2006); and
-- 658 criminal cases were initiated (compared to 268 in 2006).
¶3. (SBU) Of the 658 criminal cases initiated in 2007, 447 were sent
to courts. Of these, 108 people were convicted under Part 1 of
Article 184 of the Criminal Code, one person was convicted under
Part 2, and 54 under Part 3. (NOTE: Parts 1-3 of Article 184
represent, in order, increasing categories of severity in both the
level of the offense and severity of punishment, based on amount of
damage, scale of the offense, repetition of the violation, etc. End
note.) Penalties for those convicted of violations of Article 184
vary. They include fines ranging from 100 to 700 times the Monthly
Calculation Unit (one Monthly Calculation Unit is currently set to
1,168 tenge, or $9.60), the confiscation of 5 to 10 months' wages,
community service of 100 to 240 hours, or imprisonment from 2 to 5
years and the possible confiscation of property.
¶4. (SBU) Despite the relatively high number of criminal
convictions, no data has been made available regarding sentencing.
According to an official at the General Prosecutor's Office, this
most likely indicates that no individuals have been incarcerated,
and that the criminal sentences were either reduced to
administrative penalties, or suspended. (Comment: The lack of jail
sentences remains of concern, indicating a continued perception
within the courts that copyright infringement alone, in the absence
of other criminal violations, does not merit incarceration. End
Comment.)
----------------------------
NEW AND CONTINUED CHALLENGES
----------------------------
¶5. (SBU) Outside of Kazakhstan's two largest cities (Almaty and
Astana), the vast majority of pirated media available originates in
Russia and China. Russia -- with its many railway links to northern
Kazakhstan -- presents a particular challenge for Kazakhstani
authorities. As noted by the IIPA, customs officials continue to
lack the ex officio authority required to seize counterfeit
materials at the borders, when they are discovered.
¶6. (SBU) According to private industry representatives, 2007 has
witnessed an increase in the availability and sales, particularly in
Almaty and Astana, of domestically produced counterfeit CD's and
DVD's. This is largely due to the increasing availability of
pirating technology and the willingness of small-time media pirates
to engage the police in the "cat and mouse" game of street sales.
Industry representatives assert that local police charged with
enforcing the prohibition of street sales are often unmotivated and
indifferent to the presence of such vendors, if not directly paid to
ignore them.
¶7. (SBU) The pursuit of rulings against IPR violators in civil
courts remains problematic because of legal norms carried over from
Soviet times. According to the Prosecutor General's office and
private industry representatives, this is particularly so when
licensed copyright holders attempt to sue vendors of pirated
material for damages. Under current IPR legislation, plaintiffs are
subjected to an unnecessarily heavy burden of proof, whereby they
are required to demonstrate a direct contractual link to the artist
or author whose pirated material is being illegally sold. (Note: An
example would be a direct contract between a performer and record
store. End note.) If a licensed copyright holder or distributor can
not substantiate this direct linkage, they can not, in the eyes of
the court, demonstrate financial damages caused by illegal sales.
In addition, civil claims must also be brought in a court in the
region where the infringement is alleged to have occurred. Regional
courts tend to lack regular exposure to -- and knowledge of -- this
relatively new and complex area of law, which has historically
inhibited the successful prosecution of violations.
------------------------
OPTICAL MEDIA PROTECTION
------------------------
¶8. (SBU) Two plants in Kazakhstan produce optical discs. One
specializes in films and music, the other in software. Both plants
have source identification codes (SID's) issued by the IFPI
(International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) and, as IIPA
notes, provide samples of their products for use as forensic
evidence.
----------------------------
SOFTWARE INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT
----------------------------
¶9. (SBU) According to local Microsoft representatives, all newly
procured government computers have licensed software. While some
older government computers may still be loaded with unlicensed
software, overall the Microsoft representative expressed strong
satisfaction with the government procurement situation. Most
recently, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the CEO of Samgau
(Kazakhstan's state-owned technology and innovation holding company)
signed an MOU on plans for future cooperation in the development of
educational technologies, as well as collaboration in IPR protection
and enforcement. Microsoft is recognized for its successful
engagement in defense of IPR in Russia; its enhanced partnership
with the GOK is expected to improve IPR protective capacity in
Kazakhstan, with a particularly heavy focus on the prevention of
internet-related piracy.
¶10. (SBU) Despite the positive relations developing between
Microsoft and the GOK, Microsoft representatives recommend that
Kazakhstan be placed on the Special 301 Watch List. Recent findings
from Microsoft-funded research indicated that levels of privately
used pirated (or unlicensed) software remains extremely high.
According to their data, 92.9 percent of privately owned PC's in
Kazakhstan utilize of illegally obtained software. (Note: Their data
also indicated that the overwhelming majority of respondents
believed piracy rates would decrease if the prices of commercially
available software were to be lowered. This opinion was also shared
by the General Prosecutor's Office. End note.)
--------------------------------------------- -----
SCHEDULED AND ENACTED IPR LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENTS
--------------------------------------------- -----
¶11. (SBU) During the reporting period, Kazakhstan continued to
pursue legislative changes that strengthen the government's hand in
protecting intellectual property rights. The legal basis for
preventing and prosecuting IPR violations remains the "Law on
Amending Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the
Issues of Intellectual Property", which entered into force on
November 26, 2005. This law amended the country's Criminal Code,
Criminal Procedure Code, Civil Code, Administrative Code, and the
Copyright Law as they pertain to the protection of intellectual
property (ref B). Amendments to the Patent Law were ratified in
2007, significantly simplifying the patent system (as compared with
the old Soviet two-stage system) and bringing it into closer
conformity with international standards.
¶12. (SBU) Proposed amendments to the Copyright Law, Law on Trade
Marks, Law on Licensing, and Customs Code are currently being
evaluated by independent experts. Proposed amendments to the
Copyright Law have been praised by private industry representatives
in as much as they directly address the weaknesses hindering
copyright enforcement in civil courts (see para 7 above). New
amendments will relieve IPR holders of the heavy burden of proof,
and will facilitate effective law enforcement. In accordance with
WIPO requirements, the draft amendments also detail the use of
technical means for the protection of copyrights, specifically
prohibiting the removal of any types of technical or coded copyright
protection technologies. The IPR Committee is confident that the
proposed amendments to the Licensing Law stipulating mandatory
licensing for the commercial reproduction of any copyright protected
audio and visual recordings meet WTO requirements. These amendments
are scheduled to come before Parliament in late May-early June
2008.
¶13. (SBU) Amendments to Customs Legislation granting ex officio
authority to customs agents are scheduled to come before Parliament
in November 2008. These amendments will grant customs agents the
authority to more readily seize counterfeit goods at the border,
which has long been recommended by the International Intellectual
Property Alliance (IIPA.)
-------------------------------------
IIPA REPORTING AND CONCERNS ADDRESSED
-------------------------------------
¶14. (SBU) Over the last several years, IIPA reporting has
consistently reiterated several concerns regarding the development
and efficacy of IPR protective measures in Kazakhstan. They have
also, however, continued to report several significant inaccuracies.
¶15. (SBU) The IIPA report states that "only the Ministry of Justice
(Copyright Office) and not the police can bring charges for
[administrative violations]" and recommends "that the existing
police authority be broadened to include administrative violations
as well." Article 620 of the Administrative Violations Code
specifically provides such powers to the police.
¶16. (SBU) The IIPA's assertion that the 2004 statutes only provide
for a 50-year term of copyright protection is inaccurate, as the
November 2005 amendments specifically provide for the extension of
copyright protection to 70 years, in keeping with international
standards.
¶17. (SBU) The IIPA repeats another error from its 2006 and 2007
reports, overstating the minimum damages threshold for criminal
prosecution. IIPA misinterprets what it calls "the key amendment"
in the November 2005 legislation. i.e., the change to Article 184 of
the Criminal Code, which repealed the undefined "huge damage"
threshold for criminal cases and replaced it with a threshold of 100
Monthly Calculation Units (MCU's). The IIPA incorrectly reported
that one MCU is the equivalent of 36,495 tenge ($304), when in fact
it is currently set to just 1,168 tenge ($9.60). Thus, the IIPA
overstates the all-important minimum damages threshold for criminal
prosecution by a factor of more than thirty.
¶18. (SBU) The IIPA cites Kazakhstan's need to establish a legal
basis for the confiscation and destruction of equipment used in the
criminal manufacture of pirated goods. The IPR Committee continues
to assure post that a combination of statutes in the Criminal Code
and the Criminal Procedure Code constitutes an adequate provision
for the confiscation of such equipment. Moreover, the IPR Committee
has stated that such confiscations are routinely carried out and do
not require a court order. A court order is necessary only to
destroy such equipment -- a procedural requirement which the IPR
Committee defends as necessary to preserve potentially material
evidence. It should also be noted that the abovementioned proposed
amendments to the Copyright Law will require judges, in the event of
a conviction, to make a ruling regarding the named piracy equipment.
This provision is expected to increase occasions in which
confiscated equipment will be destroyed.
-------
COMMENT
-------
¶19. (SBU) Kazakhstan's continued progress on and commitment to IPR
protection merits its continued exclusion from the Special 301 Watch
List. The efforts of the IPR Committee within the Ministry of
Justice are expected to bear fruit in 2008 in the ratification of
amendments to numerous IPR-related laws. Post takes growing private
sector participation in the enforcement of IPR as a very positive
indicator of progress. At this stage, acknowledging Kazakhstan's
significant achievements while stressing to the GOK that they must
continue to enhance their IPR efforts is a better approach to
facilitate further U.S.-Kazakhstani IPR cooperation and achieve
results on the grounds than returning Kazakhstan to Watch List
status. End Comment.
ORDWAY
Many other countries receive the same treatment. It’s imperialistic. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.21.11
Posted in Bill Gates, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 10:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Yet more blatant promotion of Monsanto’s food monopolies, courtesy of Monsanto investors and publicists
TECHRIGHTS has written dozens of posts about Monsanto and about Gates’ lobbying for their monopoly on seeds (and food). For Gates, solving the world’s hunger needs to be a profitable enterprise and he wants to be part of the profit-making. Some even allege that by doing so Gates actually creates “food shortages”. To quote:
According to Reuters the Gates Foundation has a long history in agricultural development, spending over $2 billion for projects in developing countries including partnering with agricultural industry heavy weights Monsanto and Cargill.
The Seattle Times reports the Gates Foundation bought 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock between April and June 2010 to a total value of $27.6 million.
Do not be deceived by those big numbers of supposed “donation”. When one issues a “licence” to use a seed (not the same as giving a seed), this is not a donation. It’s seeding the market, both figuratively and literally. Using the “Bill Gates” brand (which Gates spends over a million dollar per day promoting), Monsanto is advancing a very malicious agenda and investigative journalists who actually do their work give voice to the other side in this debate:
Day said her organization welcomes the Gates Foundation interest in trying to help smallholder farmers in Africa. But she said the philanthropy’s approach, with its emphasis on science and technology, is really most favorable to the large agricultural corporations like Monsanto and Cargill.
Indeed. This is what all publications ought to be saying, but they don’t. They have been paralysed and put in a state of fear of criticising Gates. The PR industry that Gates has been using for the past decade has made one a borderline “k00k”for even suggesting that Gates is not a villain-turned-hero. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.15.11
Posted in Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Patents at 1:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photo by Jon Åslund
Summary: An analogy is being used to exemplify the absurdity of patenting ideas for 20 years, coming from the same person who has urged for patents rethink for several years
Rick Falkvinge, a former Microsoft employee whom we mentioned here before on many occasions [1, 2], is a good activist. He moved away from his Microsoft roots and proceeded to making a Pirate Party. He is a reformist.
In interesting news, Masnick draws people’s attention to an interesting patents analogy:
Rick Falkvinge has posted a thought-provoking piece that analogizes the patent system to various forms of web caching and their impact on discussions. As he notes, in online discussion forums and blogs, if there’s a delay from when your comment is made to when it appears, the conversations tend to be slower and less involved. It gets really bad when all comments need to be moderated and that’s because you don’t get that immediate fulfillment. Honestly, one of the reasons why I think Twitter took off at the level it did was because it felt so realtime (and became more so over time).
Here is the original piece (from Sweden), stating: “Now, imagine a twenty-year web cache server. If you come up with a good idea, people won’t be able to improve on your ideas and take them to the next level for twenty years. Another twenty for a total of forty years before you could respond in turn. You suffer. They suffer. The exchange of ideas as a whole doesn’t just suffer, it crawls to a near-stop, its velocity measurable only by laser precision measurements.”
Is it reassuring to see people who depart from the sociopaths of Microsoft (currently extorting rivals with patents) and see the light. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.10.11
Posted in Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 3:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: “Miguel and his team can expect to be spending much time in the company of lawyers,” says The Guardian
Xamarin trademarks are an issue we wrote about before. It is an issue so prominent (yet under-covered) that should be enough to deter potential investors. Well, it turns out that our analysis was right on point even though nobody else covered those points. Microsoft’s MVP de Icaza “set up Xamarin, a company with one purpose: to recreate the MonoTouch and MonoDroid products and create something called Xamarin Studio,” explains the Bill Gates-funded Guardian (giving publicity to Mono).
Quoing further: “This idea seems strange when you look at it. Often when an employee of Company A leaves and sets up Company B that produces identical products those that he built whilst working for Company A, Company A will sue Company B out of existence. It’s hard to see how Xamarin Studio can possibly have anything other than a very short life, unless of course Novell grants or sells the appropriate intellectual property over to Miguel’s new organisation. I, for one, would feel far more confident about recommending MonoTouch and MonoDroid if they were more upfront about this.
“I’ve repeatedly asked Xamarin and Novell to comment on this issue, to no avail.”
–The Guardian“To me this comes down to whether it was deliberately killed or whether it just stopped being of interest to Novell. Obviously if it was deliberately killed, Miguel and his team can expect to be spending much time in the company of lawyers. If Novell is just not particularly interested, I’m sure they’d welcome to competition. Perhaps they would even gift the IP over.
“I’ve repeatedly asked Xamarin and Novell to comment on this issue, to no avail.”
Wow. Isn’t that a bummer? So the whole project/company is at danger of being sued by more than one party. Typically they get coverage from Microsoft boosters who love promoting .NET. The funny thing is that in Planet SUSE we’ve just found ‘The «Banshee» incident’. Mono gets a little less love in SUSE circles, which are mostly located in Europe (unlike Mono which is in the Boston area).
Almost nobody seems to have mentioned the fact that Canonical is dropping Evolution, just that it is embracing Thunderbird. Since Ubuntu already removes this one Novell/Ximian component, why not another (Banshee and Mono from Novell)? We shall see if Canonical comes to its senses and responds to the patent threat of Mono now that Microsoft extorts many companies using patents. we can always hope. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.24.11
Posted in Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Patents at 10:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Pirate Party of New Zealand stands up for the interests of New Zealand (NZ) and commends Simon Power for disowning foreign interests
New Zealand’s patent law is under attack by companies from America. They want NZ-based companies to have NZ-hostile laws. Microsoft in particular is trying to colonise and subjugate NZ-based companies by changing the law of this distant foreign country, using lies, lobbyists, and subversion of political processes. We gave a lot of evidence before. Microsoft does not always do this behind proxies.
According to this new press release from the Pirate Party of NZ, “Pirate Party condemns pro-patent spin on software patents” and its co-leader Bruce Kingsbury “condemned the suggestion that software patents may be required in New Zealand law.”
“There is no ‘inventive step’ in software development,” he wrote, “as would be required for patenting.”
He then names Microsoft’s role in the lobbying. “Microsoft’s attempt to spin this as a change of position or some insurmountable problem with the select committee’s decision is little more than a last-minute attempt by them to subvert the democratic process to their own advantage” (Microsoft uses allies and lobbying groups to do this too).
He ends with some kind words for Mr. Power, whom we mentioned some days ago (EN | ES). “We congratulate Commerce Minster Simon Power and the Government for continuing to support the select committee’s recommendation and doing what is best for New Zealand software developers and the wider IT community. We hope the Government will continue to resist this unwelcome pressure from foreign interests’ lobby groups,” concludes the press release. Thanks to the Pirate Party of New Zealand for these constructive words. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 10:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Innovators are not businessmen and businessmen are not innovators
Summary: Distortion of language and euphemistic spin/lies are being devised in order to harm innovation and promote monopolisation (with stagnation) instead
The words that receive bad reputation are often essential to explaining key ideas. By ruining those words, those who wish to impede particular lines of operation or thinking may succeed. Hollywood likes using the word “pirate” and the mainstream press loves making use of the word “conspiracy” (as in, one company colludes or conspires with another, e.g. price-fixing) to become a loaded term and thus its use discouraged.
As we explained here several times before (although not with sufficient emphasis), the big people with big money and big monopolies have been co-opting the word “innovation” to promote “monopolisation”. They try to sell to people the illusion that patent monopolies are required for the industry to move forward. It’s one of those patterns of deception — those talking points that go along with “job creation” and “free market” (meaning freedom to corporations, i.e. deregulation). To counter the spin we must realise and recognise the truth, which does not at all agree with those talking points, neither theoretically nor empirically. A glance at history helps resolve these false dilemmas and call the lobbyists “liars”. They are paid to deceive politicians as well as the public (although the public cannot write legislation directly).
According to this new article, something called “declaration of innovation” (euphemism-gasm!) turns out to be a Trojan horse for — you’ve guessed it — lobbying:
Gary Shapiro, president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), announced the launch of the Declaration of Innovation, an online pledge for Americans to sign in support of policies that ensure innovation remains the strategic advantage of the United States of America.
CEA’s Innovation Movement urges lawmakers to support policies that promote innovation. The Declaration of Innovation specifically states:
“We believe American innovators should be able to buy and sell their products around the world.
“We believe that more spectrum must be available for wireless broadband.
“We believe in welcoming the best and brightest minds to the United States.
“We believe in cutting the federal deficit.”
It is a great call which I think will remain incomplete as long as monopolies and messy Software Patent Laws exist in the US.
Conspicuously missing from many such petitions are discouragements of patents. When the lobbyists push for something called “innovation” they usually beg for more patents to be granted and their funding sources (to which they are a front) turn out to be big businesses that want to erect fences around themselves, to essentially stifle competition. We recently wrote about the SME Innovation Alliance, which is actually against SME interests. They are talking utter nonsense and the latest debunking comes from Mr. Masnick, who notes that they are just lobbyists for software patents, even in the UK where these are not permitted (and rightly so):
[T]he UK does have a software industry. Apparently Mitchell just doesn’t know where to look. Furthermore, plenty of countries that don’t recognize software patents have a software industry. Why would he argue otherwise? Either way, I would think this seems like good evidence for why innovative companies should not want to be a part of the SME Innovation Alliance, as the organization’s views seem woefully out of touch on actual innovation.
It is out of touch with SMEs as well. Based on its site we cannot even tell who is funding this thing. A disclosure would be nice.
It should be noted that this problem is not unique to just patents on software and even some mechanical companies have woes to testify about.
Over the past week we found and shared 3 headlines that celebrate innovation in the context of Free software. This is good. We are taking back the word innovation and not allowing it to just become synonymous with patents. The likes of the lobbying groups (that sometimes put “innovation” in their name or events they organise) would like people to believe that Free/open source software is a threat to innovation, despite the fact that a lot of today’s innovation comes from academia, where scientific findings and code are largely shared. Innovation is a dog whistle that can affect politicians, so we must make an attempt to take that back and associate innovation with sharing. As we showed last year, the word “innovative” (or “novel”) is used interchangeably to mean “patent-encumbered” (or “patent pending”) and the same word is currently being misused by US-based companies that try to change NZ’s patent law (Intel for example). This will be the subject of our next post. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
