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

from the stretching-the-law dept

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?

  1. Copyright and Related Rights
  2. Trademarks
  3. Geographical Indications
  4. Industrial Designs
  5. Patents
  6. Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits
  7. Protection of Undisclosed Information

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

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “ACTA Set To Cover Not Just Copyrights & Trademarks, But Seven Areas Of IP”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
26 Comments
Ima Fish (profile) says:

Re: 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?!

senshikaze (profile) says:

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.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: 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.

a different AC says:

Re: 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.

SomeGuy (profile) says:

Re: 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).

Overcast (profile) says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

a different AC says:

Re: 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.

yuregininsesi (user link) says:

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...