Industry Committee Report on Intellectual Property: A Case of Policy Laundering for CETA and TPP |
| Print | |
|
Tuesday March 19, 2013
|
|||||||||
|
The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology released its report on the Intellectual Property Regime in Canada
yesterday. The report is the result of lengthy hearings that focused on
a wide range of IP issues including patent reform, trademarks,
counterfeiting, and pharmaceutical protection. While most the
recommendations are fairly innocuous - the committee identifies many
issues for further study - there are essentially three main legislative
reform recommendations. One involves limiting the scope of official
marks, which appears to be the result of comments from Dalhousie law
professor Rob Currie (echoed by CIPO's Sylvain Laporte) expressing
concern with governmental abuse of official marks in a way that may
stifle innovation. The other two are
particularly interesting as they set the stage for the Canada - EU Trade
Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. First, the report recommends anti-counterfeiting measures similar to those
required by CETA and found in Bill C-56. Should criticism arise over
Bill C-56 or CETA, the government will likely point to this report in
support. The second involves a
classic case of policy laundering as the government has manufactured
support for CETA and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) provisions that
were not even raised at committee. The report recommends: The Committee
recommends that the Government of Canada (in order to support
Canadian businesses on the global stage and ensure the
administration of Canada’s IP regime is internationally
compatible and streamlined) ratify the following key
international agreements: the Patent Law Treaty, the Madrid
Protocol and Singapore Treaty for trade- marks, and the Hague
Agreement for Industrial Designs. But as the NDP
minority report notes: As the Committee
heard no testimony on the Patent Law Treaty, the Madrid Protocol
and Singapore Treaty for trade-marks, and Hague Agreement for
Industrial Designs, New Democrat committee members are surprised
by the inclusion of a recommendation regarding these treaties in
the majority report. The Committee should seek more information
before pronouncing on such treaties. So why does the
report include recommendations to ratify several international
treaties that were not discussed by the dozens of witnesses who
appeared before committee (with the exception of a brief
reference to the existence of the Madrid Protocol)? The
answer likely lies in the Canada - EU Trade Agreement and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership. According to leaked
documents, CETA includes provisions that require Canada to
make all reasonable efforts to comply with the Singapore Treaty
and the Patent Law Treaty as well as accede to the Madrid Protocol
and the Hague Agreement. The leaked
U.S. proposal for the TPP IP chapter contains similar
requirements: ratify or accede to the Madrid Protocol and the
Singapore Treaty as well as make reasonable efforts to ratify or
accede to the Patent Law Treaty and the Hague Agreement. The committee report
represents a case of policy laundering with recommendations to
ratify treaties that were not even discussed at committee. Yet
should Canada reach agreement on CETA or the TPP, the committee
report will presumably be used by the government to short-circuit
further review on those treaties or to simply claim support for
ratification on the basis on a committee recommendation that was
secretly fabricated behind closed doors without any witness
raising the issue during the public hearings.
Comments (5)
pat donovan
said:
|
|||||||||
|
con conscent by the conservatives for the conservatives... all in the name of manufacturing nonexistent consent... and making crises instead. Typical of them. They seem a little vague on what makes a legal treaty, too. Or voting, or campain finance or laws... etc etc etc. fooey. It smells bad. Must be important to them. pat |
|
Hey if this doesn't work they can just hide it in an omnibus bill... The Harper-Government Action plans; "Moving Canada to a banana republic." I miss the Canadian Government. You remember that? The one that represented CANADIANS. |
|
Director, Law & Technology Institute, Schulich School of Law Thanks for the mention, Michael. Anyone wanting to know more about the issue of official marks should read Donna L. Davis, "Too Much Protection, Too Little Gain: How Official Marks Undermine the Legitimacy of Intellectual Property Law" (2009) 14 Appeal 1, which can be found here: journals.uvic.ca/index.php/appeal/article/download/11910/3409 |
|
Intellectual Property a phoney concept. I'm with Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman on the phoney term "intellectual property". It's complete bullshit to lump trademarks, patents, copyright etc. into one ball of wax and call it "intellectual property". All of these things are completely separate issues and the only folks who benefit from using this phoney term are the corporate propagandists. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html |
We want to enhance competition and investment in this country, and this is why we adopted this policy back in 2008 for the AWS spectrum. Let me say that the price went down by an average of 11% since then, and we will continue this way with the 700 megahertz spectrum. We launched consultation with the industry to make sure that we enhance competition and provide better choice and better rates for our consumers.
Last week I wrote about the National Post seeking $150 licences for posting short excerpts online. It appears that the paper has now dropped the system.
Mar.12/13Comments (1)
Subscribe to this comment's feed