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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2010 @ 6:41am

    dear God IC layouts designs are patentable!?!!?
    explain why that happened please

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      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?!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        :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!"?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      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. ยงยง 901-914.

      Importantly, the protection provided is very narrow in scope.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      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).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    MrSonPopo, 23 Mar 2010 @ 6:48am

    I'm saddened by ACTA. :(

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:06am

    The seven deadly sins. Very appropriate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    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

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      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).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        :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)?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Danny (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 7:24am

    LOL

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

    :-P

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Joel (profile), 23 Mar 2010 @ 10:01am

    What's next?

    ACTA folks working hard... Well I guess this is what the future will hold!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.