ACTA Set To Cover Not Just Copyrights & Trademarks, But Seven Areas Of IP

from the stretching-the-law dept

Tue, Mar 23rd 2010 6:30am — Mike Masnick

The folks who created ACTA were already sneaky enough in describing it as an "anti-counterfeiting" agreement, when they knew all along it went way beyond issues related to counterfeiting. For a while, it's been obvious that it was also very much (perhaps more than counterfeiting) about copyright, but it's actually about much more than that. We already mentioned that it is designed to cover patents as well. Now, KEI has looked at another leaked draft document, and notes that the draft sneaks in the fact that it's designed to cover seven different areas of intellectual property. In typical sneaky fashion, it doesn't come out and list them directly, but in the definitions section, defines "intellectual property" as "refers to all categories of intellectual property that are the subject of section 1 through part 7 of Part II of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights." Basically, it's saying that it's accepting the definition in a totally different document, from TRIPs. So, what's in that document?

Copyright and Related Rights
Trademarks
Geographical Indications
Industrial Designs
Patents
Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits
Protection of Undisclosed Information

Note how little of that has anything to do with counterfeiting -- which is mostly just a trademark issue.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: acta, copyright, counterfeiting, intellectual property, patents, trademark

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2010 @ 6:41am

dear God IC layouts designs are patentable!?!!?
explain why that happened please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ima Fish (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:03am
  
  Re:
  Apparently they are not patentable. If they were patentable, they would not need their own separate protection.
  
  Both Industrial Designs and Layout-Design seem very broad. I thought business patents were bad, but these seem utterly arbitrary and designed to protect the status quo.
  
  How will upstarts be able to innovate when corporations have monopolies not only on their patents, their busines model, their copyrights, and arbitrarily on their designs?!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:26am
    
    Re: Re: Status Quo
    "Status Quo" is exactly correct.
    Will the wars of the next generation be over "Hey, you infringed on our (bullshit) treaties!"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - senshikaze (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 8:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Status Quo
      sadly, yes.
      
      The corporations holding patents, and the governments they controls will sooner or later go up against the people they "server" or "protect".
      
      There are many things that are good to fight for. patents and the right to create *should* not be one of them. it will pointless and all around bloody when it happens.
      
      unless 1984 comes first, then we are all screwed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2010 @ 1:28pm
  
  Re:
  IC topography protection has been part of US law since the enactment of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984. It can be found at 17 U.S.C. §§ 901-914.
  
  Importantly, the protection provided is very narrow in scope.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bikey, 24 Mar 2010 @ 2:23pm
  
  Re: ACTA and IC
  I haven't seen the provision but nothing in this post says ICs will be patentable. Even ACTA couldn't pull that off (watch your back Bikey).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrSonPopo, 23 Mar 2010 @ 6:48am

I'm saddened by ACTA. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:05am
  
  Re:
  Be happy its the new drug war, un winable, it will make private corporations a ton of money, it allows the government to say its not our fault you are poor and stupid its those pesky pirates, it will take 20 years for it to come crashing down, it will create a huge interneational bureaucracy, limit those pesky freedoms, and generally limit the advancement of science.
  
  So rejoice MrSonPopo we are one step closer to a world government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trevor, 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:01am

bait and switch
Talk about bait and switch! They start by claiming that it's all about counterfeiting, which is just one of the may forms of trademark infringement and which resonates negatively with everyone or, at least, almost every one, and then they go ahead and include EVERYTHING IP-related in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:06am

The seven deadly sins. Very appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:15am
  
  Re:
  "The seven deadly sins. "
  
  Funny you mention that with how big pharma is already able to deny access to generic meds ... very deadly ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Txknight (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:07am

so you have the same angle on the wire connecting circuits that I do, you must have stolen my IP and I must sue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:10am

each of those items has everything to do with counterfeit goods. from stealing trademarks to copyright design including ic layouts. it is all part of the same deal. how could you fake a gucci bag without faking the gucci logo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- a different AC, 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:33am
  
  Re:
  logos are already protected under current trademark law. copyrights and patents are also covered (more than adequately) under existing law. having patents extend to ic (integrated circuit) layouts is stupid. that would be like patenting the layout of a room to improve feng shui. ACTA is trying to add more draconian "protections" to existing law under the auspices of int'l consensus on enforcement of IP and thereby side stepping the legislative process. It's a smoke screen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SomeGuy (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:38am
  
  Re:
  Faking the Gucci logo is a trademark offense; as the article notes, couterfeiting is really just a subset of trademark.
  
  Also, counterfeiting is essentially a crime against the consumer, who thinks he's buying brand quality, not the company in question (people who can afford Gucci don't buy knock-offs, and vice versa).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    Why don't they do their normal legislative garbage and just pass a law requiring all counterfeit/knock-off reproductions to have a permanent tag which say "copy" (or something like that)?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Overcast (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 8:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why don't they do their normal legislative garbage and just pass a law requiring all counterfeit/knock-off reproductions to have a permanent tag which say "copy" (or something like that)?
      
      Because they like to bury other pork in the legislation, plus someone's probably going to make a big load of cash off something, somehow.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    people who can afford gucci might end up buying fake by mistake. counterfeiting is a crime against the consumer and the original producer. it defrauds the consumer and can tarnish the name and reputation of the original producer. to say that these items have nothing to do with counterfeiting shows masnick doesnt understand the concept very well and is just disagreeing with acta no matter what.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - a different AC, 23 Mar 2010 @ 8:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Note how little of that has anything to do with counterfeiting -- which is mostly just a trademark issue.
      
      Trademark was #2 in the list of 7 things. I think "...how little of that..." describes 1/7 pretty well. Trademark law is well established, and defines what is and is not counterfeit. Mike is pointing out that the ACTA is getting it's definition of IP from a different document that describes IP in 7 terms, 6 of which do not cover counterfeiting goods. They may be related, but counterfeiting is a trademark issue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2010 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think the only thing we're being shown is your lack of reading comprehension.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2010 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oops, replied to wrong one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danny (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:24am

LOL
I have one thing to say about offering IP protection for graphical indications:

:-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 23 Mar 2010 @ 8:33am

Remember
That under the United States Constitution that a Senate Ratified Treaty is the supreme law of the land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joel (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 10:01am

What's next?
ACTA folks working hard... Well I guess this is what the future will hold!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2010 @ 10:19am

ACTA: The Anti-Citizen Trade Agreement

If the 20th century was the American century than the 21st century will be the century of the citizen.

"Consumer. There called consumers, not citizens."

I rest my case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yuregininsesi, 24 Jun 2010 @ 4:19pm

logos are already protected under current trademark law. copyrights and patents are also covered (more than adequately) under existing law. having patents extend to ic (integrated circuit) layouts is stupid. that would be like patenting the layout of a room to improve feng shui. ACTA is trying to add more draconian "protections" to existing law under the auspices of int'l consensus on enforcement of IP and thereby side stepping the legislative process. It's a smoke screen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]