bilaterals.org logo
bilaterals.org logo

Intellectual property

Even before the World Trade Organization (WTO) lurched into its current state of crisis, bilateral FTAs had become a tool of choice for corporate and state interests seeking to expand intellectual property rights (IPR) standards. IPRs confer monopoly rights over intangible goods and services — methods of doing business on the internet, trademarks, computer programmes, designs, manufacturing processes, drug formulations or types of rice. They give IPR owners the right to prevent anyone from making or using their "creation". As such, they provide companies a direct tool to control a portion of the market, to block out competition and to fence off territories. Ironically, while IPR chapters are key aspects of many “free” trade and investment agreements, they are little more than protectionism for transnational corporations (TNCs), administered by governments. TNCs argue that without monopolies, there will be no innovation. Sharing should be banned; only capitalistic trade based on exclusive private property should be the norm.

Through FTAs, bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and other forms of direct agreements between countries, the US and Europe are insisting that the partner country adopt their standards of IPR protection and enforcement. This process has happened multilaterally via the WTO and the World Intellectual Property Organization. But it is now being pushed very aggressively through unilateral, bilateral and regional agreements — deals which go much further than the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property rights (TRIPs). FTAs are setting “TRIPs-plus” standards.

The US imposes patents on plants and animals in its FTAs, while the EU and Japan, for the benefit of their biotech companies, push the UPOV Convention, a set of patent-like rules to prevent farmers from saving seeds. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical corporations have turned to FTAs as tools to impose stricter rules preventing the manufacture and trade of generic drugs. For many countries, and many peoples, these propositions are nothing short of revolutionary. Because it means they have to

- extend protection for branded drugs and limit parallel imports, hampering the availability of affordable generic medicines
- start patenting plants and animals, which means farmers cannot save seed or reproduce fish breeds or livestock
- get rid of screen quotas that give preference to the showing of local films
- start patenting computer software, to the detriment of local programmers and the creative open source movements now mushrooming up across the world as a cheaper alternative to Microsoft
- extend copyright protection, which already causes serious problems for students, libraries and educational institutions
- clamp down on piracy of popular consumer goods like digital products, clothing and music
- make IPR infringements criminal offences, even though IPR is part of civil law
and the list goes on.

Through IPRs, corporations seek monopoly control over vast areas of life. They expect that we should all regularly pay them licenses to use their products and to reimburse their research and development costs. Never mind all the public subsidies, tax breaks, university contract labour and so on that go into their research and development in the first place. IPR laws being pushed through bilateral channels make it public policy that countries should protect the TNCs, the real pirates.

Because of the serious implications that ‘TRIPs-plus’ IPR chapters of FTAs have for broad cross-sections of societies, in some anti-FTA struggles, such as the fightback against the US-Thailand FTA, farmers and people living with HIV/AIDS have joined together in their opposition of this new threat to their survival. Concerns have also been raised about the way in which the EU’s EPAs include TRIPs-plus provisions, while Indigenous Peoples in many countries continue to assert alternative frameworks for the use and sharing of traditional knowledge that challenge the capitalist, commodified logic of “intellectual property rights” enshrined in free trade and investment agreements.

More recently, a new development in transnational IPR enforcement has sparked opposition and controversy, including major protests in many European cities. In October 2011, after a secretive negotiations process, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was signed by a number of countries and will come into effect once six countries have ratified it. ACTA would potentially set up a new international legal framework for enforcing IPR. Opponents have criticized the agreement’s impact on privacy, freedom of expression and internet freedoms, and generic drug manufacturing.

last update: May 2012


A Kiwi-sized "Spanner in the works" of the TPP?
Are the PBS and Pharmac under threat from the TPP? Certainly, the respective governments of both Australia and New Zealand think not. So why then the paranoia? Quite simply, we need the US more than they need us. In order to secure the TPP (and with it, for example, access to the lucrative US dairy market), both Australia and New Zealand will likely need to yield in several key areas.
EU wants to ban Seed-freedom in poorest countries of the world under WTO law
Least Developed Countries might loose the current exceptions from the WTO requirements on Intellectual Property Rights, if the EU, US and other rich countries succeed in their current efforts at the WTO in Geneva this week.
Witnesses at US trade hearing offer opinions (and warnings) on intellectual property in upcoming negotiations with the EU
Today the Obama Administration’s inter-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee held the first day of its two-day hearing on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
Food culture clash: EU, US conflicting concepts for GIs; both covet Asian market
A US trade association is raising concerns about the US and EU imposing their own approaches to GIs through FTAs, partiuclarly in Asia
IPR lists for trans-Atlantic trade deal still growing; Risk of locking in old IPR regimes?
Locking in Europe and the United States to “old” intellectual property regimes is the one “killer argument” against including an IP chapter in the upcoming Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), according to Bernd Hugenholtz, director of the Institute for Information Law (IViR) at the University of Brussels.
Copyright and secrecy don’t make for good trade agreements
Copyright is an uncomfortable fit for a trade agreement and should be kept out of the United States-European Union Free Trade Agreement.
Investors’ IP rights unbound: The danger of investment clauses to access to medicines
Although access to medicines activists have been wise to focus our attention intently on convincing low- and middle-income countries to adopt and use all possible TRIPS-compliant flexibilities and to oppose the TRIPS-plus IP chapters in free trade agreements, we have neglected to interrogate another chapter in free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties that perhaps pose an even greater threat to our collective access to medicines – investment chapters.
The return of ACTA: US dictating Canada’s intellectual property laws
Many assumed that ACTA was dead, but it still remains a top priority for the U.S. and they are attempting to revive the discredited agreement by trying to get the six necessary ratifications for it to come into force.
Manmohan Singh must learn from the Novartis judgement
Will Manmohan Singh understand the clear purpose behind the national sentiment around the Supreme Court judgment on Novartis’ cancer drug Glivec? If he does, he should take a relook at the India-EU Free Trade Agreement that is cooking in his back-room.
EU FTA, TRIPS plus could hit Indian generic drug makers
The FTA might enable seizure of property of generic drug makers on suspicion of IP rights infringement