Human Rights Groups Complain About Special 301 Process

from the not-just-a-joke dept

Mon, Jul 19th 2010 2:16am — Mike Masnick

We've talked in the past about what a complete joke the USTR's "special 301" process is. That's when a bunch of industry lobbyists say which countries are the most annoying to them on intellectual property issues. Then, the USTR sums it all up and says "these countries are problems" and tells US diplomats to go browbeat those countries to have better intellectual property laws and enforcement. Of course, the problem is that there's no objective research being done. All of the information is heavily biased, and it doesn't take into account either the actual laws or enforcement in a country (just what industry reps say is going on) or the rights of those countries to make their own decisions when it comes to IP laws.

Over and over again, I've heard various government officials and lawyers -- even those who are generally supportive of our current intellectual property regime -- scoff or roll their eyes about the Special 301 report. It's basically considered a joke by nearly everyone. However, when a joke is costing people lives and access to necessary medicine, then perhaps it becomes a serious problem. A group of Human Rights organizations have come together to challenge the Special 301 process, saying that it's being used to push policies that go beyond what the law requires, and which are causing real harm worldwide. They're saying this actually violates our human rights obligations:

"Since its inception in 1988, the United States Trade Representative's "Special 301" adjudication of foreign intellectual property law standards has been used to promote policies restricting access to affordable medications around the world. President-elect Obama released a platform promising to "break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on these life-saving drugs" and pledged support for "the rights of sovereign nations to access quality-assured, low-cost generic medication to meet their pressing public health needs." The 2009 and 2010 Special 301 reports, however, indicate that the Obama Administration has not yet implemented this pledge. Although the 2010 Report shows some improvement, the Obama Administration continues using Special 301 to pressure developing countries to adopt escalating intellectual property rules that are not required by any international agreement and that will negatively impact access to medicines. This complaint will allege that the continuation of Special 301 attacks on policies promoting access to affordable medicaitons abroad violates international human rights obligations."

So if we're going to argue over "international obligations" (which I tend to find to be a red herring in most cases), and two sets are conflicting... which are more important? International obligations on human rights? Or the ones protecting a few big conglomerates from competition?

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: copyright, special 301, ustr

15 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Blatant Coward (profile), 19 Jul 2010 @ 3:02am

Conglomerates have more people, so helping them helps more people! Especially for the fine people working for *this opinion for sale or rent*!!! Wow! they do a lot of good!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2010 @ 3:20am

Hi Mr Hyppocrite before criticizing the USTR 301 please look at yourself. I hate the USTR but at least they have a straight agenda unlike someone we know who is an extreme faggot who doesn't understand whatever the hell he is spouting but spouts anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 19 Jul 2010 @ 3:54am

Re: FAIL
Good thing we have YOU to put him in his place then, because YOU know exactly what you're talking about. Right, Pink Coward?

It seems to me you are comparing the objectivity of an internet blog with the objectivity of an official .gov report. A blog can be as subjective as it likes, no problem. When a .gov report is as subjective as a blog, we have a problem, non?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 19 Jul 2010 @ 4:13am

Intertwining of gov't and industry,
is the essential problem of your first paragraph, above that they're making stuff up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Blueshit Coward, 19 Jul 2010 @ 4:47am

Oh reallY? CC. Here is a Code Geass fag... thank you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 19 Jul 2010 @ 5:13am

Re:
ReallY, Pink Coward, you are welcome! Here's a hippocrite :D
http://tinyurl.com/39pkkd8
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 19 Jul 2010 @ 5:23am

IP
Once again business is running government. Somewhere along the line someone convinced the government that whatever is good for business is good for America. Sad...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 19 Jul 2010 @ 5:27am

Re: Re:
Now that we can tell one AC from another, it's best if you not feed the really bad ones, non? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keven Sutton (profile), 19 Jul 2010 @ 5:30am

Re:
[Citation Needed]

Oh, and by the way kids, don't feed the trolls. They just like the attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 19 Jul 2010 @ 5:30am

Re: IP
Somewhere along the line someone convinced the government that whatever is good for business is good for America

Which is almost completely true; problem is, the government is not convinced of this and has generally done exactly the opposite. What the government has done for "business" is really anti-business and for the benefit of a few specific entities that line the Obama administration's (or some influential Congressman's) pockets the highest at the expense of the public and business in general.

If the government were actually friendly to businesses, it wouldn't be so overwhelmingly pro-union, pro-tax, pro-interventionist(including IP restrictions), and so generally hostile to a free market like they are here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 19 Jul 2010 @ 5:37am

Re: Re: Re:
Bien sur. Just enjoying the fancy new feature while it's new. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 19 Jul 2010 @ 5:44am

Re: Re: IP
You're saying that as if Obama has been in office for the last hundred years.

The government has been favoring businesses over the people for a long time, whether its all businesses or just the ones lining the pockets of the current administration or their opponents across the aisle.

We live in a truly free market, one in which politicians provide a service to companies for a price and legislation is just a commodity to be bought and sold.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

NAMELESS.ONE, 19 Jul 2010 @ 6:02am

slander and defamtion of character
canada has a cdr levy
if they say it, why is not our govt defending out character
because its a treasonous wannabe american bunch a twits.

and i dare any american to come ot canada and put in writing
we are pirates for downloading music
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 19 Jul 2010 @ 6:06am

Re: Re: Re: IP
The government has been favoring special interests - not just businesses - for a long time, because such is the inherent nature of big government.

Regulatory capture, cronyism, and other forms of government intervention for the furtherment of politicians' personal interests are the antithesis of a free market. I don't think it means what you think it means...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 19 Jul 2010 @ 12:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: IP
I'm saying that "free market" means more than you think it means. A free market is one that is free from regulation. The politicians and the special interests who buy them off aren't being regulated. This is the meta-market in which markets are bought and sold out and obsolete business models are codified with laws. Libertarians try to argue that an unregulated market would regulate itself, but an unregulated market is just a power vacuum waiting for the next greedy/clever person to exploit it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]