Sunday, November 8, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Anton, Part 2
AntonThis was Anton when he was two or three years old. Now, he is 16 and he wrote the following:
I can only vaguely remember my preschool days, where as I would step out of our car in the morning to go to class, my father would stop me and say, “Be the best you can.” This is when my “defining moment” began. This line was so simple. So simple that it may have slipped away from my mind as I advanced through my school years. And because of this, I dread to think that I have only become a mere fraction of what I could have become.
Last year gave me one of my most enduring moments. We auditioned for our school’s Battle of the Bands, and two weeks later, we were given the news that we had advanced to the finals. I can recall how surreal, yet at the same time, satisfying it was since, literally and undeniably, years of hard work and sacrifice had paid off.
The day of the performance was humbling to say the least – being with musicians whom I had greatly admired and knowing that we were going to compete against them was incredible. As we walked to the stage to perform, I suddenly remembered what my father used to tell me: “Be the best you can.” And all of a sudden, all the times that I only let myself become a fraction of what I could have been came to mind, and I promised that I would not let this happen at that moment. Knowing this, I tried to accomplish my father’s advice to the best of my ability.
We did not win the event; we did not even win a place. But all this did not matter. All that mattered was that we did our best, and so we had no regrets. Anyway, the time given to us on stage to perform was more than enough of a prize for me.
As I analyze my experience now, I can conclude that when we do anything, we must go all out and give everything we have got. We must never limit ourselves to only a fraction of what we can be. In fact, failure to live life to the fullest may be the saddest mistake one can commit in his or her lifetime.
Yes, the line “Be the best you can” may be a simple forgettable line. I know this by experience. But this is a sentence that we definitely must always remember.
(With Anton's permission)
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Getting Out of the Woods
(Picture taken at the Yosemite National Park)Getting Out of the Woods of Special 301
By: Numeriano F. Rodriguez, Jr., Secretary-General, IP Coalition[1]
Last April 30, 2009, the US Trade Representative (“USTR”) released its annual Special 301 Report. As in the previous three years, the Philippines was included in the ordinary (as opposed to the Priority) Watch List. But, unlike in those previous three years, an out-of-cycle review (“OCR”) was mandated to be conducted for 2009.
The Special 301 Watch List and its Implications
Under Section 182 of the US Trade Act of 1974, the USTR is tasked to tag countries that “do not provide an adequate level of IPR protection or enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property protection” under a so-called Priority Watch List; and those countries with IPR problems which merit bilateral attention, under an ordinary Watch List.
Depending on the classification that a country falls in, the US may decide to impose varying degrees of trade sanctions.
What does an OCR mean?
Generally, the USTR solicits comments and submissions from the public re: “Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974” from November of each year to February of the following year. Then, after evaluating these submissions and other data in its possession, it comes out with its Special 301 Report in April.
When, in the course of its evaluation, the USTR determines that a particular trading partner may be able to achieve specific appreciable gains in its protection of IP rights within a short term period of, say, six months, it may decide to conduct an OCR, or a review outside of the usual timetable. In effect, the USTR gives itself more opportunity to evaluate the performance, or lack of it, of the country in question. In practice, the OCR serves as a gentle warning to the country in question of a possibly drastic change in the latter’s Watch List standing.
In 2005, an OCR was conducted for the Philippines. As a result of the review, the USTR, citing “improved IPR enforcement”, downgraded the Philippines from the Priority Watch List to the ordinary Watch List in February, 2006. At that time, the Philippines had been in the Priority Watch List beginning 2001, or for five years.
As mentioned, an OCR has been scheduled for 2009. It will probably be in full swing by the fourth quarter of 2009. If the Philippines were to make an impressive showing for this review, specific significant improvements in the protection of IP rights must be in place by October, 2009.
Known Areas of Achievable Improvement
Among various areas of concern: What significant improvements may be achievable by the Philippines in the short term to satisfactorily respond to the OCR challenge?
As early as 2007, the IP Coalition identified specific tasks that constitute challenges to build and strengthen institutions that promote the protection and advancement of IP rights. It came up with a “market list, pared down to what we believe are the most essential, (which) should include the institutionalization of the Optical Media Board and the BOC IP Unit, the designation of some court as “IP-dedicated”; the strengthening of the IP PHILIPPINES Bureau of Legal Affairs, the passage of enabling laws to implement the Internet Treaties and the propagation of the Local Government IP Ordinance[2]. The IP Coalition then expressed hope that the Philippines could be totally removed from the Watch List in “two years”[3], if “resolute steps” to accomplish the tasks in the market list shall be actively pursued.
Apart from other issues, such as the recent amendments to the patent provisions of the IP Code, the USTR has echoed the same sentiments of the IP Coalition. In the 2009 Special 301 Report, the USTR categorically stated:
Unfortunately, despite the continuing efforts of some Philippine officials – notably, in the Intellectual Property Office, Optical Media Board, and Customs – to improve enforcement there is no true deterrent mechanism in place to dissuade IPR infringers from their illegal activities. Additionally, the digital environment has created more challenges that the Government has not addressed, such as peer-to-peer piracy, mobile device piracy, and illegal camcording.The United States urges the Government to put in place mechanisms and laws that will address the weaknesses in its current system, such as specialized IP courts and legislation to implement the WIPO Internet Treaties and to address illegal camcording. (Emphasis supplied)
Sad to say, little or no improvement has been observed in these areas in the last three years. Can the OCR then provide the impetus to jumpstart these moves?
First, to put in place a deterrent mechanism that will dissuade infringers, the IP Coalition has proposed the creation of an IPR court or, at least, an IP-dedicated Court. The simple justification has been that a court that can devote more time on IP cases will, at least, theoretically, mean less time for IP owners to wait. Such a court, run by a judge imbued with that sense of judicial urgency, and possessing the flexibility to allocate the time needed to resolve its cases most expeditiously, can effectively cut the time it takes to resolve IP cases, thus, minimize judicial delay.
There is a report that a review of the procedural rules with a view to formulating special rules on IP prosecution has also been commenced by IP Philippines preparatory to the creation or designation of an IP court. How soon can they be ready?
Second, the IP Coalition has stressed the need for the Philippine Legislature to pass enabling laws to implement the WIPO[4] Copyright Treaty (WCT), and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) which seek to address the challenges posed by today’s digital technologies, by providing protection for digital works in the Internet. As a signatory to these treaties, the Philippines is under obligation to provide a legal framework of basic rights, to ensure that creators may control the use or enjoyment of their works as they are disseminated through new technologies and communications systems; and technological adjuncts to ensure that right holders can effectively use technology to protect their rights and to license their works online. On July 3, 2007, shortly after the opening of the 14th Congress, Senator Edgardo J. Angara filed Senate Bill No. 880 (An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines and for Other Purposes). This Bill seeks to “amend the Code through the integration of comprehensive and efficient strategies to respond to the upsurge of internet piracy”.
With the election fever just about ready to sidetrack our members of Congress, the chances of getting these bills passed through the legislative mill look even smaller. John Lesaca, IP Coalition Chairman, warns that the Philippines is “in danger” of being demoted to the Priority Watch List. Of course, there are also others who, armed with courageous optimism, maintain that, with a little more push from the private sector, these improvements may still just see fruition.
One thing is sure: time is running out, as we speak. Depending on what we can muster in the next four months or so, the Philippines may be out of the woods by 2010. Or back to where it was in 2005.
[1] The IP Coalition Inc. is a non-stock, non-profit corporation duly registered under Philippine law. It aims, through focused advocacy, education, and enforcement monitoring programs, to serve as the primary policy caucus of industry organizations and stakeholder associations that promote the protection and advancement of intellectual property rights in the Philippines.
[2] 2007 IP Coalition Submission to the USTR
[3] “IP Coalition sees removal from US watch list in 2 years”
(http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/view_article.php?article_id=77564 ) Posted on July 19, 2007
[4] World Intellectual Property Organization
By: Numeriano F. Rodriguez, Jr., Secretary-General, IP Coalition[1]
Last April 30, 2009, the US Trade Representative (“USTR”) released its annual Special 301 Report. As in the previous three years, the Philippines was included in the ordinary (as opposed to the Priority) Watch List. But, unlike in those previous three years, an out-of-cycle review (“OCR”) was mandated to be conducted for 2009.
The Special 301 Watch List and its Implications
Under Section 182 of the US Trade Act of 1974, the USTR is tasked to tag countries that “do not provide an adequate level of IPR protection or enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property protection” under a so-called Priority Watch List; and those countries with IPR problems which merit bilateral attention, under an ordinary Watch List.
Depending on the classification that a country falls in, the US may decide to impose varying degrees of trade sanctions.
What does an OCR mean?
Generally, the USTR solicits comments and submissions from the public re: “Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974” from November of each year to February of the following year. Then, after evaluating these submissions and other data in its possession, it comes out with its Special 301 Report in April.
When, in the course of its evaluation, the USTR determines that a particular trading partner may be able to achieve specific appreciable gains in its protection of IP rights within a short term period of, say, six months, it may decide to conduct an OCR, or a review outside of the usual timetable. In effect, the USTR gives itself more opportunity to evaluate the performance, or lack of it, of the country in question. In practice, the OCR serves as a gentle warning to the country in question of a possibly drastic change in the latter’s Watch List standing.
In 2005, an OCR was conducted for the Philippines. As a result of the review, the USTR, citing “improved IPR enforcement”, downgraded the Philippines from the Priority Watch List to the ordinary Watch List in February, 2006. At that time, the Philippines had been in the Priority Watch List beginning 2001, or for five years.
As mentioned, an OCR has been scheduled for 2009. It will probably be in full swing by the fourth quarter of 2009. If the Philippines were to make an impressive showing for this review, specific significant improvements in the protection of IP rights must be in place by October, 2009.
Known Areas of Achievable Improvement
Among various areas of concern: What significant improvements may be achievable by the Philippines in the short term to satisfactorily respond to the OCR challenge?
As early as 2007, the IP Coalition identified specific tasks that constitute challenges to build and strengthen institutions that promote the protection and advancement of IP rights. It came up with a “market list, pared down to what we believe are the most essential, (which) should include the institutionalization of the Optical Media Board and the BOC IP Unit, the designation of some court as “IP-dedicated”; the strengthening of the IP PHILIPPINES Bureau of Legal Affairs, the passage of enabling laws to implement the Internet Treaties and the propagation of the Local Government IP Ordinance[2]. The IP Coalition then expressed hope that the Philippines could be totally removed from the Watch List in “two years”[3], if “resolute steps” to accomplish the tasks in the market list shall be actively pursued.
Apart from other issues, such as the recent amendments to the patent provisions of the IP Code, the USTR has echoed the same sentiments of the IP Coalition. In the 2009 Special 301 Report, the USTR categorically stated:
Unfortunately, despite the continuing efforts of some Philippine officials – notably, in the Intellectual Property Office, Optical Media Board, and Customs – to improve enforcement there is no true deterrent mechanism in place to dissuade IPR infringers from their illegal activities. Additionally, the digital environment has created more challenges that the Government has not addressed, such as peer-to-peer piracy, mobile device piracy, and illegal camcording.The United States urges the Government to put in place mechanisms and laws that will address the weaknesses in its current system, such as specialized IP courts and legislation to implement the WIPO Internet Treaties and to address illegal camcording. (Emphasis supplied)
Sad to say, little or no improvement has been observed in these areas in the last three years. Can the OCR then provide the impetus to jumpstart these moves?
First, to put in place a deterrent mechanism that will dissuade infringers, the IP Coalition has proposed the creation of an IPR court or, at least, an IP-dedicated Court. The simple justification has been that a court that can devote more time on IP cases will, at least, theoretically, mean less time for IP owners to wait. Such a court, run by a judge imbued with that sense of judicial urgency, and possessing the flexibility to allocate the time needed to resolve its cases most expeditiously, can effectively cut the time it takes to resolve IP cases, thus, minimize judicial delay.
There is a report that a review of the procedural rules with a view to formulating special rules on IP prosecution has also been commenced by IP Philippines preparatory to the creation or designation of an IP court. How soon can they be ready?
Second, the IP Coalition has stressed the need for the Philippine Legislature to pass enabling laws to implement the WIPO[4] Copyright Treaty (WCT), and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) which seek to address the challenges posed by today’s digital technologies, by providing protection for digital works in the Internet. As a signatory to these treaties, the Philippines is under obligation to provide a legal framework of basic rights, to ensure that creators may control the use or enjoyment of their works as they are disseminated through new technologies and communications systems; and technological adjuncts to ensure that right holders can effectively use technology to protect their rights and to license their works online. On July 3, 2007, shortly after the opening of the 14th Congress, Senator Edgardo J. Angara filed Senate Bill No. 880 (An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines and for Other Purposes). This Bill seeks to “amend the Code through the integration of comprehensive and efficient strategies to respond to the upsurge of internet piracy”.
With the election fever just about ready to sidetrack our members of Congress, the chances of getting these bills passed through the legislative mill look even smaller. John Lesaca, IP Coalition Chairman, warns that the Philippines is “in danger” of being demoted to the Priority Watch List. Of course, there are also others who, armed with courageous optimism, maintain that, with a little more push from the private sector, these improvements may still just see fruition.
One thing is sure: time is running out, as we speak. Depending on what we can muster in the next four months or so, the Philippines may be out of the woods by 2010. Or back to where it was in 2005.
[1] The IP Coalition Inc. is a non-stock, non-profit corporation duly registered under Philippine law. It aims, through focused advocacy, education, and enforcement monitoring programs, to serve as the primary policy caucus of industry organizations and stakeholder associations that promote the protection and advancement of intellectual property rights in the Philippines.
[2] 2007 IP Coalition Submission to the USTR
[3] “IP Coalition sees removal from US watch list in 2 years”
(http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/view_article.php?article_id=77564 ) Posted on July 19, 2007
[4] World Intellectual Property Organization
Monday, July 20, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Never Ever Settle
(Runners who participated in the recent Mizuno Run)To Settle or Not To Settle
xxx But to insinuate that some IP stakeholders are forced to enter into compromise settlements with the accused “at an early stage, and on terms that are too favorable to infringers” because of the delays is going overboard.
The IACC, after lamenting about judicial delays, stated:
As a consequence, an increasing number of criminal cases are being settled at an early stage, and on terms that are too favorable to infringers. In many cases, IP owners question whether prosecutors are subject to undue influence in their consideration of the merits (IACC Letter to Ms Sybia Harrison dated February 10, 2006 Re: Request for Public Comment--Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 (as amended), 71 Fed. Reg. 10 (January 17, 2006), page 44-45).
This assertion cannot be supported with facts.
First, settlements can only be completed with the consent of all parties involved, particularly, the complaining IP Stakeholder, and upon approval by a court. The court satisfies itself that no compulsion or threat of any kind vitiated the consent of the parties. Normally, this is done by requiring the affiant (complaining IP owner or representative) to take the witness stand and affirm under oath his desistance.
Second, if an IP owner becomes impatient because of the delays and decides to settle amicably his claims instead, that is his decision. If he settled “on terms that are too favorable to infringers”, that is his look-out.
Courts cannot follow one every step of his life and extricate him from bad bargains, protect him from unwise investments, relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects of foolish acts. Courts cannot constitute themselves guardians of persons who are not legally incompetent. Courts operate not because one person has been defeated or overcome by another, but because he has been defeated or overcome illegally. Men may do foolish things, make ridiculous contracts, use miserable judgment, and lose money by them — indeed, all they have in the world but not for that alone can the law intervene and restore. There must be, in addition, a violation of law, the commission of what the law knows as an actionable wrong, before the courts are authorized to lay hold of the situation and remedy it (Vales v. Villa, 35 Phil. 769).
Third, there is mischief in the statement: “In many cases, IP owners question whether prosecutors are subject to undue influence in their consideration of the merits.” This assumes erroneously that public prosecutors participate in the process of negotiating a settlement and are in some position to influence its outcome. This statement also disregards the fact that, in most, if not all, cases filed by IP owners, there is a private prosecutor engaged by the latter, who directly undertakes the prosecution of cases and advises on any negotiation for settlement.
IPO Director-General Adrian Cristobal was reported to have commented that the “practice of legal settlements in IP cases is "weakening" the system in the fight against piracy. Although a settlement is a recourse allowed by law, he said, this procedure does not give a good image of the government determined effort to stamp out piracy.” (“US ON RP’S IP POLICY: BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING”, Manila Bulletin Online, November 3, 2006, http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2006/11/03/INFO2006110378741_print.html)
When asked for a reaction, Hwee-Chong Ng, chair of BSA Philippines Committee, reportedly explained that a "settlement is an integral part of the litigation process. When the infringing party is willing to admit wrongdoing, take steps to get legal, prevent recurrence, and adequately compensates the copyright holder, then taking such a route is a prudent process in such matters." (Ibid.)
Settlements, in general, are encouraged by Philippine procedural rules. They have emerged as an essential component of an effective anti-piracy or anti-counterfeiting strategy. An IP owner does not need to apologize for resorting to it.
Contrary to the statement of Director General Cristobal, settlement of IP cases does not weaken the system in the fight against piracy and counterfeiting. It may lessen, nay, obliterate, the prospect of conviction, but it, in the end, still strengthens the system, because, notwithstanding the absence of conviction, justice had been served. It is, in fact, a testament to the effectivity of the system.
(Excerpt from 2006: Issues and Challenges in the Fight against Piracy and Counterfeiting in the Philippines. IP Coalition Submission to the United States Trade Representative, by Numeriano F. Rodriguez, Jr., February 12, 2007)
xxx But to insinuate that some IP stakeholders are forced to enter into compromise settlements with the accused “at an early stage, and on terms that are too favorable to infringers” because of the delays is going overboard.
The IACC, after lamenting about judicial delays, stated:
As a consequence, an increasing number of criminal cases are being settled at an early stage, and on terms that are too favorable to infringers. In many cases, IP owners question whether prosecutors are subject to undue influence in their consideration of the merits (IACC Letter to Ms Sybia Harrison dated February 10, 2006 Re: Request for Public Comment--Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 (as amended), 71 Fed. Reg. 10 (January 17, 2006), page 44-45).
This assertion cannot be supported with facts.
First, settlements can only be completed with the consent of all parties involved, particularly, the complaining IP Stakeholder, and upon approval by a court. The court satisfies itself that no compulsion or threat of any kind vitiated the consent of the parties. Normally, this is done by requiring the affiant (complaining IP owner or representative) to take the witness stand and affirm under oath his desistance.
Second, if an IP owner becomes impatient because of the delays and decides to settle amicably his claims instead, that is his decision. If he settled “on terms that are too favorable to infringers”, that is his look-out.
Courts cannot follow one every step of his life and extricate him from bad bargains, protect him from unwise investments, relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects of foolish acts. Courts cannot constitute themselves guardians of persons who are not legally incompetent. Courts operate not because one person has been defeated or overcome by another, but because he has been defeated or overcome illegally. Men may do foolish things, make ridiculous contracts, use miserable judgment, and lose money by them — indeed, all they have in the world but not for that alone can the law intervene and restore. There must be, in addition, a violation of law, the commission of what the law knows as an actionable wrong, before the courts are authorized to lay hold of the situation and remedy it (Vales v. Villa, 35 Phil. 769).
Third, there is mischief in the statement: “In many cases, IP owners question whether prosecutors are subject to undue influence in their consideration of the merits.” This assumes erroneously that public prosecutors participate in the process of negotiating a settlement and are in some position to influence its outcome. This statement also disregards the fact that, in most, if not all, cases filed by IP owners, there is a private prosecutor engaged by the latter, who directly undertakes the prosecution of cases and advises on any negotiation for settlement.
IPO Director-General Adrian Cristobal was reported to have commented that the “practice of legal settlements in IP cases is "weakening" the system in the fight against piracy. Although a settlement is a recourse allowed by law, he said, this procedure does not give a good image of the government determined effort to stamp out piracy.” (“US ON RP’S IP POLICY: BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING”, Manila Bulletin Online, November 3, 2006, http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2006/11/03/INFO2006110378741_print.html)
When asked for a reaction, Hwee-Chong Ng, chair of BSA Philippines Committee, reportedly explained that a "settlement is an integral part of the litigation process. When the infringing party is willing to admit wrongdoing, take steps to get legal, prevent recurrence, and adequately compensates the copyright holder, then taking such a route is a prudent process in such matters." (Ibid.)
Settlements, in general, are encouraged by Philippine procedural rules. They have emerged as an essential component of an effective anti-piracy or anti-counterfeiting strategy. An IP owner does not need to apologize for resorting to it.
Contrary to the statement of Director General Cristobal, settlement of IP cases does not weaken the system in the fight against piracy and counterfeiting. It may lessen, nay, obliterate, the prospect of conviction, but it, in the end, still strengthens the system, because, notwithstanding the absence of conviction, justice had been served. It is, in fact, a testament to the effectivity of the system.
(Excerpt from 2006: Issues and Challenges in the Fight against Piracy and Counterfeiting in the Philippines. IP Coalition Submission to the United States Trade Representative, by Numeriano F. Rodriguez, Jr., February 12, 2007)
Friday, June 26, 2009
I Remember
Goa, Camarines Sur. Manoy Emong just passed the board exams for civil enginnering. He became one of the first professionals in the clan. My father was actually the first. He became a Certified Public Acountant (CPA) in the 50's, before I was born.
In this photo (taken in the 60's), Manoy Emong with Papa, Embet (my only brother) and ako. I think this was taken by Kikoy Paronda, one of ONLY two professional photographers in Goa at that time.
There were hardly any consumer-grade cameras then. If you wanted pictures taken, you hired a pro.
Life, then, was that simple.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The Merry Women of Catalina
Eating ice cream on a Tuesday afternoon.
Shared tastes; shared experiences; shared memories.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
How to Roast a Pig (or Celebrate Life)
Not for the faint of heart (or, those with clogged arteries).
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)