[pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?

[Reinier Bakels]

> Because the term "TRIPS" uses the propaganda term
> "intellectual property", I refuse to call it by that name.
> I call it "TRIPES", which stands for
>
>  Trade-Restricting Impediments to Production, Education and Science.
>
> Another response is to write "the so-called 'TRIPS' agreement", but I
> think "TRIPES" is more fun.
> ____________________________________________________
The good news is that the Agreement itself is clearly structured into 
chapters
1. Copyright and Related Rights (art. 9-14) 2. Trademarks (art. 15-21) 3. 
Geographical Indications (art. 22-24) 4. Industrial Designs (art. 25-26) 5. 
Patents (art. 27-34) 6. Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits 
(art. 35-38) 7. Protection of Undisclosed Information (art. 39) 8. Control 
of Anti-Competitive Practices in Contractual Licences (art. 40)

So it only uses "intellectual property" as a generic concept, and does not 
adopt the concept as a legal concept - unlike some recent EU legislation. 
Which is definitely an essential difference, because then the border is 
crossed from a "closed system" (exclusive rights as an exception to the 
general rule of information freedom) to an open system where potentially all 
mental labour is "rewarded" with rights, including marginal areas such as 
slavish imitation and goodwill.

Please note that TRIPS builds on the Paris and Berne conventions of the late 
19th century. The main new thing is the enforcement mechanism of (trade) 
sanctions against member states who are reluctant to implement legislation 
compliant with TRIP(E)S.

And it is very American. US copyright does not recognize moral rights, so 
they  are not mandatory under TRIP(E)S. Some people had a lot of fun when 
TRIPS was actually used *against* the Amercans - who allowed no copyrights 
to be paid for (radio) music played in bars.

Even if you hate TRIP(E)S, then you may want to acknowledge that this 
agreement actually allows exceptions under the "three steps" provisions 
(art. 13 for copyright and art. 30 for patents).
Art. 13: Members shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights 
to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of 
the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the 
right holder.
Art. 30: Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights 
conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably 
conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably 
prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of 
the legitimate interests of third parties.

Unfortunately, these rules are so vague that nobody knows what they really 
mean - but on the positive side, that gives also room for interpretation. 
Note that TRIPS provides rules for member state legislators - who naturally 
will remain on the safe side. But it is under debate: see e.g. 
http://www.ip.mpg.de/ww/de/pub/aktuelles/declaration_on_the_three_step_/declaration.cfm

I admit, this is by no means the kind of radical change that PP would 
prefer. But imho one should combine long-term visionary activity with 
down-to-earth hands-on activism relating to "earthy" proposals.

reinier