Page:Special 301 Report 2001.pdf/29

 on copyrights and trademark protection.

 In 2000, Pakistan attempted to address most of its major TRIPS-related deficiencies through enactment of several new intellectual property laws, thus expressing political will at the highest levels to tackle these issues. The sharp growth in optical media piracy, however, offsets the promising developments in legal infrastructure. Pakistan now hosts up to seven illegal optical media production plants with a reported capacity of 100 million units. Pirated goods account for 90% of the domestic marketplace, and are exported throughout the region. In addition, book piracy remains a significant issue, accounting for $45 million in losses for U.S. publishers. Illegal reprinting of scientific, technical and medical texts plague legitimate sales. Also, the refusal of Pakistani courts to issue ex parte search orders continues to hamper enforcement efforts, particularly in the area of business software. Delayed court proceedings and non-deterrent fines similarly reduce the effectiveness of a government positively disposed toward intellectual property protection.

 In the last year, the Government of Peru took several positive steps in cooperating with U.S. industry on intellectual property protection. For example, Peru formed a public-private entity (CONTRACOPIA), which has shared intelligence to help Peruvian Government enforcement agencies conduct raids, and has conducted advertising campaigns against piracy. The government intellectual property agency (INDECOPI) has also conducted two joint publicity campaigns with the Business Software Alliance. Peru has attempted to strengthen enforcement by training specialized prosecutors. Despite these efforts, however, criminal enforcement remains a problem. The Government of Peru has negotiated the text of a software legalization agreement with U.S. industry, but has not yet put it into effect. With respect to patents, Peru (unlike other members of the Andean Community) has been issuing second-use patents over the objection of the Andean Tribunal, and is appealing the Tribunal's prohibition of such patents to the Andean Supreme Court. Concerns, however, remain regarding Andean Community Decision 486, which is not sufficiently explicit with respect to the protection of test or other data submitted with marketing approval applications, thereby opening the way to the possible erosion of the protection of such information.

 Poland amended its Copyright Law in June 2000 to provide copyright protection for pre-1974 sound recordings. This closed a major deficiency in Poland's intellectual property regime and brought it generally into conformity with the TRIPS Agreement. Nonetheless, Poland still has a substantial piracy problem. Prosecutors and judicial authorities have not vigorously protected intellectual property rights and, in fact, law enforcement authorities continue to allow the open-air Warsaw Stadium to operate as a major center for the distribution of pirated products. Further, the three-year period of exclusive protection for test data now in place in Poland, coupled with weak protection of process patents, leaves research-based pharmaceutical companies vulnerable to rival firms appropriating valuable products that are still under protection by process patents. Poland has not yet increased the term of protection for a process patent from 15 years to 20 years, as required by the TRIPS Agreement. We look to Poland to improve its enforcement efforts,