Human Rights Groups Complain About Special 301 Process

from the not-just-a-joke dept

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?
Hide this

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    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...

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

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