No ACTA - My presentation at the public hearing, 02-2011 senado16 is an honor to appear before this committee and bring to you in my experience and above all common sense that I may have, concepts to assist them to visualize that ACT is not a treaty convenient for Mexico.
The scope and coverage of the risks of this treaty, the lack of network contention scope, the almost certain failure of its pragmatic application and the significant risks and collateral damage to so many basic freedoms are hard to start . ACTA
affects such critical elements that should not be left to chance or a poor and perhaps malicious as the drafting of the treaty, such as basic human rights: No constitution in the world that does not cover the right to freedom both of conscience and of expression, privacy, and property and must take care above all the prevalence of these rights for its citizens by any international treaty.
For over 30 years I have lived immersed in the technology industry, I am a software developer, small businessman, father and Mexican: ACTA affects each of these areas as affect the basic rights of my fellow citizens.
Let me make clear that I believe in intellectual property, I believe that a work should enjoy legal protection and its author to be properly paid, but never at the cost of basic freedoms.
Consider, then, some aspects. pray you have a copy of ACT on hand to avoid wasting my precious minutes repeating verbatim what has been written.
1. Convenience for Mexico of the treaty.
The first question we should ask is "Does it benefit the ACT to Mexico?". Let soon, in relation to patents and trademarks Mexico's role with potential partners:
| Country or Organization | Trademark Applications for 2009 | Trademarks 1899-2009 | Patents granted 1995-2009 |
|
|
| Quantity | Percentage | Quantity | Percentage | Quantity | Percent |
|
| Australia | 16.996 | 0.96 | 1,257,049 | 3.11% | 48261 | 0.63% |
|
| Canada | 13.082 | 0.74 | 1,140,265 | 2.82% | 94208 | 1.24% |
|
| EU | 1,144,064 | 64.73 | 18,951,633 | 46.83% | 1835572 | 24.07% |
|
| Japan | 45.847 | 2.59 | 7,808,193 | 19.30% | 2906878 | 38.12% |
|
| Korea | 141.657 | 8.1 | 2,263,209 | 5.59% | 719500 | | 9.43%
|
| Mexico | 2.457 | | 0.14 1,396,645 | 3.45% | 3866 | 0.05% |
|
| | Morocco 1.046 | 0.06 | 130.765 | 0.32% | 156 | 0.00% |
|
| New Zealand | 15.146 | 0.86 | 499.993 | 1.24% | 11742 | 0.15% |
|
| Singapore | 10.815 | 0.61 | 383.898 | 0.95% | 8227 | 0.11% |
|
| USA | 376.388 | 21:29 | 6,633,526 | 16.39% | 1997774 | 26.20% |
|
| Total | 1,767,498 | 100.00 | 40,465,176 | 100.00% | 7626184 | 100.00% |
|
Table 1. Historical Patent and Trademark ACTA partners.
Source: website of the international intellectual property http://www.wipo.int
Mexico only accounts for 0.14% of trademark applications in 2009 and 0.05% of patents in 14 years. Frankly, it hurts.
are public data, you can download the same site of WIPO. Spreadsheet, so that soon can evaluate the performance of Mexico historically in terms of intellectual property.
From the table above we can deduce that although ACT were to protect the creators Mexican agreement would be a completely asymmetrical. The effort required Mexico to protect the interests of their members in connection to these, is 70 to 1 in 2000, registered trademarks and one patent in the case. There is no cost-benefit ratio even remotely fair go: even reasonably comparable. This, by itself, Shall be sufficient to reject it.
The huge imbalance between production and consumption of intellectual property gives the flavor that ACTA will be the police again in the backyard of our business partners. Hopefully
IMPI was so diligent in promoting from within the culture of intellectual property as it has in the negotiation of ACTA frumpy.
2. Legal privileges to foreigners compared to nationals.
know that in public, between you and your advisers, legal experts will surely be able to clarify and expand what is fast mention in this section:
Mexico has a wide and strong legislation regarding intellectual property, both the Federal Copyright Law as Federal Industrial Property are there. The crimes related to intellectual property are defined in the Federal Penal Code; however, ACTA extraordinary claim, with some truly frightening and terribly articles poorly written legal ambiguities left-with a performance that greatly favors the alleged victim. By itself, the wording of the treaty ought to be cause for rejection.
harmonize all the laws that would be involved in the acceptance of ACT would be a legislative nightmare, both for the camera to which you belong and to the deputies. Consider the cost of regulation as a cause for rejecting the treaty.
Some sample buttons:
a) piracy Mention the word a dozen times. Never defined in legal terms. In other words can be what partners they please, including ships, swords and parrots, or the colloquial expression for illicit trade in intellectual property.
b) In Article 8 calls for the possibility of " ... Issue a warrant for the part ... or a third party ... to prevent infringing goods from entering commercial channels "leaving ambiguity who are third, more serious still, is delegated the prevention of crime in the and unnamed" others. " The victim and police did what our authorities then? We hire a better police service including intellectual property and stop acting on impunity, would be cheaper.
c) Article 9, paragraph 1: " ... To determine the amount of damage ... its judicial authorities have the authority to consider any legitimate action ... value by the rights holder ... ". The victim emerged as judge imposes the sentence, although the penal code and specify.
redundaré No more. Safely in their own analysis will find more holes is drafting a zebra stripes. And the treaties and laws should not allow those holes. At least not many.
3. ACTA ratifying put obstacles to the domestic industry.
Article 12 is fabulously dangerous to individuals and too ambiguous.
There is no simple procedure to prevent the abuse of a network, particularly wireless. Whether illegal access in itself constitutes a crime, stop on a home network or a small business is no trivial task for the user, and costs for organizations. The ease of committing the crime of using a network outside a priori impossible to determine if the offender is a legitimate network user or a malicious third party. Add the task is not free to monitor internet use of every person who has legitimate access to the network (including minors) and have the inability to identify a suspect, a priori, as claimed by ACTA.
And all this has a cost for someone to cover. Consider whom: For Internet Will assume the end user, the company providing the service, the federal government? Certainly not the members directly, but every Mexican who has internet access.
From the above, ACTA aims to seize the home computer, industry or institution, unheard altera parte, through an intermediary, in an expeditious manner, without the certainty that the end user is the originator of the discharge. And but in the end they were compensated, and criminals should go without the basic principle of presumption of innocence attacking the universal declaration Human Rights, Article 11, paragraph 1.
4. Rescued more industries, in this case foreign.
do not doubt that the entertainment industry suffers from "piracy." Although there responsibility of the "pirate", not to do aside the responsibility of producers and distributors that keep prices artificial oligopolistic products are inaccessible to large segments, coupled with dogged resignation to the adoption of new technologies such as Internet distribution, lowering costs, that could provide the material wider sections at more affordable prices. Instead, they have consistently fought digital distribution process and only the success of companies like iTunes began to motivate the change: little, too late. In its neglect, many companies have defrauded their creators and performers as well as these "pirates" and now hope to recover not a market but a property because his disability and ambition blinded them cope with change.
I do not see why Mexicans have to pay for their failed business model. Unsubsidized shortcomings of others, as even subsidize local.
In the software industry, companies like Microsoft schemes have continued to update unnecessary, making subsequent incompatible versions of their products. I personally have taken years, a lot of money and work to simply keep my license and daily updates. Consider prices update, apply it to typical Mexican income and without any justification "piracy" consider whether de facto monopolies or oligopolies really give a "fair price" always.
Almost all software has the means to notify both the holder and the infringer to copy is illegal. They disable the product, to avail themselves of regular legal channels, but do not ask my country do the work that lies with them.
5. Let the work of the lawyers for the corporations. Did
companies and countries rich in trademarks, patents and copyright are not legal advisers, local representatives or embassies to represent them before a local court?
The laws are there for all domestic and foreign. No changes required. Required, like many others, be properly applied. Any person or entity to have any at hand right laws and accessible courts then why large companies favor subsidizing its own right?
Conclusion.
have before you an extremely asymmetrical treaty, costly, which violates constitutional and human rights, maliciously worded to protect the partners rather than to Mexico, legislative and judicial burden borne by the country to subsidize primarily to large enterprises very few foreign and Mexican. There must be ratified by a legislative body responsible for their work and believe in your country. If they act in the interest of Mexico, ACTA Shall not even reach the full Senate for ratification because of the tremendous legal untidiness and the undeniable disadvantages presented
And although knock on your door lobbyists, Mexico and the Internet are watching. Internet and memory lasts beyond the duration of legislatures.
Most
"Con Sabor Criollo" 
