On February 8, 2004, Trade Minister Mark Vaile announced that Australia and the United States had approved the U.S. Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) in Australia. (1) The full text was published on 4 March 2004. (2) An important part of the agreement is Chapter 17 on Intellectual Property Rights (Intellectual Property Rights), which includes copyright, trademarks, patents and industrial design. (3) Australia has trade initiatives or trade agreements with the countries or groups of countries listed in the table below. In Australia, these concerns were reflected in the 2010 Productivity Commission report on Australian trade agreements. In this report, the Commission found that isED provisions essentially transfer the political risks associated with foreign direct investment from international companies to elected governments. The report recommended that the Australian government “avoid the adoption of provisions in trade agreements that give foreign investors additional material or procedural rights beyond those already provided by the Australian legal system” (S. xxxii).
Mr. Vaile, Minister of Trade, Free Trade Agreement with the United States, press release MVT08/2004, February 8, 2004, in www.trademinister.gov.au/releases/2004/mvt008_04.html Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia United States Free Trade Agreement, on www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/text/index.html This document begins with a brief discussion of recent international experience in the field of RMIR protection. In general, intellectual property rights have been strengthened by the addition of new territories, the extension of protection periods and similar means. The paper then examines the economic arguments for intellectual property protection among IP officials. Traditionally, there has been strong skepticism about the desire to grant intellectual property rights. Intellectual property rights are a pragmatic way to encourage innovation and creativity by enabling homeowners to earn income that may not be earned if their intellectual property rights are not protected. However, national rights can be undermined if other countries do not protect them. Overall, as noted below, a smaller country such as Australia should benefit from less protection of intellectual property rights, while larger economies such as the United States, Japan and Europe are likely to benefit from greater protection of intellectual property rights.
This is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the American initiative to promote the spiritual interior. A review of these grounds suggests that this agreement is, at least in part, an important precedent for future free trade agreements, which are likely to be concluded by the United States. AUSFTA is the first bilateral agreement that the United States has negotiated with a developed economy. There are also significant implications for the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Doha. (5) The paper then discusses in more detail some of the more specific issues.