Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Australia-US Free Trade Agreement Examined 308

Posted by Hemos from the looking-closely-into-it dept.
PeterBecker writes "An evalutation of the impact of the changes Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement is available from the Australian Parliamentary Library (Research Paper #14). It takes a very critical stance, with statements such as "IPRs fit awkwardly in an agreement that has the aim of advancing free trade." and "While there has not been a comprehensive economic evaluation of IPRs, the Productivity Commission has found that, as a net importer of IPRs, Australia would lose more than it gains by strengthening IPRs. The net economic impact is thus likely to be negative.". Interesting read especially for those of you who might be affected but missed the fact thanks to close to no coverage in the mainstream media."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia-US Free Trade Agreement Examined More

Australia-US Free Trade Agreement Examined

Comments Filter:

  • EU Council, Please Look at (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Karl-Friedrich Lenz ( 755101 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:01PM (#9384094) Homepage
    this report and ask the same question:

    Who would profit from legalizing software patents, the American or the European software industry?

    • Please look at AU leadership (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And ask this question:

      Who are the persons authoring and adopting this treaty getting kickbacks from, American or Australian industry?
    • Guess what the single biggest transferrer of money in .us is?

      Correct! It is indeed enforcement of IPRs. Parking meters on a grand scale.

      Of what benefit to Australia is:
      1. opening their markets to the biggest property-rights sharks in the world?
      2. joining their markets to those of a country whose income is earned not so much from innovation or production as from milking them both?
      3. Moving their laws towards those of a country already neck-deep in litigation?
      4. Opening their markets to a huge producer of Australian staples like wheat?
      From an Australian perspective, she's a no make sense.

      At all.

      So why is it going ahead regardless?

      Enquiring Aussies want to know.
      • Because if it goes through, Johnny will get another photo-op with Arnie.

        Actually I imagine it's just going through because most of the pollies are getting some sort of kickback from it.

        And Johnny is firmly stuck somewhere in Dubyas pants.

      • Re:.au would be insane to accept this (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The fact that Australia is in an election year means this will probably be passed, even though it will have a negative impact on Australia.

        The words "free trade agreement" have a magic appeal to voters, and if Labor opposes it, they will be criticized by the Government for being "anti-American again".

        There is no real benefit for primary industries from the free trade agreement. The fine-print essentially states that exports to the USA can rise by a miniscule amount over a 10 year period. Of course, the ma

        • Re:.au would be insane to accept this (Score:4, Informative)

          by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @12:20AM (#9384376)
          The words "free trade agreement" have a magic appeal to voters, and if Labor opposes it, they will be criticized by the Government for being "anti-American again".
          Why the hell should Aussies care about being "anti-American"?!

          As an American, I'd say that other countries have a damned good reason to be anti-American right now - I know I sure do!

          • It's a paranoia thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Goonie ( 8651 ) * <robert.merkel@be n a m b r a . o rg> on Thursday June 10, 2004 @01:35AM (#9384648) Homepage
            There's a belief amongst many Australians that Australia's military security and economic prosperity can only be protected by a "great and powerful friend". Before World War Two, that was the "mother country", Great Britain. In World War Two, the realization came that, in a crunch, Britain were unable to help us, so the USA filled that role. And the USA did. The USA and Australia fought together to stop the Japanese invading Australia and turning the place into a Japanese colony. Now, things were actually much more complex than that, but the "Yanks saved our arse" version is the one that's stuck in some parts of the Australian psyche, and has been with us ever since.

            In addition, there's a profound debate that's been ongoing, pretty much since the Vietnam war, within the Labor Party about America and Australia's relationship with it. The details of the whys and wherefores of this are arcane and largely irrelevant; however, there remains a suspicion in the electorate that Labor is incapable of keeping "the Yanks" committed to Australia's security.

            Now, I happen to think this view is bogus, and leads to counterproductive Australian subservience. But you have to understand the fear that we'll be abandoned that resides in some parts of the Australian electorate.

            • hmm... now if only the French were a little (only a little) more like you...

          • Re:.au would be insane to accept this (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Ckwop ( 707653 ) * on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:15AM (#9384793) Homepage

            As an American, I'd say that other countries have a damned good reason to be anti-American right now - I know I sure do!

            Anti-American != Anti-Bush. I'm Anti-Bush but i'm not anti-american. If one puts a mad texan in charge of the worlds only superpower then war is the natural conclusion.

            Simon

            • Re:.au would be insane to accept this (Score:5, Interesting)

              by obeythefist ( 719316 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @03:21AM (#9385005) Journal
              I agree with that sentiment - to an extent. Bush is amazingly disliked around the world and within America, just look at Mike Moore's latest documentary. He isn't doing anything novel, it's just the Cannes equivalent of being a Karma Whore.

              However, let's consider the "free" trade agreement proposed between the USA and Australia (This is a loose term, it is really being shoved forcibly down Australia's throat by John Howard and whichever parts of the american government he's working for). This agreement, as we all know, will be disastrous for Australia. It will place Australia in a position where we are essentially part of the greater american corporate community, but with even less of the same rights as the american citizens enjoy. This is a bad thing. So I'm feeling very anti-american about the american government foisting this agreement on us.

              It's nothing to do with Bush. The american government sucks, and it's doing bad bad things to Australia. At least we're not getting invaded like Iraq is. The scarey part is that we have oil, too. Are we next?
            • Well, that's what I meant, but I was trying to use the phrase that the person I was replying to used.

              I could also say that since Bush is in charge of America, the two are equal, in which case I am not anti-US. Constitution
          • No, you don't. You have good reason to be Anti-Bush, , Anti-Iraq-War, etc., but the country is still one of if not the greatest nation on Earth. We still have the most liberal policies on free speech (just look at the fiascos faced in France regarding religious clothing, or England's recent debacle with their tabloids about illegal discussion of the royal family), and some of the best facilities for economic advancement.

            Don't blame a great nation for a bad leader: he's dragging our name in the mud alre
        • Labor opposes it, they will be criticized by the Government for being "anti-American again".

          Sounds more like a vote-winner to me. Being pro-American just dragged us into Iraq, got us bombed in Bali and generally hated almost as much as the Yanks in the Muslim coiuntries in SE Asia. Does anyone remember Harold "All the way with LBJ" Holt as he led us into the Vietnam War on America's coattails.

      • Re:.au would be insane to accept this (Score:5, Insightful)

        by The OPTiCIAN ( 8190 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @12:30AM (#9384413)
        > So why is it going ahead regardless?

        It's a tradeoff for other concessions. Australians get agricultural deliverables as a result of this.

        Don't get me wrong - I am staunchly opposed to a FTA that incorporates any of the brainless concessions on Sonny Bonno, patent law and copyright definitions. But the FTA is not *pure* evil, although it is poorly-conceived and will be bad for Australia's medium and long-term economic interest if implemented.

        It shouldn't be necessary but unfortunately the so called leaders of the free world are a bunch of protectionist arseholes and our farmers don't want to have compete against their tarrifs. The government's naive policy flows from this motivation.

        A poster in another thread noted:
        > Thanks to the free trade agreement, Australia is now likely to get DMCA-like laws.

        Australia already *has* [stupid] DMCA-like laws. However, under this agreement they would be expanded and (more seriously), entrenched in a foreign treaty. This means that if it gets introduced we'll have an extra level of lockin to them even when the fogies in parliament have moved on.

        As a call-out to geeks, the best thing you can do if you're pissed off about these things is to join EFA and to join a major political party. Too many geeks whine endlessly about how little their government does right, yet never get involved in a meaningful way. If you're pissed off about this stuff don't be a whining loser, go and meet some humans and see how it works.

        You'll see that bad decisions almost always have more to do with incompetence than conspiracy. Particularly in Australia which is largely free of corruption, back-room donation skills, that sort of thing.

        • Re:.au would be insane to accept this (Score:4, Informative)

          by Goonie ( 8651 ) * <robert.merkel@be n a m b r a . o rg> on Thursday June 10, 2004 @01:49AM (#9384713) Homepage
          It's a tradeoff for other concessions. Australians get agricultural deliverables as a result of this.

          Most of the economic analysis done seems to suggest that the benefits to Australia will be minimal.

          In any case, the deal as it stands will lead to the long term death of the PBS (for the benefit of the non-Aussies, a scheme we have to provide cheap access to prescription drugs), and there's little chance of the enabling legislation getting through the Senate if that's going to be the consequence.

        • Re:.au would be insane to accept this (Score:4, Insightful)

          by donscarletti ( 569232 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @04:37AM (#9385252)
          It's a tradeoff for other concessions. Australians get agricultural deliverables as a result of this.
          B.S.

          The only places where Australia could stand to gain is exporting things that America is short on and therefore likely to buy. The main example is sugar cane. And what is the key agricultural product that is exculded from the free trade agreement? That's right, sugar cane! America already has wheat, they are famous for eating huge chunks of their own local meat, they have cheese, they have cotton, vegetable oil and all manner of things, the only thing that is in wanting with the agricultural production of the US is cheap sucrose and that's just what we can't supply.

          Face it, the majority of America is a fertile farming paridise, our production can't compare to theirs, why would they want to buy our agricultural goods? We could get better money continuing selling to Japan, China, the middle east and Europe (when they have BSE/CJD).

          You are crazy if you think anything good could come of this.

      • So why is it going ahead regardless?

        Same reason as its going on in the US, hopeless corruption, selling now at the expense of later.

      • This time it's personal (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @01:45AM (#9384694)
        From an Australian perspective, she's a no make sense.
        It's simple - personal glory for a few people involved. The trade minister already talked about how he personally worked hard for WEEKS (not making this up) on the final take it or leave it negotiations, and the prime minister is doing it as a symbol of closer co-operation and to be able to point at SOMETHING that he has accomplished in his likely eight years in the top job before retirement.

        It doesn't matter that the major concessions are all held out as mere possibilitites to be reconsidered in eighteen years (I'm not joking there either), they can still argue that something was acheived on that front. The disadvantages to primary production hurt the minor party in the coalition, but the minor party has been told to take it or leave it - and the constituants of the major party are mostly convinced that investment of any kind is good, since Australia is just coming out of a major property boom with little negative consequence.

        Australian govenment makes little sense currently until you consider that every state governemt is held by a party the Federal government hates intensely, so health and education become issues to withold payment and embarress the states and law enforcement is something done by the states (apart from new anti-terror laws, until recently enforced five days a week). So it's things like trade deals, immigration and military action where the federal government can do something visable to the general public. This trade deal is big news, and so long as it is big and complex enough it doesn't matter if it works, it will show the people the government is doing something to make things better. It's like putting face-recognition systems in airports, it doesn't matter that the cutting-edge research still has a way to go before it works - spending X million on something with the right name show the voters that you care enough to try from a certain perspective.

    • "Who would profit from legalizing software patents, the American or the European software industry?"

      IIRC, the EU is putting out _more_ patents than the US now, so that would probably be the EU - if they got good ones. I'm told that not all smart people reside in the US, so I'd guess there's a fair chance that the EU could make out pretty well.

      -Erwos

      • Re:EU Council, Please Look at (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bit01 ( 644603 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @12:45AM (#9384458)

        that the EU could make out pretty well

        Unfortunately, no. A small number of people in the EU may make out really well. The vast majority will pay much more for software than would be possible in a fair, truly competitive market.

        ---

        It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
        It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
        Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

  • DMCA - Our gift to you, Australia! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gavin Rogers ( 301715 ) <grogers@vk6hgr.echidna.id.au> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:03PM (#9384101) Homepage
    Thanks to the free trade agreement, Australia is now likely to get DMCA-like laws.

    Our copyright law is already strict - we aren't allowed to copy a CD that you own to tape to listen on a walkman or in the car and we have no "fair use" copying for backup purpose. Now add the DMCA.

    Tack on to this the extension to the copyright period for most works approaching 90 years and we have to ask ourselves, was this "free trade" agreement worth trading in our reasonable copyright law in exchange for selling some more sugar, wheat and wool in the US market?

    • Re:DMCA - Our gift to you, Australia! (Score:5, Informative)

      by arlandbayes ( 770479 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:18PM (#9384167) Journal
      was this "free trade" agreement worth trading in our reasonable copyright law in exchange for selling some more sugar, wheat and wool in the US market?

      Actually, the "free" trade agreement exludes sugar exports. The Florida cane growers have quite a bit of influence with Bush since it is such a pivotal state under the US electoral system.

    • Re:DMCA - Our gift to you, Australia! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not to mention the fact that due to all the subsidies to sugar, Australia would be better off paying the sugar farmers to do nothing rather than grow sugar.
    • Add to that the fact that Australia has no bill of rights and therefore no formal right of free speech.
    • We do actually allow copying for backup purposes, that is, to protect the original.

      On the other hand, our courts have been very reluctant to build any kind of doctrine around IP law at all. Unlike other areas of Australian law where the High Court has struggled for decades to give us the rights that our constitution does not, they have been basically silent on this issue.
      • In Australia you may sometimes copy software for backup purposes, but you cannot backup music or video or any other copyrighted material even for personal purposes. Precisely what is purchased when buying a tape or CD or DVD is a license to play that content on approved harware using the medium provided only. If it breaks down you have to buy another one, sorry.

        Photocopy of printed material is also very tightly controlled. At my place of work you cannot make a copy of anything yourself. You have to ask the
    • And since Australia, en masse, already loves to hate America, this just adds to the mix. Oh, Australia will happily lap up US culture and music, but we do have an overall impression of Americans as ignorant imbeciles who don't understand sarcasm. This joke, for example, was quite popular down here (even if it is British in origin):

      NEWS FLASH:

      "American Discovers Sarcasm"

      Bill MacKenzie Jnr was visiting London in the British Isles, when he discovered sarcasm.
      'Yup. It was, like, really cool, you know ? I was
    • Thanks to the free trade agreement, Australia is now likely to get DMCA-like laws.

      As I pointed out above, we already got these with Copyright (Digital Agenda) Amendment Act 2000. What we get with the FTA is the extended term of 'protection.'

  • The media (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The_Mystic_For_Real ( 766020 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:04PM (#9384105)
    but missed the fact thanks to close to no coverage in the mainstream media."

    It is entirely understandable that the mainstream media did not give this issue much attention. It really is a small thing. An examination of some of the shortcomings of a trade agreement between the U.S. and Australia does not effect most people directly.

    • Re:The media (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Unordained ( 262962 ) <unordained_slashdotNOSPAM@csmaster.org> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:10PM (#9384127)
      ... and that they might have something to gain from it. Most big news outlets are owned by companies that also make/sell movies, music, or other media covered under copyright law that would be worth protecting overseas (your nightly news really doesn't matter in that respect.) Now, it's quite possible that because it's not an inconvenience to them, it simply didn't interest them (and they figured you wouldn't care either.) If this were very much not in their own best interest, they could easily blow it into a "big deal" everyone would suddenly mildly care about (as much as anybody seems to care about anything these days -- oh, wait, has that been true for all of history? Oh.)
    • what do you mean it doesn't "effect most people directly"?
      a consumers rights being limited - how direct can you get?
      [too lazy to deliver more substantiating examples]
      i believe the reply to your statement to be far more accurate.
      why would the interest holders critically report, what they desire?
      having said that, i believe (speculatively) that in the editors room the same argument was used, to kill off a journos report on the subject! i just wonder how they might have responded.....

    • Re:The media (Score:4, Insightful)

      by samj ( 115984 ) * <samj@samj.net> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:25PM (#9384195) Homepage
      Rubbish. This affects us all, unless you happen to live under a rock with no TV, radio, internet, etc. If nothing else, ordinary people become criminals under legislation required by the FTA - do you really need more justification?

    • Re:The media (Score:3, Funny)

      by sbszine ( 633428 )
      An examination of some of the shortcomings of a trade agreement between the U.S. and Australia does not effect most people directly.

      Agreed. It is rare that such an examination spontaneously generates [reference.com] the majority of Earth's population.

    • Re:The media (Score:5, Insightful)

      by caitsith01 ( 606117 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @12:25AM (#9384390) Journal
      "An examination of some of the shortcomings of a trade agreement between the U.S. and Australia does not effect most people directly."

      Of course it does, and the IP law parts of it certainly affect them a hell of a lot more than the provisions about sugar, for example, which have had the bulk of the coverage in the media including incessant front pages for several weeks a few months ago.

      The problem is people are too lazy to try to understand the finer details, even when they are very important details. On top of which, there is only a very weak consumer advocacy movement in Australia, there is no Nader-type crusader to draw attention to such issues, and only a few interest groups (Electronic Frontiers Australia being one, but they never seem to get any media play).

      People with your attitude are actually the problem. We are going to trade away our own laws, developed over hundreds of years through the British common law and then locally since federation, in exchange for the lowering of a few tariffs on manufactured goods, and you think its 'boring' to have to think about it.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:05PM (#9384106)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • ot: America (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think its pretty obvious that the US needs a separation of Industry and State the way they separated church and state.

      The DMCA just a symptom.

  • plenty of coverage, just not this issue. (Score:4, Informative)

    by mabinogi ( 74033 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:05PM (#9384108) Homepage
    We heard plenty of coverage about the agreement, but most of it was complaining from Sugar farmers......
    • The Aussie Sugar farmers sell the most expensive raw sugar in the world. Who would even want it? The only reason the US market makes sense is its ultra high taxes on processing sugar. By the time Aussie sugar ends up in American products, its cheaper to buy Hawaiian processed sugar. If the US ever fixed its sugar price manipulation, the Aussies wouldn't sell any sugar to anyone since the stuff is real cheap in places like the Caribbean.

      As far as US wheat, the Aussies can't come close to the efficiencie

  • OB aussie (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:06PM (#9384111)
    That's not a Free Trade Agreement,
    [pulls out big piece of paper] THIS is a Free Trade Agreement.

  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cujo_1111 ( 627504 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:08PM (#9384118) Homepage Journal
    What is apparent is that Australia did not get the big gains in access to US agriculture it was asking for, but still agreed to some serious changes to Australian social policies which the US was demanding. While the agreement - unlike the North American Free Trade Agreement - will not allow corporations to sue the government for breaches of the agreement, it will mean restrictions on the right of Australia to regulate local content in the media, changes to Australian quarantine laws, new avenues for US pharmaceutical companies to press for greater profits from the Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme, and greater restrictions on creative products under copyright.

    • Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by pjay_dml ( 710053 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:44PM (#9384269) Journal
      and this is the truly sad part.
      we have a center/right government at power, a group usually referred to as 'conservative'. strange, that the people that are on and on about the GREATNESS of australia, etc, etc, blablub...., would endanger, what is considered to be typical australian.

      it is actually quite sad to have a government that not only constantly lies to its people (and not having the character and honor, to stand up for ones mistakes), but that has completely subjugated itself, to a foreign power.
      i guess one has to consider this kind of behavior an australian political tradition. it seems like australian leadership figures, suffer the same issues as regular australians.
      just let me fill those non-australians in: australian, while very proud of australia, at the same time believe australia sucks when it comes to comparisons with other nations. see, the only thing auzzies are proud of are: sports, the weather and the beaches. australia has been strong in r&d, and many great discoveries and inventions actually came out of this small country. the problem: no one believes in it! yeap, thats right. while it happens all the time, its the amerikans (in their eyes) that do all the inventing, and contributing to development. the australians are world champion in belittling them selfs, unless its about sport!!!
      so why would the government defend australias economic interests, when the negotiators can't and don't believe in the nations [economic] capabilities?

      i guess the main reason is to be found in the tradition of australian politics, to never be truly independent. and always stay part of a greater power.

    • What is apparent is that Australia did not get the big gains in access to US agriculture it was asking for, but still agreed to some serious changes to Australian social policies which the US was demanding.

      The big problem is a free trade agreement was promised, to get the sugar/beef/wool/wheat/steel trade, and even without those things it was decided that SOMETHING had to be delivered under the name of a free trade agreement. The US negotiators realised this, realised that they had a sucker that could not

  • but how enforceable is it really? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by erucsbo ( 627371 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:10PM (#9384128)
    The net economic impact is thus likely to be negative.
    except for lawyers.

    The point of free trade agreements should be to open avenues of exchange, and not just of goods, but of services, ideas and the like.
    If the only winners are lawyers and political kudos then it ain't really a unilateral open and honest FTA.
    Maybe I just hanker back for the time of cooperation and backscratching that was the early days of the internet instead of the $$make money fast$$ and backstabbing that seems to goes on now.

    It will be interesting to see how many Australian companies incorporate separate R&D subsiduaries in New Zealand or Vanuatu etc to protect themselves against the much more matured and voracious legal 'profession' in the US chasing 'possible' IPR infringements (most of which I'd assume would be to financially cripple competition instead of really protecting IPRs).

    btw, what, if any, has been the Canadian experience with this - and can any parallels be drawn (or lessons learnt).

    • They don't make the laws, they just use them in their client's interests.

      Blame the politicians, who write the laws. Most of all, BLAME YOURSELF for letting the politicians write the laws without fear of retribution from you, the voter. Australians should stop whining about how other people are responsible for the ills in their country, get of their backsides and DO something about it. Politicians are affected by the public, believe it or not. If enough backbench Coalition MPs get enough letters and complai

  • Baker & McKenzie FTA IP Symposium (Score:5, Informative)

    by samj ( 115984 ) * <samj@samj.net> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:23PM (#9384185) Homepage
    I recently attended The US-Australia Free Trade Agreement and Intellectual Property - A Symposium [bakercyberlawcentre.org] which was hosted by the Baker & McKenzie Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre [bakercyberlawcentre.org], UNSW [unsw.edu.au] Law Faculty [unsw.edu.au]. You can find the transcript here [bakercyberlawcentre.org], and mp3 sound files here [bakercyberlawcentre.org], here [bakercyberlawcentre.org], and here [bakercyberlawcentre.org]. It was a most interesting presentation, although in some ways I think it missed important 'features' of the FTA. Features which affect us all like most of Chapter 17 [dfat.gov.au], especially the introduction of DMCA like laws. More time was spent discussing mostly irrelevant issues like the 'protection' of information that may otherwise be cached by ISPs. The site is a good resource nonetheless - it's just unfortunate that people don't know what's good for them and are more interested in irrelevant news than items which will actually make a difference to them.

    • it's just unfortunate that people don't know what's good for them and are more interested in irrelevant news than items which will actually make a difference to them.

      You mean like cheaper electronics, vehicles, white goods, clothing, etc...

      I think you'll find that the increase in affordability of those items and many more are going to make a difference to more people than IP and copyright laws. The FTA doesn't make Australia the 51st state of the USA. What it does do is give Australia access to some

      • The only way whitegoods are going to get cheaper in Australia is if they start putting in 120V 60Hz power.

        Clothing (except for Levis) is about the same.

        The only way cars are going to be cheaper is to switch to driving on the right side of the road.

        Things that don't have special Aussie standards like computers are already about the same price as in the US. Beige box computers are cheaper as is memory. Macs and Toshiba comptuers cost a bit more.

        Most of the high cost is a result of a massivly inefficient
      • Actually I wish this agreement would make us the 51st state, because then we would have some rights coming our way such as a proper constitution and a bill of right.

        Instead this FTA takes away a lot of things, almost guarantees more litigation, invites for a larger trade deficit in favour of the US in the high-tech sector in return for some very meager returns in the Agricultural sector.

        People say the balance will be somewhat even on the financial side all being considered, but in the meantime the rights
        • Actually I wish this agreement would make us the 51st state, because then we would have some rights coming our way such as a proper constitution and a bill of right
          Eh, you're too late for that. The Bill of Rights has been trampled on pretty well of late.

          You, yeah you, you're an enemy combatant now - no rights for you!

      • Cheaper? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
        like cheaper electronics, vehicles, white goods, clothing, etc

        All of that stuff we can already get cheaper from Asia. Hardly any of these "American" branded products, except the cars, which you're welcome to, are actually manufactured there now. For instance there isn't a single Levi jeans factory in the US now [azcentral.com]. If you buy from a multi-national like that they ship it direct from their third world factory. US trade laws are irrelevant.

  • If Only (Score:2, Interesting)

    by anty ( 679975 )
    If Only Johnny howard and the rest of our wonderful government had some balls and decided to stop arse licking dubya et. al

    but i guess we would miss out on things such as this 'free' trade agreement,

    fear and the 'forever threat' of terrorism as a political point scorer

    iraq

    not to mention an american administration and its embassy commenting on our domestic issues (read labour party)

    would be nice if our sovereignty was respected and little johhny had some kahunas to protect it.

  • Oh dear, I hate Free Trade Agreements (Score:4, Informative)

    by Claire-plus-plus ( 786407 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:32PM (#9384219) Journal
    Well from an Australian perspective this looks bad but it would have been possible to turn it to our advantage. A tightening of IP rights would hurt us in that we seem ot rely on importing IP because the government here is intent on pumping all the funding into primary industry. It is hard to get government assistance and funding for any business that trades in tertiary and secondary industry as the government has this insane idea (founded on our traditions) that the way forward in Australia is still "riding on the sheep's back".

    However, Australia is one of the top countries in the world for education and literacy. For research purposes in Software Engineering we have 2 of the top 15 universities in one city (Melbourne). If the government were to change their ideas of what Australian business is and what our exposts should be we could become a net exporter of IP. Currently we are a net exporter of tertiary education.

  • Australia..the 51st US state (Score:5, Funny)

    by nexx_au ( 768341 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:42PM (#9384258)
    Just another step closer.

  • Reading this makes me glad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @11:50PM (#9384288)
    That Helen Clark, our PM of New Zealand actually stood up to the US Governments bulling tactics and lost the chance for a free-trade agreement with the US. Looks like it wouldn't have been much of a benefit anyway...
  • If you don't like the agreement, go call your parliamentary representative and tell them so. I'm sure they'd be happy to hear your thoughts.

    Personally, I would also consider the benefits of getting relatively unfettered access to one of the world's largest markets. I know this is /. where the _only_ thing that matters is IP and copyright stuff, but you take the good with the bad and the bad with the good, you know?

    However, it's not my place to tell you your priorities, so go ahead and make your own decisi
    • Personally, I would also consider the benefits of getting relatively unfettered access to one of the world's largest markets. I know this is /. where the _only_ thing that matters is IP and copyright stuff, but you take the good with the bad and the bad with the good, you know?

      The most compelling evidence that the FTA will be bad for Australia is that the US thinks it will be good for them.

      If there was more conflict and fighting over the FTA from the US side, I'd be more inclined to believe there might be

  • As an Australian I despair that none of our elected reps can do anything other than present their rectums for pounding by America.

  • But you see... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FoboldFKY ( 785255 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @12:01AM (#9384316)

    ...there isn't really any such thing as "independant countries"; the truth is that we're all obviously incapable of making our own laws, and making our own decisions as to what's legally, socially and morally right. All countries should be begging the US to strongarm them, er, I mean help them to make changes to their laws. After all, the US is the perfect model to base a country on, putting it's most important members (corporations) first, leaving the little guy to fend for himself. We can only hope that in coming years this planet of ours will cease to be known as "Earth" with all of it's different and unique cultures, and come to be known as "America - Planet of Legally Encumbered Thought and Filty Rich Lawyers".

    But seriously, I'm rather miffed at the whole superiority stance the US seems to have in regards to other countries, including Australia.

    The most insulting part is slipping this into a "Free Trade" agreement... just what the h*ll did we get out of this, anyway? We already lag behind the US in terms of the concept of Free Use (it's illegal to, say, tape an episode off the TV to watch later over here). I remember reading part of the FTA, and it said the aim of the IP section was to bring the IP laws of Australia and the US together. But instead of getting this, we're just being shafted with all the nasty horrible laws that would make big US businesses the most money.

    Do we have the words "51st state" plastered somewhere we can't see? (John Howard walks past with arm around cardboard cutout of George Bush)

  • Linux Australia have been vigorously opposing, see my senate committee testimony for a good introduction: http://linux.org.au/fta/testimony [linux.org.au]. Show your friends.

    Also, send letters [linux.org.au] and sign the petition [petitiononline.com].

    Please help.
    Rusty.

  • What advise could you give for similar scenarios? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pisco_sour ( 722645 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @12:07AM (#9384341) Homepage

    Here in Peru, the government is currently in the middle of negotiations regarding our own US-Peru free trade agreement. There's a lot of hype about it, most people consider it to be the great economic panacea which will solve most of our terrible economic problems, and the one instrument which may single-handedly bring us out of underdevelopment. I say 'Ha!', but I don't think they really care about my opinion.

    Anyway, mainstream media is nothing but sugar talk for the FTA, and have hardly noticed all of the fine print, especially regarding "enhancements" on our IP law, or other areas of our Constitution - essentially opening wide for foreign investment without any kind of protection for our inner markets.

    So, to the point, as a sort of mini Ask Slashdot: how would you go about publicizing these little known issues, particularly the IP one, especially when most of the mainstream media just tries to shush any voices that are just not complying with their views? These are legitimate issues which could very possibly rally valuable support, yet none of it is being mentioned, anywhere, just the positive aspects of the agreement are publicized, particularly by the government. As far as I know, similar issues are popping all through Latin America, perhaps even other places. I would certainly appreciate any insight from Australians who've just went through this, or anybody else with similar experiences, which we may possibly adapt to our local scenarios.

    • Do it the way it's worked since forever: copy a big stack of flyers, and pass them out to everyone you see while yelling about your views on the issues.

      Just do it on a busy streetcorner or market or mall (I don't know what you have in Peru, sorry) instead of Slashdot - we already agree with you (and can't vote in Peru anyway)!

  • Damning (Score:4, Interesting)

    by acceber ( 777067 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @12:23AM (#9384386)
    Smaller economies will always be losers in free trade agreements.

    What worries me is that there has been little public debate or community consultation about the free trade agreement. Such a bilateral trade negotiation places Australia in a very weak bargaining position given the relative sizes of the US and Australian economies.

    What worries the Australian population is that the terms of the FTA will be unacceptable in regards to the Australian culture, health and safety, public interest and economic independence.

    Makes me wonder who the government on both ends of the deal was looking out for. The best interests of the political system? Or the best interests of the people?

  • The FTA has changed my vote (Score:3, Interesting)

    by drsmithy ( 35869 ) <drsmithy@gmai3.14159l.com minus pi> on Thursday June 10, 2004 @12:39AM (#9384439)
    I won't be voting Liberal this year solely because of the FTA.

    However, I am in somewhat of a quandary as to where I should redirect my vote. I'm tempted by Labor for the first time ever - Latham has made their economic policies much more palatable. However, on the other hand he's absolutely set in withdrawing our commitment in Iraq, something I think would be a very bad idea at this point. The Greens and Democrats have way too many wackos to even be a consideration.

    Damn, where's a responsible voter supposed to go ?

  • Hopefully latham labour and the minor parties in the senate can block this so-called "Free" trade aggreement.
  • Sorry that I'm not going to join in the chorus of bashing on the agreement here, but I'm surprised at how negative the response to this agreement is. I'm all-out for free-trade, too. I run Linux, I hate Micro$oft, I write free software under the GPL, etc., but your views on this agreement should not only be based on its impact on IP laws. Globalization is the future and history has shown that over the long-run, it's always beneficial to everyone. Competition promotes higher quality products, and when gover
    • Sorry that I'm not going to join in the chorus of bashing on the agreement here, but I'm surprised at how negative the response to this agreement is. I'm all-out for free-trade, too. I run Linux, I hate Micro$oft, I write free software under the GPL, etc., but your views on this agreement should not only be based on its impact on IP laws. Globalization is the future and history has shown that over the long-run, it's always beneficial to everyone.

      The point is that IP aspect of the FTA *does* affect everyone

    • The problem with free-trade agreements is that when a country with power is negotiating with a less economically powerful nation the agreement is never free and equal. In order to get the agreement at all the poorer country normally has to sign on to an agreement that would not be to their benefit. It is not uncommon for the more powerful country to maintain it's tarrifs, subsidies and other "protective" practices while the less powerful country has to truly open up their trade.

      The other main problem

    • IANAFTA - I Am Not A Free Trade Agreement (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quinkin ( 601839 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @01:33AM (#9384643)
      Ok I think I have managed to tone down my initial response ("WTF, R U ON CRACK!") to something moderately civil. :)

      "Globalization is the future and history has shown that over the long-run, it's always beneficial to everyone." - Playing fields are never level, markets are never free, and the ref is always biased.

      "As money flows into poor countries through trade..." - If money flows into... this is not a given.

      The FTA is all about corporations, not people. Call me strange (or just idealistic), but I believe the governments obligation is to the citizens foremost (those who actually elect them), and not the corporations (who buy the decisions they want).

      I would recommend reading a few of the dissertations upon FTAs:
      Helleiner, Gerald. 1993. The Political Economy of North American Free Trade. New York and Montreal: St. Martin's Press and McGill-Queen's.
      Gerry Helleiner [Professor of Economics at the University of Toronto, and a Canadian development economist actively involved with economic development policy in Latin America and Africa for many years] is fairly critical about Mexico and NAFTA. He argues that NAFTA implies "Mexican policy disarmament" [p.46], and that Mexico [a small country] would do better to bargain multilaterally through the GATT process than through bilateral bargaining over US-Mexico free trade given the asymmetric relationship between the US and Mexico. The impacts of Mexico joining NAFTA or a US-Mexico FTA on Mexico's relationships with Latin America are also seen as problematic. (My emphasis). There are many other examples of the larger economic power (ahem) flexing it's muscle to force issues to the detriment of the FTA partners.

      Q.

    • I'm all-out for free-trade, too

      The agreement is not about free trade, that's just it's name, like the Patriot act was not about parades or something. It's about removing some of the Austrailian barriers to US trade (including some well advised quarantine restrictions) and imposing some of the stranger US IP laws for mainly a promise to sit down and offer a better deal in eighteen years time. It's very one sided - it's a con offered to some people that would never say no for political reasons. The last Au

    • Free Trade is Good Period

      Bzzzt, wrong. "Free trade" is a myth. True, free trade would be warlordism, might makes right.

      Instead, we have a huge number of laws that attempt to discourage negative competitive behaviour (fraud, protection rackets, smuggling without taxes, lying about the competition, property ownership laws etc.) and allow positive competitive behaviour (improving the product, decreasing the price, finding synergies etc.).

      That framework of laws is what matters in this "free" trade agre

    • Yes, free trade is great.

      But, as many people have pointed out, there's not much freeing in the agreement, in the sense of eliminating barriers to trade. Don't be fooled by the name.

      What it does do, especially in areas like Chapter 17, is offer US companies the same protections here as it does in the US.

      Hope that clarifies,
      Rusty.
    • Globalization as the term is effectively being used means that corporations can force democracies to yield to their interests.

      For example, here in the EU it is clear that people do not want GM crops and food. The European governments that listen to their people on this issue are trying to keep GMOs out, but US corporations are using the WTO to override democracy. The same is true of a number of other issues (environment, intellectual property).

      Regardless of your views on the science and safety of GMOs,

  • Is this really so bad? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gromd ( 309022 )

    Being an Australian resident and being particularly keen on seeing a developing Australian industry I have three questions I would like to ask:

    1. Does developing IPRs instantly disallow you from support of the Open source community? My personal and selfish hope is that I can get stinking rich out of developing protected IP and then harness that power for good - using the wealth for open source development, similar to other social investments
    2. What are all the poor Americans doing i

  • Global Ruling Class (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ok, it seems some people still dont get it. "Why does john howard not do whats best for australians?" type thing. Easy, the global elite of the rich and powerful have banded together to rule the world. They like you to think that they are looking after the local interests, but they are not. Howard, Bush, Blair and the like are all on the same team. It is all us workers around that have to team up against them. I'm for globalization - globalization of worker solidarity. Power to the workers and peasants worl

  • Aussies don't hate America (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:40AM (#9384882) Journal
    we hate Howard. He's a fuckwit whose so far up Bush's ass that he will do ANYTHING Bush says too. We went to war because Howard was too scared to say no to Bush. We allowed Australian citizens to be illegally detained by America because Howard was too scared to stand up to Bush. Now we're going to get screwed over with this trade agreement because Howards is too scared to say no to Bush.

    When will it end?

  • Come on!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by pingurslapp ( 532925 ) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {palsrugnip}> on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:16AM (#9385350)
    This is only going to hurt any Australians that have actually devoloped something, then twenty years down the track the bloody "yanks" are going to steal it then patent it and we won't have a leg to stand on!!!!! Message to the yanks: Stop Stealing. First you steal the Name Ugg Boots, what next.

  • "Free" trade? (Score:3, Informative)

    by marsu_k ( 701360 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @08:18AM (#9386081)
    The wording is indeed confusing. While free trade agreements do help companies to do trade between countries, as stated in other comments this agreement places severe restrictions on how certain businesses are run, and require changes in legislation. Not so free.

    But not being from either .au or .us, I won't comment this further; instead I'll give an example from my area, that is the EU. They are supposedly support free trade, and it does show to an extent - within the EU it's very easy for an individual or a company to order goods from another member state. And there is a point to using Euros, it naturally helps tourism but it's especially good for small businesses that rely on importing goods. Exchange fluctuations aren't an issue if you happen to have a large cash reserve or are able to get a loan easily; not the case with many small shops.

    So everything is well and good in Euroland? Nope. One major point (there are several others, just as an example) is agriculture. Member states support their local farmers a lot, while imposing severe import taxes to products coming from third world countries - agricultural products being one of their main export. Naturally the products are eventually sold in the union, and the prices are quite high too. But a large part of the sales go to the union, with mandatory VAT and that import tax. The producing countries get very little.

    Now, since there isn't a free trade agreement between EU and it's African counterpart (I know there isn't (yet) an African Union as such, but it seems the policies are set on a continental level), this behaviour is within the right of the EU, although it's constantly protested in the WTO. But I find it infuriating that such a vocal supporter of free trade supports it only when it's in their interests.

    Which brings me to the point, instead of free trade we should be aiming to fair trade. We give corporations a status of an individual, i.e. a corporation can own property and has to pay taxes, yet it seems that they don't have to obey the same laws that we do. Naturally the purpose of the corporation is to make profit, yes, that's the last part after '???'. Currently it seems that ??? == exploit your surroundings as much as you can. IMHO it should be more along the lines of ??? == do your business with fairness in mind. Third world countries are very poor; duh, we're keeping them that way. While it's obvious that when we employ people there they don't get the same wage as in the western world, I'm sure they could use a bit more. I'm sure they'd appreciate being able to do trade with less taxes, thus helping create an economy of their own instead of having to rely on international support and foreign companies.

    But who am I kidding, this wouldn't happen even with severe governmental regulation. To do something like this would be against our very nature, and that's something that regulation just can't change. So I'll just end my rant by rasing a toast. Here's to my future job going to Estonia (the Finnish alternative for Mexico).

Slashdot Top Deals

It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire

Close