Mexico Will Ask To Join US-EU Transatlantic Trade Agreement

from the really-getting-serious dept

Things are moving fast with the proposed US-EU transatlantic free trade agreement (TAFTA). It was only a few weeks ago that the formal announcement was made, and already another country wants to join, as pointed out by @PostActa (original in Spanish):

The Mexican government wants to be part of the negotiations of the Transatlantic Association of Trade and Investment (TTIP, in its English acronym), which the United States and European Union will be negotiating, with the idea that there will be two blocks that make up the future pact.

That is, alongside the EU block of 27 countries, Mexico is suggesting there should be a similar regional grouping in North America. Interestingly, the story says that the Mexican government will ask the US President for permission to join, with no mention of asking the EU:

"It is a sovereign decision of Washington as to the approach and the negotiation strategy to be adopted", and although the U.S. government has already referred to the idea, it is something that is not yet included in a formal dialogue, and needs to be defined.

That suggests that the US is actively involved in this latest move -- maybe even its instigator -- and would look favorably on Mexico joining TAFTA. There's also a hint in the article quoted above that Canada too might join TAFTA. Having both Mexico and Canada on board would be consistent with the US's past approach, where it allowed them to join the TPP negotiations, but on fairly humiliating terms that limit their scope of action.

Whether or not Mexico and Canada become part of TAFTA, and under what terms, it's pretty clear what the US strategy here is. Just today we learned that South Korea is likely to join Japan in asking to sign up to the TPP talks. That would make TPP the defining international agreement for the entire Pacific region. TAFTA obviously aims to do the same for the Atlantic. As well as establishing the US as the key link between the giant TPP and TAFTA blocs, this double-headed approach would also isolate the main emerging economies -- Brazil, Russia, India and above all China -- if they refuse to join as presumably junior partners. That globe-spanning pair of trade pacts, it would seem, are what Obama hopes to be remembered for when he leaves office: his legacy to America -- and to history.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: eu, europe, intellectual property, mexico, tafta, trade agreements, us

Court Orders Yahoo To Pay Mexican Yellow Pages Companies $2.7 Billion In Mystery Case

from the billion-with-a-'b' dept

We've covered stories about the Yellow Pages and other directory companies in the past, as their business and general worth appears to be just short of evaporated, but this is a strange one. Frustratingly, there is a chasm worth of unknowns in this story, and not just by us here at Techdirt, but apparently by some of the players involved. Details are scant, due to the Mexican court system not having the kind of transparency of legal documents that we have here in the States. What we do know is that the result of a mystery lawsuit by two companies against Yahoo for "breach of contract, breach of promise, and lost profits arising from contracts related to a yellow pages listings service" is that Yahoo has been ordered to pay up $2.7 Billion (yes, with a "b") dollars. While the entire case represents something of a mystery to nearly everyone commenting on it, one commonality seems to be that everyone is confused.

If the ruling stands, Yahoo would be forced to part with nearly 36% of the $7.56 billion in cash it had as of September 30. It would be one of the first major challenges faced by CEO Marissa Mayer, who took the helm at Yahoo in July.

J. P. Morgan analyst Doug Anmuth was similarly stumped. A research note he issued Monday focused on the ruling, around which he said there is "little clarity." It's unclear how the court came to the $2.7 billion figure for the judgment, but Anmuth said it "appears high based on the seemingly small size of Yahoo's business in Mexico."

No one really seems to know what the hell is going on here, except everyone commenting agrees that the judgment amount is insane. That said, I should also note that the judgment is not final and that Yahoo is promising to exhaust every appeal avenue afforded to them, which you'd expect given that there's over a third of their cash assets on the line. Adding to the mystery of the case is the fact that not only are court documents unavailable, but virtually nobody is commenting on the matter either.

The lawsuit was brought by Worldwide Directories S.A. de C.V. and Ideas Interactivas S.A. de C.V. against Yahoo and Yahoo de Mexico, Yahoo said.

The companies could not be reached for comment, although Carlos Bazan-Canabal, who describes himself as a founder of Worldwide Directories, told Reuters via email that he had contracted a U.S.-based law firm to handle the Yahoo case. He declined to comment further on the matter.

For what it's worth, investors don't seem to think that the massive judgment is worth selling of Yahoo shares, as of yesterday, but with so few details it's hard to know what's going on. One thing is for certain, however: if judgments like these are validated, it would be a bright signal to tech companies throughout the world to avoid doing business in Mexico.

Filed Under: judgments, mexico, mystery, yellow pages
Companies: yahoo

Just In Time For The Holiday Season, Apple Loses iPhone Trademark In Mexico

from the live-by-IP,-die-by-IP dept

When it comes to trademark bullies, Apple is one of the more prolific muscle-flexers in the arena. For some time now, they've been known to be extremely aggressive over their trademarks. From the idea of having an apple in a company's logo, to the name of one's store for mobile applications, all the way to how you offer their products in your own company's contests, Apple defends their marks the way a jealous puppy defends a rawhide.

That's why, while we may agree that aggressive trademark enforcement is at times overblown and unnecessary, it's really rather fun to watch Apple have the trademark stick wrestled from their grips and get beaten over the head with it, such as when Mexico invalidates their use of the "iPhone" mark in commerce within their country. And just in time for Christmas, too! The following is a wonderful story about how a Mexican telecom company already had a mark for iFone, but even more interesting is the long history Apple has of arrogantly bullying everyone else over their attempt to validate the iPhone mark.

The Mexican company registered the trademark iFone way back in 2003, full four years before Apple filed to trademark the name iPhone (which was already owned by Linksys in US, more about that later). Apple, despite fully aware of the fact that the Mexican company owned the trademark since 2004, sued them in 2009 to invalidate the iFone trademark. So Apple wanted iFone brand to be invalidated, which was filed in 2004, because it was similar to iPhone name which was filed in 2007.

Apparently, Apple's argument for invalidating the pre-existing iFone mark in Mexico went something along the lines of, "Hey, we're Apple." This, as the article goes on to note, is something Apple did that adds to their longstanding history of not giving a damn about anyone else's trademarks. You may recall that the iPhone mark was originally owned in the US by Cisco, who settled with Apple on use of the mark. But back to iFone.

It turns out that the Mexican courts were understandably unimpressed with Apple's possibly trademarked "Hey, we're Apple" legal argument. They upheld the iFone mark and now Apple can't use the iPhone term inside of Mexico.

It means a lot of trouble for "sue first talk later" Apple which is engaged in dozens of lawsuits around the world. This decision will have a huge impact on Apple's market in Mexico and they now won't be able to use the name iPhone in the country - this decision coming before the holiday season is nothing short of A Nightmare At The Mexico City for Apple.

Apple needs to hold its horses back. It needs to stop its "sue everyone else" drive as it has started to come back and bite them.

Which is the problem with lawsuit-happy companies like Apple. They escalate the war to the point where their own extremism is met with opposite extremism to combat it. Is this whole trademark nonsense necessary? Probably not. I can't claim to be an expert on how the average Mexican citizen associates something that says iFone with Apple, but I'm guessing they're smart and in-tune with technology enough that they know the two aren't related. I could be wrong about that, but there's one thing I'm not wrong about.

It's immensely entertaining to see aggressive IP folks get bit in the ass by their own tactics.

Filed Under: iphone, mexico, trademark
Companies: apple

Mexican Legislature Scolds Executive Branch For Signing ACTA

from the not-easily-convinced dept

As we noted recently, Mexico's executive branch surprised a lot of people recently by having its ambassador to Japan sign ACTA (just as people were claiming that ACTA was dead in the country). Of course, this came after the Congress had very specifically called for the Mexican President to reject ACTA (long before other countries and the EU Parliament began realizing ACTA was a problem). As we noted, Mexico's IP Office has been telling people that it's sure that it can convince the Mexican Congress to come around to supporting ACTA.

That may be a tougher battle than they originally expected, however. Both houses of the legislature have now passed resolutions condemning the decision to sign ACTA, sometimes with rather pointed language. From the InfoJustice writeup linked here:

The Senate resolution, sponsored by Sens. Francisco Javier Castellon Fonseca, Carlos Sotelo Garcia, Maria Beatriz Zavala Peniche, and Dip. Rodrigo Perez-Alonso Gonzale rejects the signing because it didn’t respect Mexican law on the approval of international economic treaties; it ignored the official Senate recommendation of September 6, 2011; and it violated domestic law and human rights.  This resolution asks the President to take the steps necessary to revoke Mexico's signature from the agreement, and it asks the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to prepare a report on the reasoning behind the signing of the agreement.

The Chamber of Deputies resolution, sponsored by Dep. Jaime Aguilar Alvarez rejects ACTA and calls the executive's disregard of the legislature on this matter an “authoritarian and unilateral stance.”

It does not look like the Congress is going to be convinced to support the ratification of ACTA any time soon.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, mexico, senate, signatures

Google To Help Take On Mexican Drug Cartels

from the do-no-evil dept

Normally when we talk about Google 'round these parts, it's to discuss issues of privacy and piracy. But, according to an ABC News report, Google is going on the offensive to help take down Mexican drug cartels.

"Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman, has taken a keen interest in Mexico, where more than 47,500 people have been killed in drug-related violence since President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive against the cartels in 2006. Schmidt recently visited most of Mexico's most violent cities, Ciudad Juarez, where civic leaders asked if he could help.

"Defeated, helpless, these people have been so hardened in their experience with cartels that they have lost battles and they have lost hope," Schmidt told a conference on international crime this week. "They were looking for a universal hammer to protect them. For me the answer was obvious. It was technology.""

At the conference in California, put on by both Google and the Council on Foreign Relations, a variety of ways technology and Google could help the Mexican authorities tackle their drug cartel problem were discussed. Some of the strategies may raise eyebrows for privacy-minded citizens of any country: sharing real-time intelligence with police, identifying through Google's data how individuals are connected with one another, and even showing links between criminals or corrupt politicians and potentially implicated bank accounts.

But, in my mind, the real winning ideas probably won't raise any of those privacy concerns: creating an anonymous network through which anyone can report drug cartel information or activity, so as to avoid reprisal, and creating community web platforms so citizens can share information about the criminals and publicly chastise them.

If I had to guess, that's where you're going to have the most success. Using technology to empower the police can be a good thing, but using technology to empower the citizenry, that's how you can really have an impact.

Of course, it will take more than Google's help to take down drug cartels, something Eric Schmidt recognizes:

""I think at the end of the day, there really are bad people, and you have to go in and arrest them and kill them," he said."

Still, empowering the Mexican people with technology should produce a step forward in the fight against the drug cartels, and that's a good thing.

Filed Under: cartels, drugs, mexico
Companies: google

Looks Like Canada & Mexico Will Be Blocked From Next Round Of TPP Negotiations As Well

from the why-do-people-put-up-with-this-crap? dept

Last month, we noted that the US had agreed (after resisting for a while due to Hollywood pressure) to let Canada and Mexico join the TPP negotiations, with significant restrictions on their ability to go back and debate previously agreed upon terms. Both countries agreed to sign on... but were then forced to sit out the recently concluded negotiating round in San Diego.

That should already be a concern, because now you have two countries who have agreed to sign on to an agreement, without the right to object to clauses already agreed upon... and then allowing a negotiating round to take part in which they can't participate. Basically, then, they're agreeing to accept whatever comes out of that negotiation without being able to have real input. That's pretty crazy for a sovereign nation.

And now it gets even worse.

As Michael Geist has discovered, Canada isn't just being blocked from the San Diego round, but from the next round as well, which will be held in September in Virginia. One has to assume that Mexico is in the same boat, as it's likely that both were given the same 90-day period in which they are excluded. I really can't fathom how either country could agree to such terms, or how the citizens of Mexico and Canada put up with such things. Their governments have bound them to an agreement over which they don't know what's being agreed to, which they have no say in what's being negotiated for two rounds, and which they cannot object to once it's finally let in the door.

Who agrees to such things?

Filed Under: canada, mexico, negotiations, tpp

Mexico's IP Office Surprised Its Congress By Signing ACTA, And Now Hopes To Win Their Support

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Right after the EU Parliament somewhat emphatically rejected ACTA, there was a report saying that ACTA was pretty much dead in Mexico as well -- especially since the Congress there had been against ACTA since before it was "cool" to be against ACTA. However, the very next day, the Mexican government surprised an awful lot of people by signing ACTA anyway.

Of course, the agreement still needs ratification, and that seems like an uphill battle. However, the Mexican IP Office -- major backer of ACTA -- is now claiming that it believes that the Mexican legislature can be convinced to sign on. Of course, it would help if the Mexican IP Office was even the slightest bit intellectually honest. For example, in explaining its reasons for signing on, it points out that the EU signed on -- which is kind of funny coming so soon after the EU Parliament's wholesale rejection of ACTA. Seems like that would be a point worth mentioning, rather than implying that ACTA was going to be implemented in the EU. This move still has the US's fingerprints all over it. The US needed some sort of "win" for ACTA these days, and coming so soon after the US allowed Mexico to enter TPP negotiations, it's hard not to think that there was some horse trading going on here.

Filed Under: acta, mexico, tpp

Rewind: Mexico Surprises Everyone, Signs ACTA

from the hmm dept

Just yesterday we pointed out that reports coming out of Mexico suggested that ACTA was dead there and had no chance of being signed and ratified. And then, just hours later, the news comes out that Mexico's ambassador to Japan signed on to ACTA without anyone knowing about it. Bizarrely, that particular news report claims that in signing this agreement, Mexico joins with others, including the European Union. Yet, of course, as anyone who's been paying attention knows, the EU loudly rejected ACTA just last week.

Also, I'm a bit confused. One of the reasons that Mexico did not sign way back in October when many others signed, was that the legislature had also rejected ACTA, and reports had said that the executive branch had to get the Mexican Senate to ratify the agreement. So, to have a representative just suddenly up and sign ACTA seems... very, very strange. If they could just do that, why didn't they do it back in October with most other signatories?

To be honest, I'm now curious if this sudden surprise signature has anything to do with the US inviting Mexico to join in the TPP negotiations. It may be cynical, but Mexico has wanted in to TPP negotiations for a while and had been kept out. It seems entirely possible that a "deal" was struck, whereby Mexico would sign ACTA in exchange for getting in on TPP.

Of course, if you're the Mexican legislature, or a Mexican citizen who spoke out against ACTA (and there were many), it seems that your government just sold you out completely and signed what is otherwise a dead treaty. Bizarre.

Filed Under: acta, mexico, tpp

Add Mexico To The List Of Places Where ACTA Is Now Likely Dead

from the down-goes-another-one dept

The rejection of ACTA by the EU Parliament was a big deal that effectively killed off ACTA. We've seen US officials try to put on a happy face about all of this, claiming that ACTA still does important things for those who have agreed to it, but that's increasingly difficult to believe. We've already seen indications that Australia is backing out, and now reports are coming from Mexico that ACTA no longer has a chance there, thanks mainly to the EU vote. Mexico was already somewhat doubtful due to pressure from the legislature, but the EU rejection appears to have put them over the top. Hopefully, now that Mexican negotiators are joining the TPP negotiations, they'll remember how things went with ACTA, and maybe (just maybe) not agree to proposals whose sole purpose is to reward US special interests.

Filed Under: acta, eu parliament, mexico, tpp

Canada And Mexico Not Allowed To Observe TPP Negotations, Even Though They're Joining Them

from the shut-out dept

Remember how Canada and Mexico have been asked to join the negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement -- and both agreed to do so? You might think that this would enable them to show up this week in San Diego and at least observe, if not actively participate in, the latest round of negotiations. No such luck. Both countries have been denied access to the negotiations as observers. This is, of course, similar to what Rep. Darrell Issa discovered after his own request -- but in that case, you can at least kind of understand, since we already know that the USTR wants to hide its negotiations from Congress. But denying two countries who are entering the negotiations? If Canada or Mexico had any self-esteem at all, this is the point where they should have walked out and said to hell with the TPP. Why should they be expected to join an agreement where secret negotiations are happening, which they're not allowed to take part in?

Filed Under: canada, darrell issa, mexico, san diego, tpp