December 2016

Title III of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-403 (the “PRO-IP Act,” or the “Act”), mandates a coordinated approach to intellectual property enforcement policy. The Act requires development of a three-year National plan on enforcement of laws protecting copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and other forms of intellectual property, with an emphasis on combatting counterfeit and infringing goods in the domestic and international supply chains.

Raising public awareness and developing effective solutions begins with a detailed understanding of the nature of the problem presented. To advance a detailed understanding, the Act places special emphasis on teasing out the dimensions of the overall problem as part of the strategy-setting process. Specifically, the Act places as a core objective of the Strategic Plan the need to identify “structural weaknesses,” “systemic flaws,” and other “impediments” to effective IPR enforcement actions against the financing, production, trafficking, or sale of counterfeit or infringing goods.

The Strategic Plan is organized and divided into four main sections:

Section 1 provides an overview of how intellectual property serves as a material force behind U.S. economic growth, high-paying jobs, economic competitiveness, and creative expression.
Section 2 focuses on illicit IP-based activity in the online (digital) environment
Section 3 focuses on strategies designed to facilitate secure and lawful trade domestically and abroad.
Section 4 examines broader IP enforcement strategies
that bridge both online and trade-based threats, focusing on overarching governmental frameworks and policies that are critical to supporting robust intellectual property enforcement efforts in a rapidly changing environment.

You may have caught my tweetstorm over the past few days highlighting several examples of bad practices when it comes to our nation's inmate calling services regime. Sadly, there are many more examples, particularly when it comes to city and county jails where some of the highest intrastate inmate calling rates across the country remain in effect.

Arkansas County, Arkansas, for one, charges almost $25 for a 15 minute call; Clare County, Michigan charges $22.56; and in a Natrona County, Wyoming facility it costs $9.47 to speak to an inmate for 15 minutes. Contrast that with a 15 minute voice call from a mobile provider at $0.28, and you see why families and children of inmates are as captive to the system as their loved ones. Given that the median income of a male inmate before incarceration is $19,650, how do you suppose he (or the family left behind) can be expected to pay a phone bill that is 8800% higher than before he began his sentence? And while voice rates and usage are on the decline for the majority of consumers, charges for inmates continue to rise in most communities.

Despite attempts at reform when the FCC made substantial concessions as it voted to approve rates that far exceeded what the data for over 90% of the providers own unaudited numbers substantiated, Inmate Calling Services (ICS) companies continue to fight to keep their excessive profits flowing. For example, when the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Order eliminated all but three ancillary fees (that historically added as much as 40% to the cost of ICS calls), Securus, one of the largest providers of ICS, effectively transferred the now disallowed connection fees into “first minute rates.” On top of that, they lowered the prepaid account maximum deposit, so that the company would be able to continue charging inmates and their families exorbitant rates including when they add money into the inmate's account! No one except an inmate and/or his/her family, pays more for the first minute of a call; no one except an inmate (family) pays a fee in order to PREPAY their telephone bill. No one.