LITHUANIA DISPUTES PIRACY STATS, BUT EAGER TO IMPROVE IPR

UNCLAS VILNIUS 000422 SIPDIS STATE FOR EUR/NB, EB/CBA, EUR/ERA (JURBAN) STATE PLEASE PASS TO USTR COMMERCE PLEASE PASS TO USPTO SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ECON ETRD KIPR LH SUBJECT: LITHUANIA DISPUTES PIRACY STATS, BUT EAGER TO IMPROVE IPR PROTECTIONS REF: A) STATE 66908, B) VILNIUS 192, C) WOODARD-URBAN E-MAIL 02/13/2006 ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: We informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and Ministry of Culture on April 28 that this year's Special 301 Review again put Lithuania on the Watch List. Our Ministry of Culture contact questioned the sources of information the Review's authors used, but added that the GOL looked forwarded to expanding its cooperation with the USG to improve intellectual property rights protection in Lithuania. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (SBU) We notified Gyta Berasneviciute, Senior Specialist of the Copyright Division of the Ministry of Culture, and Neringa Urboniene, acting head of the MFA's Economic Security Policy Department, on April 28 of Lithuania's listing on the Watch List in this year's Special 301 Review. Urboniene, new to her job and unfamiliar with the Special 301 Review, had no substantive comment, but promised to inform other relevant offices within the MFA. ¶3. (SBU) Berasneviciute, one of our frequent GOL interlocutors on intellectual property rights (IPR) issues, said that the Special 301 Review appeared to be almost wholly informed by the International Intellectual Property Alliance's (IIPA) report. (NOTE: Local music industry representatives criticized the accuracy of the IIPA's report at an IPR conference we hosted with the U.S. Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO) on April 25, which we will report septel.) She said that it was unclear to the GOL how IIPA arrived at its piracy rate figures, and noted that IIPA's numbers differed significantly from the estimates of both local industry and the GOL, especially with regard to optical media piracy. She also asked whether the authors of the Special 301 Review had considered the information on piracy levels and strengthening of legal IPR protections that the GOL submitted. ¶4. (SBU) We told Berasneviciute that the Special 301 Review provideQ several specific suggestions for improvement and that we looked forward to cooperating with the GOL on these suggestions in the coming year. Berasneviciute, who attended a USPTO-sponsored training program last year in Washington, said that the GOL also wanted to continue -- and expand -- its cooperation with us in strengthening IPR protection in Lithuania. ¶5. (SBU) COMMENT: Improving the protection of IPR in Lithuania remains one of our top economic policy objectives. To address the GOL's methodological nitpicking, we intend to use the review as motivation to bring the GOL, IIPA, and other interested parties together to discuss data collection and analysis methodology. During the months ahead, we will also work with the GOL to improve the specific areas suggested in the Special 301 Review. END COMMMENT. KELLY