Since 1988, the Office of the United States Trade Representative has released an annual Special 301 Report which “examines in detail the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property rights” for every country in the world. The intention is to classify countries that either encourage or turn a blind eye to intellectual property piracy and countries can be put on a “Watch List” or “Priority Watch List”. This designation can then be used to pressure countries during trade negotiations.

Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in law at the University of Edinburgh, recently noticed that the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) has been lobbying US Trade Representative Ron Kirk to designate countries that have mandated the use of free software (specifically, Brazil, Indonesia and India) to be placed on the Special 301 Watch List. The IIPA is a private sector coalition of trade associations, including the Business Software Alliance, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA); these names are familiar to digital freedom supporters as cartels hell-bent on using their power to suffocate internet freedoms and to change the course of humanity’s path towards information-based societies in the interest of their enormous profiteering.

The assertion that a country’s choice to use free software is equivalent to illegal piracy is an absurdity and a desperate response to the the free software revolution happening throughout the world. In the 498-page Special 301 report released by the IIPA, they attack Brazil’s policy of mandating the use of free software on page 183 as a reason to keep it on the watchlist:

“Government software procurement: The Brazilian Government should be encouraged to continue its efforts to implement effective software asset management practices in its public ministries and agencies, while avoiding mandates for procurement of software based on the model of development or the business model of the developer.”

On page 170, the IIPA clarifies its demands of the Brazilian government:

“Avoid legislation on the mandatory use of open source software by government agencies and government controlled companies.”

Then, the IIPA takes us to Indonesia. Starting on page 79, they attempt to form a coherent argument about how mandating a switch to open source software is somehow an act against US trade interests:

“[I]n March 2009, the Ministry of Administrative Reform (MenPAN) issued Circular Letter No. 1 of 2009 to all central and provincial government offices including State-owned enterprises, endorsing the use and adoption of open source software within government organizations. While the government issued this circular in part with the stated goal to ‘reduc[e] software copyright violation[s],’ in fact, by denying technology choice, the measure will create additional trade barriers and deny fair and equitable market access to software companies.”

Huh? It’s as if the IIPA forgot that plenty of US companies sell open source software — a fact that they probably “forgot” because no open source software company is paying them off. Why is this form of institutionalized bribery accepted? The IIPA goes on to demand that Indonesia rescind this order on page 80:

“IIPA requests that the government of Indonesia take the following actions, which would result in the most significant near term commercial benefits to the copyright industries: […] Rescind March 2009 MenPAN circular letter endorsing the use and adoption of open source software […]”

The IIPA’s war against the free software revolution then takes us to the Philippines on page 148:

“IIPA was concerned regarding reports of consideration of a Free Open Source Software bill which would require government offices to use open source software. Passage of that bill would deny technology choice regarding software usage and ultimately would stunt the growth of the IT industry in the Philippines.”

Thailand’s commitment to open source is attacked on page 353:

“Among other market access restrictions to be addressed, reverse proposed policy mandating use of open source software, and, e.g., requiring bundling of government funded computers and computers for schools with open source software; maintain neutral policies with respect to technology choice.”

Vietnam is instructed to avoid open source on page 396: “Cease government-endorsed open source preference policy which is limiting technology choice in Vietnam.”

And, Ecuador is also cited for dangerously choosing open source software on page 453: “Most of USTR’s concerns were directed at patent issues, but one major copyright problem highlighted involved a poorly drafted provision in the Education Law which appears to allow free software to educational institutions. Due to their concerns, USTR moved Ecuador back to the Watch List […]”

The IIPA Report makes a few things very clear. First, although this is already well-known, the software industry is scared to death of open source software and must resort to strong-arming as it’s only means of competing with it. Second, free software is spreading like wildfire all over the world as the smart defense against the proprietary software industry. And, finally, we can see why free software for taxpayers is not gaining traction in the United States, where industry lobby groups have a much easier time bribing decision-makers.