Australia Realizes That Including Intellectual Property In Trade Agreements Makes No Sense

from the but-what-about-acta dept

Michael Geist notes that the Australian Government's Productivity Commission (which is apparently an independent research and advisory arm) is suggesting that the government no longer agree to include intellectual property issues in trade agreements -- and specifically focuses on the lack of evidence that such intellectual property agreements benefit Australia economically. It suggests that such agreements should only be allowed "after an economic assessment of the impacts, including on consumers, in Australia and partner countries." In other words, it looks like at least some in Australia are realizing that "faith-based" intellectual property policy-making is a bad idea. In fact, the report notes that most of these agreements appear to benefit a few US companies, but do little to help Australia.
The Commission is not convinced, however, that the approach adopted by Australia in relation to IP in trade agreements has always been in the best interests of either Australia or (most of) its trading partners. Among other things, there does not appear to have been any economic analysis of the specific provisions in AUSFTA undertaken prior to the finalisation of negotiations, nor incorporated in the government’s supporting documentation to the parliament. As noted above, the AUSFTA changes to copyright imposed net costs on Australia, and extending these changes to other countries would be expected to impose net costs on them, principally to the benefit of third parties.
What third parties? That's obvious:
"most of the benefits to IP rights holders from measures to promote adherence to existing rules in partner countries can be expected to accrue to third parties, such as rights holders in the United States."
Of course, Australia is one of the countries involved in ACTA -- which has no such economic analysis. Any chance at all that the Australian government actually listens to the Productivity Commission and requires an economic analysis first? I wouldn't bet on it.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:50am


    nice troll attempt. well worded with enough spin involved to not exactly be flagrantly false, but still sow enough seeds of dobut in a readers mind. ill go ahead and give you a 7.5/10 on this one.

    having said that, the correct information is that the productivity commission is "the Australian Government's independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues" (quote taken directly from their website) which makes it part of the government and thus does, in fact, speak for the government on issues. that is not to say that it sets rules or has any oversight towards enforcement and yes the "the government" can choose to ignore its findings much in the same way the current administrative branch can ignore findings from FCC reports. ignoring these reports does not make either entity any less a part of the government.

    with that in mind, one could make the arguement that the headline is misleading, but realistically only if you choose to ignore any of the rest of the article and make assumptions about it without actually reading and putting things in context.

    of course thats all just my personal opinion.

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!

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


Email This

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