Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06OTTAWA1317
2006-05-02 20:30:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Ottawa
Cable title:
CANADA'S RESPONSE TO 2006 SPECIAL 301 DESIGNATION
how-toVZCZCXYZ0000 RR RUEHWEB DE RUEHOT #1317 1222030 ZNR UUUUU ZZH R 022030Z MAY 06 FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2314 INFO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
UNCLAS OTTAWA 001317
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
STATE PASS USTR FOR SAGE CHANDLER AND JENNIFER CHOE-GROVES
COMMERCE FOR LAURIE ZIMMERMAN AND CHRIS ISRAEL
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CA KIPR ECON ETRD
SUBJECT: CANADA'S RESPONSE TO 2006 SPECIAL 301 DESIGNATION
REF: STATE 66988
UNCLAS OTTAWA 001317
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
STATE PASS USTR FOR SAGE CHANDLER AND JENNIFER CHOE-GROVES
COMMERCE FOR LAURIE ZIMMERMAN AND CHRIS ISRAEL
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CA KIPR ECON ETRD
SUBJECT: CANADA'S RESPONSE TO 2006 SPECIAL 301 DESIGNATION
REF: STATE 66988
1. Econ officers presented the Special 301 decision to
officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade (DFAIT) Intellectual Property division on
April 28 with follow-up on May 1. Although DFAIT
Intellectual Property Director Doug George reiterated
Canada's annual objection to the Special 301 process in
general, the overall reaction was calm. George expressed
appreciation that the USG had taken the recent political
upheavals in Canada (two elections in one year and the
formation of a Conservative minority government for the first
time in over a decade) into account in determining Canada's
Special 301 status.
2. Perhaps because there was little pushback available to
the GOC on the Special 301 designation, George brought up the
issue of "patent trolls" (his term) in connection with the
recent high-profile Research in Motion (RIM) Blackberry case
and asked if the US government planned to "examine its
policies" on patents. We pointed out that one high-profile
case does not indicate a policy problem. In response, George
brought up the eBay case before the U.S. Supreme Court and
asked whether the USG intends to file an amicus brief in the
case.
3. George also suggested organizing a binational IPR Working
Group Meeting in Ottawa, possibly in October, to conduct the
Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review, which, of course, the
Canadians would prefer to call something else. We urge the
Washington interagency group to accept this invitation, which
would give us the chance to use visiting experts to do
outreach on IPR to MPs and other policymakers who do not
usually come to Washington; with luck, new draft copyright
legislation may be before Parliament by that time.
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa
WILKINS
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
STATE PASS USTR FOR SAGE CHANDLER AND JENNIFER CHOE-GROVES
COMMERCE FOR LAURIE ZIMMERMAN AND CHRIS ISRAEL
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CA KIPR ECON ETRD
SUBJECT: CANADA'S RESPONSE TO 2006 SPECIAL 301 DESIGNATION
REF: STATE 66988
1. Econ officers presented the Special 301 decision to
officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade (DFAIT) Intellectual Property division on
April 28 with follow-up on May 1. Although DFAIT
Intellectual Property Director Doug George reiterated
Canada's annual objection to the Special 301 process in
general, the overall reaction was calm. George expressed
appreciation that the USG had taken the recent political
upheavals in Canada (two elections in one year and the
formation of a Conservative minority government for the first
time in over a decade) into account in determining Canada's
Special 301 status.
2. Perhaps because there was little pushback available to
the GOC on the Special 301 designation, George brought up the
issue of "patent trolls" (his term) in connection with the
recent high-profile Research in Motion (RIM) Blackberry case
and asked if the US government planned to "examine its
policies" on patents. We pointed out that one high-profile
case does not indicate a policy problem. In response, George
brought up the eBay case before the U.S. Supreme Court and
asked whether the USG intends to file an amicus brief in the
case.
3. George also suggested organizing a binational IPR Working
Group Meeting in Ottawa, possibly in October, to conduct the
Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review, which, of course, the
Canadians would prefer to call something else. We urge the
Washington interagency group to accept this invitation, which
would give us the chance to use visiting experts to do
outreach on IPR to MPs and other policymakers who do not
usually come to Washington; with luck, new draft copyright
legislation may be before Parliament by that time.
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa
WILKINS