Congress stated in the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Act of 2002 that an overall negotiating objective of such agreements was to encourage our treaty partners to agree to "a standard of [intellectual property] protection similar to that found in United States law." Because the FTAs are drafted in a manner that complies with current U.S. law, their effect is to obligate U.S. treaty partners to amend their intellectual property laws to match or resemble those of the United States. FTAs have been described as an effective mechanism for advancing U.S. interests in ensuring intellectual property protection. Nonetheless, concerns have arisen over the intellectual property provisions of the FTAs. Some commentators have suggested that certain FTA provisions may lock the United States into current intellectual property policies, inhibiting opportunities for future reform. Others are concerned that under existing multilateral agreements, in particular those of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the intellectual property obligations found within one FTA may extend beyond that particular treaty partner. Finally, some observers perceive the FTAs to be an inappropriate and unfair vehicle for international intellectual property reforms. The term of copyright is ordinarily the life of the author plus 70 years. Each of these contentions has a varying degree of persuasiveness. Other Intellectual Property Rights

The TRIPS Agreement also establishes minimum standards of substantive protection with respect to a number of other intellectual property rights. In keeping with this mandate, the United States has entered into numerous FTAs that have required their signatories to provide higher levels of intellectual property protection than are required under the TRIPS Agreement. With respect to the intellectual property laws, each of the FTAs stipulates standards that comply with current U.S. law. As a result, the United States need take no action in order to comply with those provisions of the FTA. Decreased levels of intellectual property piracy with respect to computer software, music, motion pictures, and pharmaceuticals may promote a more favorable balance of trade for U.S. industry. Enhanced levels of intellectual property protection around the world may also serve other goals of the United States. The scope of these potential consequences counsels continued congressional attention towards the FTAs that the United States has already formed, as well as those FTAs that are planned for the future.
The United States has entered into a number of Free Trade Agreements, or FTAs, with Australia, Chile, Singapore, and other trading partners. Negotiations are currently ongoing with respect to the establishment of additional FTAs. In keeping with a congressional directive established in the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Act of 2002, P.L. 107-210, one objective of forming the FTAs is to establish "a standard of [intellectual property] protection similar to that found in United States law." As a result, most of the FTAs stipulate minimum levels of protection with respect to copyrights, data protection, patents, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property. These standards relate to such provisions as the term of protection, scope of rights, and mechanisms by which these intellectual property rights are acquired and enforced.
The different FTAs vary in their comprehensiveness and level of detail. Each of these agreements has nonetheless been drafted in a manner that complies with current U.S. law. As a result, the effect of each FTA is to obligate signatories to such agreements to amend their intellectual property laws to match or resemble those of the United States.
The FTAs have been described as an effective mechanism for advancing U.S. interests in securing intellectual property protection. Increased levels of intellectual property protection with respect to computer software, music, motion pictures, and pharmaceuticals may promote a more favorable balance of trade for U.S. industry, decrease domestic prices for innovative goods and services, and serve other policy goals. The FTA framework has at times proven to be a more advantageous forum for achieving the intellectual property goals of the United States than multilateral settings.
Nonetheless, concerns have arisen over the intellectual property provisions of the FTAs. Some observers believe that certain FTA provisions may lock the United States into current intellectual property policies, inhibiting opportunities for future reform. Other commentators are concerned that under existing multilateral agreements, in particular those of the World Trade Organization, the intellectual property obligations found within one FTA may extend beyond that particular treaty partner. Finally, some observers perceive the FTAs to be an inappropriate and unfair vehicle for international intellectual property reforms due to the strong bargaining position of the United States. The scope of these potential consequences counsels continued congressional attention towards the FTAs that the United States has already formed, as well as those FTAs that are planned for the future.