A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade���s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Trade war in the Pacific: ASEAN and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Australian politicians are keen to project our participation in two major international trade talks - the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - as unproblematic.

Free trade, Gangnam Style: The Korea-Australia free trade agreement

On the 5th December 2013, Australia and Korea announced that they had finalised a new free trade agreement. Is it a fair trade fairytale? Or is it a dirty deal done dirt cheap? It is hard to tell, because the respective governments have not yet published the text of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA). There has been much debate in the Australian Parliament over the transparency of the trade agreement; the scope of market access provided under the deal; and the impact of the investment chapter, with an investor-state dispute settlement clause. KAFTA foreshadows the approach of the new Conservative Government in Australia to other trade deals – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

No logo: Brand bullies, trade mark law, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a sweeping trade agreement, spanning the Pacific Rim, and covering an array of topics, including intellectual property. There has been much analysis of the recently leaked intellectual property chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership by WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief, observed “The selective secrecy surrounding the TPP negotiations, which has let in a few cashed-up megacorps but excluded everyone else, reveals a telling fear of public scrutiny. By publishing this text we allow the public to engage in issues that will have such a fundamental impact on their lives.” Critical attention has focused upon the lack of transparency surrounding the agreement, copyright law and the digital economy; patent law, pharmaceutical drugs, and data protection; and the criminal procedures and penalties for trade secrets. The topic of trade mark law and related rights, such as internet domain names and geographical indications, deserves greater analysis.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA)

Australia and South Korea have signed a new free trade agreement - the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA). Is it a fair trade fairytale? Or is it a dirty deal done dirt cheap? Or somewhere in between? It is hard to tell, given the initial secrecy of the negotiations, and the complexity of the texts of the agreement There has been much debate in Parliament over the transparency of the trade agreement; the scope of market access provided under the deal; the impact of the investment chapter, with its investor-state dispute settlement clause; the intellectual property chapter; the environment chapter; its impact upon public health; and the labor rights chapter. KAFTA provides an indication of the approach of the new Conservative Government in Australia to other trade deals – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The Trans-Pacific partnership: Brunei, trade, and human rights

The Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, has said that ‘Australia is Open for Business’. His trade and investment minister, Andrew Robb, has vigorously pursued bilateral trade agreements with neighbours, South Korea, Japan, China, and India — as well as the regional trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Such trade activity raises questions about the relationship between trade policy and human rights. If we are open for business, should we be open for business for countries engaged in human rights abuses? Should enter into trade agreements, which could have an adverse upon human rights? The Trans-Pacific Partnership highlights a range of problems with Australia’s treaty-making process. One important issue is the question of the relationship between trade and human rights.

Mating compatibility between bactrocera invadens and bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae)

The invasive fruit fly, Bactrocera invadens Drew, Tsuruta & White, is a highly polyphagous fruit pest that occurs predominantly in Africa yet has its origins in the Indian subcontinent. It is extremely morphologically and genetically similar to the Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel); as such the specific relationship between these two species is unresolved. We assessed prezygotic compatibility between B. dorsalis and B. invadens using standardized field cage mating tests, which have proven effectiveness in tephritid cryptic species studies. These tests were followed by an assessment of postzygotic compatibility by examining egg viability, larval and pupal survival, and sex ratios of offspring produced from parental and subsequent F1 crosses to examine for hybrid breakdown as predicted under a two-species hypothesis. B. dorsalis was sourced from two countries (Pakistan and China), and each population was compared with B. invadens from its type locality of Kenya. B. invadens mated randomly with B. dorsalis from both localities, and there were generally high levels of hybrid viability and survival resulting from parental and F1 crosses. Furthermore, all but one hybrid cross resulted in equal sex ratios, with the single deviation in favor of males and contrary to expectations under Haldane's rule. These data support the hypothesis that B. dorsalis and B. invadens represent the same biological species, an outcome that poses significant implications for pest management and international trade for sub-Saharan Africa.

Exploring the role of energy, trade and financial development in explaining economic growth in South Africa: A revisit

South Africa is an emerging and industrializing economy which is experiencing remarkable progress. We contend that amidst the developments in the economy, the role of energy, trade openness and financial development are critical. In this article, we revisit the pivotal role of these factors. We use the ARDL bounds [72], the Bayer and Hanck [11] cointegration techniques, and an extended Cobb–Douglas framework, to examine the long-run association with output per worker over the sample period 1971–2011. The results support long-run association between output per worker, capital per worker and the shift parameters. The short-run elasticity coefficients are as follows: energy (0.24), trade (0.07), financial development (−0.03). In the long-run, the elasticity coefficients are: trade openness (0.05), energy (0.29), and financial development (−0.04). In both the short-run and the long-run, we note the post-2000 period has a marginal positive effect on the economy. The Toda and Yamamoto [91] Granger causality results show that a unidirectional causality from capital stock and energy consumption to output; and from capital stock to trade openness; a bidirectional causality between trade openness and output; and absence (neutrality) of any causality between financial development and output thus indicating that these two variables evolve independent of each other.

Latency, Power and Performance Trade-offs in Network-on-Chips by Link Microarchitecture Exploration

This paper presents a power, latency and throughput trade-off study on NoCs by varying microarchitectural (e.g. pipelining) and circuit level (e.g. frequency and voltage) parameters. We change pipelining depth, operating frequency and supply voltage for 3 example NoCs - 16 node 2D Torus, Tree network and Reduced 2D Torus. We use an in-house NoC exploration framework capable of topology generation and comparison using parameterized models of Routers and links developed in SystemC. The framework utilizes interconnect power and delay models from a low-level modelling tool called Intacte[1]1. We find that increased pipelining can actually reduce latency. We also find that there exists an optimal degree of pipelining which is the most energy efficient in terms of minimizing energy-delay product.

Egg parasitoids of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), from south-east Queensland

Field surveys of egg parasitoids of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, were conducted at Redlands and Gatton, south-east Queensland. Eggs of P. xylostella were present all year round in both localities, and parasitized eggs were consistently found between late spring and early winter. Percent parasitism in the range 30–75% was recorded on many occasions, although rates less than 10% were more common. The major parasitoids included Trichogrammatoidea bactrae Nagaraja and Trichogramma pretiosum Riley. Laboratory evaluation showed that the T. pretiosum from Gatton has a high capacity to parasitize P. xylostella eggs under suitable conditions. This study represents the first record of egg parasitoids of P. xylostella from Australia.

The Expanding Live Cattle Trade in Northern Australian

The north Australian beef industry is complex and dynamic. It is strategically positioned to access new and existing export markets. To prosper in a global economy, it will require strong processing and live cattle sectors, continued rationalisation of infrastructure, uptake of appropriate technology, and the synergy obtained when industry sectors unite and cooperate to maintain market advantage. Strategies to address food safety, animal welfare, the environment and other consumer concerns must be delivered. Strategic alliances with quality assurance systems will develop. These alliances will be based on economies of scale and on vertical cooperation, rather than vertical integration. Industry sectors will need to increase their contribution to Research, Development and Extension. These contributions need to be global in outlook. Industry sectors should also be aware that change (positive or negative) in one sector will impact on other sectors. Feedback along the food chain is essential to maximise productivity and market share.

Exploring profit - Sustainability trade-offs in cropping systems using evolutionary algorithms

Models that implement the bio-physical components of agro-ecosystems are ideally suited for exploring sustainability issues in cropping systems. Sustainability may be represented as a number of objectives to be maximised or minimised. However, the full decision space of these objectives is usually very large and simplifications are necessary to safeguard computational feasibility. Different optimisation approaches have been proposed in the literature, usually based on mathematical programming techniques. Here, we present a search approach based on a multiobjective evaluation technique within an evolutionary algorithm (EA), linked to the APSIM cropping systems model. A simple case study addressing crop choice and sowing rules in North-East Australian cropping systems is used to illustrate the methodology. Sustainability of these systems is evaluated in terms of economic performance and resource use. Due to the limited size of this sample problem, the quality of the EA optimisation can be assessed by comparison to the full problem domain. Results demonstrate that the EA procedure, parameterised with generic parameters from the literature, converges to a useable solution set within a reasonable amount of time. Frontier ‘‘peels’’ or Pareto-optimal solutions as described by the multiobjective evaluation procedure provide useful information for discussion on trade-offs between conflicting objectives.