19
TRIPS standards. We call upon the new government to strengthen protection of intellectual property in Jordan.
Korea: Korea's intellectual property law does not meet the standards set out in the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Most notably, Korea does not provide for TRIPS-consistent protection for pre-existing works and sound recordings. In addition, the United States has raised concerns with the level of patent protection for pharmaceuticals and the protection of data in Korea, as well as with Korea's market access restrictions on pharmaceutical products and on motion pictures and cable TV programming. The Korean Government has indicated that is making changes to address some of the intellectual property issues raised by the United States. The Administration will continue to work with the Korean Government to ensure that all of our intellectual property concerns are fully addressed, specifically in negotiations on a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), in the out-of-cycle review of TRIPS consistency in December, and in other fora. The U.S. Government has indicated that the TRIPS-consistency issues that have arisen with Korea must be resolved at the time of signing of a BIT.
Lebanon passed a modern copyright law earlier this year; however, we remain seriously concerned by TRIPS-inconsistent provisions that undermine protection of software by providing overly broad educational exemptions and other fair use provisions. Copyright piracy is widespread and unauthorized use of software remains pervasive among private firms and government ministries. Lebanon has also failed to take sufficient enforcement actions against copyright book, computer software and optical media piracy. Concerns remain that Lebanon is considering allowing the registration of generic copies of drugs still protected by patents. In the coming year, we urge Lebanon to address these concerns and look forward to implementation of pending patent and trademark legislation with the expectation it will bring Lebanon into conformity with international standards.
Mexico: Mexico has committed to implement and enforce high levels of intellectual property protection consistent with its international obligations. Nevertheless, piracy and counterfeiting remain problems. As has been the case in recent years, despite a significant number of raids in 1998, only a small percentage resulted in court decisions and the levels of penalties assessed when court decisions are made are inadequate to deter future piracy. However, we were encouraged by the Government of Mexico's announcement of an initiative to combat piracy last year; and the passage of legislation yesterday of additional anti-piracy legislation. We look to the Government of Mexico now to devote the resources necessary and efforts necessary to fully enforce the new anti-piracy initiative.
New Zealand: New Zealand generally provides sound intellectual property protection, however, recent decisions to erode the level of copyright protection available to right holders in New Zealand are of serious concern. On May 16, 1998 the New Zealand government passed an amendment to the Copyright Act abolishing the importation right for all copyrighted works, including sound recordings, books, movies, and software. Shortly after this decision was announced, Ambassador Barshefsky expressed her concern with this decision and the fact that is was made with little consultations with interested parties in announcing an out-of-cycle review
