Guyana is under immense pressure on intellectual property

Jan 23, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
‘The Eighth Report to the US Congress on the operation of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act prepared by the Office of the United States Trade Representative has, briefly, but rather pointedly, drawn attention to the protracted delinquency of the Government of Guyana in the matter of creating an adequate legal framework for the protection of intellectual property.’ (S/N Jan 15, 10)
Guyana was rebuked over its indifference and weak archaic legislation governing intellectual property. This is claimed to be a studied disinclination to effectively enforce the weak existing laws.
The US Trade Representative further sees this as ‘Guyana’s deficiencies’ to inadequately protect intellectual property of foreign companies ‘seeking to invest’ in Guyana due to the ‘pirate industry’.
Commercial exploitation is neatly masked under the term ‘seeking to invest’ but this was being thwarted by the ‘pirate industry’, and to the concerns to the US Trade Representative. However, he is conveniently overlooking the real dilemma facing Guyana.
The country is left to the whims of the multi-nationals, who have been exploiting Guyana’s natural resources with little or no transparency and accountability for countless decades.
These powerful conglomerates are able to influence the government in pursuit of their narrow interests in mining, logging and other sectors. Illegal mining operators from outside are enjoying unprecedented freedoms of trade in Guyana while doing little or nothing for the national economy.
The far-reaching environmental damage from mineral exploitation and the impact on the local communities do not seem to raise any eyebrows with the US Trade Representative.
Then there is the growing illegal trade in drugs trafficking, which seems to escape the attention of the US Trade Representative.
Global pirating on the high seas is also on the increase, with violent attacks mounted by pirates along the Somali Coast and other countries.
The multinationals have accepted piracy as a new, emerging risk. In coming to terms with it, the multinationals are prepared to pay out vast fortunes to pirates for the release of hijacked ocean-going vessels with its cargo and occupants.
Against this dangerous and violent backdrop, Guyana with its relatively few inhabitants is being singled out for special attention by the influential US Trade Representative of the region on intellectual property.
Literacy in poor and vulnerable countries like Guyana could end up in further decline as books, reading and other knowledge-based material come into the focus of the US Congress in their own backyard.
The suffering and dire consequences in Haiti at this time, might not have been so overwhelming, if improvements in education and knowledge-based stock had been encouraged, including the building of infrastructure that could have far better stood up to an earthquake.
On the issue, India has been using the indigenous neem tree over thousands of years as pesticides, spermicides and toothbrushes.
The neem tree is a prominent feature of their traditional cultural heritage and widely used in medicinal, culinary, and religious ceremonies by the Indians.
But the US company, WR Grace, the owner of a US patent on insecticide process, promptly sued Indian firms against using their ancient processes using neem under their newly acquired Intellectual Property Rights.
This is the nature of harsh challenges facing the survival of poor nations against the thrust of the multinationals, who are far too eager, to exploit and deprive indigenous communities out of their natural resources.
The weaker the governments of the poor nations, the more likely they are open to exploitation by the multinationals.
In protecting these conglomerates, the European Union (EU) has committed itself to enforcing Intellectual Property Rights, including combating counterfeiting and piracy. This is seen as causing alarm to the EU over the implications on innovation, growth, employment and consumer health and safety.
Intellectual Property Rights are mostly protected by each member’s national laws rather than the EU laws.
In defending each individual member, the EU is looking at further harmonisation in the costly complications to defend Intellectual Property.
To this effect, in April 2004, the EU adopted a Directive on the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights such as copyright and related rights, trademarks, designs or patents.
This Directive requires that all Member States must apply effective, dissuasive and proportionate remedies and penalties against those engaged in counterfeiting and piracy and so creates a level playing field for right holders in the EU.
It means that all Member States will have a similar set of measures, procedures and remedies available for rightholders to defend their intellectual property rights (be they copyright or related rights, trademarks, patents, designs, etc) if they are infringed.
Counterfeiters make expert use of current technology and trade and succeed in producing every imaginable type of fake.
Where previously only luxury goods, fashion and music and film products fell victim, nowadays, counterfeiting affects foodstuff, cosmetics, hygiene products, medicine and spare parts of cars, toys and various types of technical and electronic equipment.
This is regarded as posing an increasing danger to health and safety, according to the EU, with consumers often not aware that ‘when they buy a fake product there is a good chance that at least part of the money will go to organised crime or child labour’.
In September 2008, the Council adopted a Resolution on a comprehensive EU anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan. This Resolution endorsed the need to step up the fight against fake goods and called for the creation of a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy.
The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has also witnessed a general rise in internet scams including fake offers of employment at WIPO, training courses and e-mail prize awards.
Many of these scams request detailed information and/or money, in connection with supposed registration fees, hotel reservations, employment opportunities, prizes or awards. They sometimes carry the WIPO logo, a photograph of the WIPO Director General and originate from, or refer to, e-mail addresses that resemble those of WIPO or the United Nations. (WIPO, December 21, 09, Geneva).
It seems that even these powerful esoteric bodies are unable to safeguard themselves against internet scams and the violation of their Intellectual Property Rights.
The EU has also recognized the enormous complications of policing IPR. But the poor and vulnerable countries are being pressured into performing on IPR as if it is just another simple circus act.
Even the powerful conglomerate Google, seems to have a human conscience, when it comes to its worldwide internet community.
Unable to meet its obligations to protect the personal details of its internet community in China, Google seems ready to pull the plug in protest. Serious concerns over human rights and the violation of their IPR in cyber space, has pushed Google to threaten swift action.
Mac Mahase

---

---