20
copyrighted works, but the fines applied to infringers have been too low to provide a credible deterrent. Pakistan lacks patent protection for pharmaceutical products and, the term of protection under it patent law for processes is not consistent with TRIPS. Finally, instances of trademark infringement which need to be remedied. We look to Pakistan to move quickly to improve protection for intellectual property.
Peru: Although Peru has relatively strong IPR legislation in place, it is not yet TRIPS-consistent in a number of respects, due to reliance on the Andean Pact Decisions on Intellectual Property which fall short of TRIPS standards. While enforcement actions have been brought, the INDECOPI Appellate Tribunal's pattern of reducing fines it initially assesses seriously hinders enforcement efforts against piracy and counterfeiting. Piracy also continues due to problems with lax border enforcement and a cumbersome and slow judicial process. We will continue to monitor progress in these areas. Finally, we look to Peru, and other members of the Andean Community to complete the important work of modifying Andean Pact decisions to make them consistent with the requirements of TRIPS and also look to Peru to take a leadership role in meeting TRIPS obligations in a timely manner.
In June 1997, the Philippines enacted a comprehensive IPR Code which represents a major step toward TRIPS compliance for copyrights, patents, and trademarks, and created a new Intellectual Property Office within the Department of Trade and Industry. Unfortunately, the law contains a number of ambiguous or problematic provisions, principally an exception for the decompilation of computer programs and overly broad restrictions on technology licensing. Enforcement remains weak, due to court backlogs that pose a particular problem. A Presidential Directive requiring all government agencies to use only legitimate software has had some effect. In January 1998, the Government of the Philippines issued organizational and procedural regulations to implement the IPR Code, but the troublesome substantive issues remain unaddressed. We look to the Government of the Philippines to address these shortcomings quickly.
In Poland, while enforcement has continued to improve for most copyright industries, the Government does not provide adequate protection for U.S. sound recordings. Industry estimates that losses to piracy fell by $80 million between 1996 and 1997, principally due to a reduction in software piracy. It appears that Poland is not providing national treatment for protection of foreign sound recordings, which would violate its TRIPS obligations. With respect to enforcement, although raids occur in Poland, prosecution usually fails. We look to Poland to provide retroactive protection of sound recordings expeditiously and to increase enforcement generally.
Qatar is being raised to the Watch List because it has not enacted a patent law and therefore does not protect pharmaceutical products. In addition, its copyright law is not TRIPS-consistent, and is inadequately enforced. Pirated motion pictures crowd virtually all legitimate product from the market, and most end users of business software do not buy legitimate software. As a WTO member, Qatar's TRIPS obligations will come into effect on January 1, 2000; we have not seen significant movement toward implementing those obligations. In the coming year, we will look to
