null
Tim W Hayes  03/02/2007 04:02:03 PM  From  DB/Inbox:  Tim W Hayes

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS        ANKARA 00373

SIPDIS
CX:
    ACTION: ECON
    INFO:   FCS CONS PA POL DCM AMB RAO FAS MGT PMA

DISSEMINATION: ECON /1
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: AMB:RWILSON
DRAFTED: ECON:RKIMBRELL
CLEARED: ECON:TG; FCS:JF; IST:SO; DCM:NM

VZCZCAYI709
PP RUEHC RUCPDOC RUEHIT RUEHDA RUEHBS
DE RUEHAK #0373/01 0521000
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 211000Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY ANKARA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1036
INFO RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY
RUEHIT/AMCONSUL ISTANBUL 2161
RUEHDA/AMCONSUL ADANA 1671

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 ANKARA 000373 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITVIE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EeB A/S DSullivan 
Dept for eeb/TPP/MTA/IPe - jurban/jboger aND EUR/SE 
DEPT PASS USTR FOR jchoe-grOves 
DEPT PASS USPTO FOR JURBAN 
USDOC FOR 4200/ITA/MAC/EUR/PDYCK/CRUSNAK 
usdoc for 3133/ita/usfcs/oio/ceebic/mcosta 
 
E.O.12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD KIPR USTR TU
SUBJECT: Special 301 - Recommendation to Put Turkey on Watch List 
         (SBU) 
 
REFS:  (A) Ankara 293, (B) Ankara 128, (C) 06 Ankara 6734, (D) 06 
Ankara 6611, (E) 06 Ankara 5335, (F) 06 Ankara 1898, (G) 06 Ankara 
1743, (H) 06 Ankara 1742, (I) 06 Istanbul 1449, (J) 06 Istanbul 
1445, (K) Kimbrell-Choe-Groves, Boger e-mail 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) Post recommends moving Turkey to the Special 301 Watch List 
in 2007 to recognize improved legislative protections for 
intellectual property as well as the increase in seizures and 
resources dedicated to capturing and sentencing IPR violators. 
Turkish officials provided comprehensive and frank information 
during the Special 301 review process (ref B).  They recognize that 
Turkey needs to improve IPR protection and are ready to work more 
intensively with us and with industry to improve Turkey's capacity. 
U.S. agencies and industry should work together to develop training 
and assistance programs that would complement current EU efforts and 
strengthen the hand of reform-minded bureaucrats who continue to 
push for more improvement.  As one example, we are coordinating an 
"Innovation Economy" conference with U.S. business representatives 
in Istanbul for later this year.  Moving Turkey to the Watch List 
would also be consistent with the constructive and cooperative 
spirit of the revived Economic Partnership Commission and TIFA 
dialogues.  End summary. 
 
Protection Problems Continue, but Notable Improvements 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Turkey's protection of IPR remained problematic in 2006, 
especially in the areas of pharmaceutical data exclusivity (DE) and 
copyright enforcement.  The unresolved status of marketing 
applications filed prior to January 1, 2005, by generic drug 
producers that rely on test data of the original innovative company 
(ref E) continues to be a major area of concern for U.S. 
pharmaceutical companies.  In addition, while Turkish officials 
argue that they do not need to change their patent linkage system 
because the one in place provides safeguards in line with other EU 
countries, the implementation of a system similar to the one used in 
the U.S. could provide additional protection against the approval of 
generic copies of products for which a valid patent exists.  We 
note, however, that only one such case has occurred in Turkey that 
could arguably have been avoided with such a system in place. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Progress has been made in the area of copyright and 
trademark enforcement, with the number of seizures increasing 
substantially since the enactment of copyright and trademark 
protection legislation (refs B, I, J).  However, the prevalence of 
pirated material continues to concern right holders, some of whom 
recently created their own grassroots organization in Turkey to 
educate the public and the government about the importance of 
protecting IPR (ref C). 
 
¶4. (SBU) The Turkish government recognizes these weaknesses and is 
working to improve its IPR protection regime.  During the Advance 
Special 301 process (ref B), Turkish ministries readily cooperated 
with us by providing detailed information and remained open to 
suggested areas for improvement.  Most recently, they provided 
information regarding the sentencing guidelines currently used by 
IPR judges when penalizing offenders (ref K).  These include fines 
of up to 110,000 euros and up to 6 years in prison for the most 
serious violations.  In its 2007 Special 301 submission to USTR, the 
Turkish government provided a comprehensive, detailed, and frank 
description of its strengths, and more notably its weaknesses, in 
protecting IPR.  While many shortcomings remain, the Turkish 
government continues its harmonization process to fulfill its 
requirements for EU membership.  Many within the government who 
handle IPR argue that even if EU membership is not realized, the 
improvements being made in the judicial system are important for the 
Turkish economy because they will attract more investment and 
innovation which, in turn, will create better jobs for Turkey's 
underemployed workforce. 
 
¶5. (SBU) The tone of the responses we receive from Turkish officials 
has changed considerably.  In place of the refusal to admit a 
problem, Turkey's obligation to protect IPR is now a given for 
nearly all officials.  We receive many requests for training and 
assistance, especially for Turkey's specialized IPR courts and for 
law enforcement officials.  As an example of how eagerly Turkey 
takes advantage of U.S. and EU training opportunities, we have 
successfully nominated seven Turkish officials to attend four 
separate IPR protection courses offered by USPTO in 2006-2007.  We 
appreciate the cooperation we have received from USPTO in this 
respect. 
U.S. Industry of Two Minds 
-------------------------- 
¶6. (SBU) While 2007 Special 301 submissions from industry 
organizations such as PhRMA and IIPA call for continued 
improvements, they also recognize Turkey's forward movement, both in 
patent protection for pharmaceutical products and copyright 
enforcement.  PhRMA representatives in Turkey express optimism about 
Turkey's progress.  Those who have observed this issue since the 
"dark days" when there was no protective legislation for patents or 
data tell us they are "very satisfied" with the improvements but 
continue to pressure the GOT (rightfully) for stronger protections. 
AMPEC and MUYAP representatives in Istanbul also express their 
support for Turkey's progress in seizures and protection of 
copyrighted and trademarked material while working with the 
government to improve implementation (refs I, J). 
 
¶7. (SBU) As part of our Advance Special 301 discussions with Turkish 
officials and with private industry, we raised the issue of pirated 
software in government agencies and asked about the possibility of 
having the current administration "reissue" the 1998 prime 
ministerial decree outlawing the use of pirated software in public 
offices.  The GOT has reiterated that the decree remains binding on 
all government agencies, which are instructed to ensure compliance 
with its requirements.  BSA representatives in Turkey have told us 
that they believe the government is acting in good faith to fix this 
problem and that, while anecdotally they have been told that 
government use of unlicensed software is at most 50%, they have no 
way of calculating this.  In addition, a prominent BSA member, which 
also considers itself the "unofficial technology adviser" to the 
GOT, questioned the utility of such a decree and does not believe 
that pressuring the government to reissue an official statement with 
which agencies are already familiar is worth extensive effort. 
 
¶8. (SBU) This incongruent message from U.S. industry has left 
Turkish officials at times frustrated and more often confused. 
There appears to be a disconnect between those working on the ground 
in Turkey and who see first-hand the improvements that have been 
made, and professional industry lobbyists in Washington, some of 
whom fail to even make the trip to Ankara to meet face-to-face with 
Turkish officials during their visits to Istanbul.  This is 
something that we have urged U.S. industry representatives in Turkey 
to incorporate into their DC representatives' future agendas in 
Turkey. 
 
Good Will is There, But Limited Resources Slow Reforms 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) The Turkish government is not deficient in good intentions 
to improve IPR protection but rather in capacity as it struggles to 
reform its judicial system, educate judges and prosecutors (while 
continuously adding more of each to its specialized IPR courts), 
implementing reforms in its healthcare system (ref A), and 
modernizing its communications infrastructure.  During our last 
visit to the MOH, we waited in the department where new 
pharmaceutical applications are processed among the shopping carts 
full of paper files that were awaiting review.  Important steps have 
been made in terms of automating and linking relevant agencies in 
order to facilitate the share of information (ref B), but the 
process is not complete. 
 
¶10. (SBU) U.S. industry and agencies should take advantage of the 
good will of Turkish agencies instead of rebuffing their efforts as 
insufficient.  Such an approach would be consistent with the 
constructive, cooperative spirit of the revived Economic Partnership 
Commission (EPC) and Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) 
dialogues.  This message would also strengthen the hand of reformers 
within the GOT who see the benefits of good policy, especially as 
Turkey enters its election season and unpopular policies will be at 
greater risk of cancellation without support from within the 
bureaucracy. 
 
Watch List Remains a Significant Warning 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶11.  Moving Turkey to the Watch List will not let it off the hook in 
terms of pressure for continued reform but will recognize the 
considerable efforts made by reform-minded officials.  Instead of 
continuing to penalize Turkey for its lack of perfection, U.S. 
agencies should work with industry to find ways to upgrade capacity, 
and train and educate Turkish policy makers in complement with EU 
twinning and training projects.  We are currently working with U.S. 
industry representatives to organize an "Innovation Economy" 
conference that will stress the importance of IPR protection for 
attracting greenfield FDI and innovation to a developing economy. 
Turkey was placed on the Priority Watch List in 2004 at a time when 
IPR Protection was dismal and Turkish officials refused to admit 
that they had obligations to fulfill.  The situation, as those who 
have been here from the beginning tell us over and over, is 
considerably better than it was three years ago, and the USG should 
recognize these efforts by moving Turkey to the Watch List. 
Wilson