Viewing cable 06VILNIUS422
Title: LITHUANIA DISPUTES PIRACY STATS, BUT EAGER TO IMPROVE IPR

IdentifierCreatedReleasedClassificationOrigin
06VILNIUS4222006-05-09 10:40:00 2011-08-30 01:44:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Vilnius
VZCZCXRO8236
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ
DE RUEHVL #0422 1291040
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 091040Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY VILNIUS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0133
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
UNCLAS VILNIUS 000422 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/NB, EB/CBA, EUR/ERA (JURBAN) 
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USTR 
COMMERCE PLEASE PASS TO USPTO 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON ETRD KIPR LH
SUBJECT: LITHUANIA DISPUTES PIRACY STATS, BUT EAGER TO IMPROVE IPR 
PROTECTIONS 
 
REF:  A) STATE 66908, B) VILNIUS 192, C) WOODARD-URBAN E-MAIL 
02/13/2006 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY:  We informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) 
and Ministry of Culture on April 28 that this year's Special 301 
Review again put Lithuania on the Watch List.  Our Ministry of 
Culture contact questioned the sources of information the Review's 
authors used, but added that the GOL looked forwarded to expanding 
its cooperation with the USG to improve intellectual property rights 
protection in Lithuania.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. (SBU) We notified Gyta Berasneviciute, Senior Specialist of the 
Copyright Division of the Ministry of Culture, and Neringa 
Urboniene, acting head of the MFA's Economic Security Policy 
Department, on April 28 of Lithuania's listing on the Watch List in 
this year's Special 301 Review.  Urboniene, new to her job and 
unfamiliar with the Special 301 Review, had no substantive comment, 
but promised to inform other relevant offices within the MFA. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Berasneviciute, one of our frequent GOL interlocutors on 
intellectual property rights (IPR) issues, said that the Special 301 
Review appeared to be almost wholly informed by the International 
Intellectual Property Alliance's (IIPA) report.  (NOTE:  Local music 
industry representatives criticized the accuracy of the IIPA's 
report at an IPR conference we hosted with the U.S. Patents and 
Trademarks Office (USPTO) on April 25, which we will report septel.) 
 She said that it was unclear to the GOL how IIPA arrived at its 
piracy rate figures, and noted that IIPA's numbers differed 
significantly from the estimates of both local industry and the GOL, 
especially with regard to optical media piracy.  She also asked 
whether the authors of the Special 301 Review had considered the 
information on piracy levels and strengthening of legal IPR 
protections that the GOL submitted. 
 
¶4. (SBU) We told Berasneviciute that the Special 301 Review provideQ 
several specific suggestions for improvement and that we looked 
forward to cooperating with the GOL on these suggestions in the 
coming year.  Berasneviciute, who attended a USPTO-sponsored 
training program last year in Washington, said that the GOL also 
wanted to continue -- and expand -- its cooperation with us in 
strengthening IPR protection in Lithuania. 
 
¶5. (SBU) COMMENT:  Improving the protection of IPR in Lithuania 
remains one of our top economic policy objectives.  To address the 
GOL's methodological nitpicking, we intend to use the review as 
motivation to bring the GOL, IIPA, and other interested parties 
together to discuss data collection and analysis methodology. 
During the months ahead, we will also work with the GOL to improve 
the specific areas suggested in the Special 301 Review.  END 
COMMMENT. 
 
KELLY