Day: February 9, 2024

The FTC’s cheering of a failed merger shows its disdain for consumers

Since when do government agencies applaud business deals that fall apart, resulting in hundreds of layoffs and loss opportunities for consumers who depend on those products?

That’s what happened earlier this month, when the Federal Trade Commission issued a press release applauding the failed $1.7 billion acquisition of the technology firm iRobot by the ecommerce giant Amazon.

The FTC, as well as Democratic Senators and competition regulators in the European Union, were hostile to the deal as they claimed it would “harm” competition for robot vacuum cleaners, one of the main consumer products made by iRobot, including its signature Roomba, one of the first products of its type. UK regulators disagreed and green-lit the deal back in June 2023.

Once the termination of the deal was announced, iRobot said it would be forced to lay off 31% of its employees – over 350 of them – and likely pause new projects. Their CEO also stepped down amid a falling stock price.

In response to the news, the FTC gloated that the transaction fell apart:

“We are pleased that Amazon and iRobot have abandoned their proposed transaction. The Commission’s probe focused on Amazon’s ability and incentive to favor its own products and disfavor rivals’, and associated effects on innovation, entry barriers, and consumer privacy. The Commission’s investigation revealed significant concerns about the transaction’s potential competitive effects. The FTC will not hesitate to take action in enforcing the antitrust laws to ensure that competition remains robust.”

Federal Trade Commission Associate Director for Merger Analysis Nathan Soderstrom

The failure of business mergers and acquisitions aren’t uncommon. Whether it be because of stockholder pressure, regulatory concerns, or mismatch of company cultures, deals like this fall apart all the time as often as they succeed. This cycle, caused by market forces, is healthy for innovation, better allocation of capital, and more options available for consumers in the market.

However, if the failure of a business deal and then a company comes at the hands of a regulator, that’s an entirely different matter. One that should leave us asking hard questions of the officials at these agencies, and whether they’re really looking out for consumers’ best interest.

The impact of such failures on consumers should not be lost.

With the failure of this acquisition, and without new innovative products or injections of capital, the maker of one of the first robotic vacuums purchased by millions of Americans and global consumers will likely end up a shadow of its former self. One more product will disappear from physical and online retail shelves, giving consumers less choice than they had previously.

There will still be plenty of options for consumers who want a robotic vacuum in their home, but the significant blow to iRobot means fewer consumers will be able to benefit from the new products and services that could have spawned as a result of this merger.

Armed with Amazon’s vast inventory, its capital, and its supply chain, as well as the current demand for artificial intelligence products consumers can use in their homes, we can only imagine what this partnership could have produced.

This leaves us asking an important question: had Amazon been allowed to purchase iRobot, would it have put other companies at a disadvantage? Would it have squelched competition in robotic vacuum cleaners? Would it have reduced choice and options for consumers? Or would it have led to significantly more innovations and products that we could have benefited from?

Put simply, we just don’t know. But neither does the FTC nor the EU regulators who also shot this deal down. Rather than increasing competition or denying an advantage, the FTC has managed to kill off the opportunities for an American company to grow and succeed, as well as the consumers who benefit from these products.

This has been a key mantra of the FTC during this administration, seeking to put halts on mergers and acquisitions for grocery stores, technology companies, and even healthcare firms, as my colleague Kimberlee Josephson eloquently puts here. These are robust and competitive sectors that are continuing to deliver innovation to consumers, and would benefit from having more not fewer companies.

Instead of a win for consumers as the FTC claims, all we have now is a failed business deal, a company in shambles, and an uncertain path for the open market of robotic vacuums. All in the name of “protecting the consumer”.

Since when should our regulatory agencies, which act in our name, cheer and applaud when deals like this lead to layoffs, declining revenues, and fewer options for consumers? That seems like not only poor in taste, but harmful to our own economic prospects and choices as customers.

If consumers aren’t scratching their heads yet, they definitely should be.

Proposal on Restricting Vaping Spaces Harms Scottish Vapers

London (UK), 9 February 2024 – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) is worried about tobacco harm reduction methods being impeded on by the latest proposal of the Scottish Conservative Party to ban vaping in enclosed public spaces.

In a statement, Mr Mike Salem, the UK Country Associate for CCC expressed concern about the proposal. He stated: “Adding hurdles to vaping will only serve to revert those who are trying to quit smoking right back into it.”

Salem further criticised the statement made by Dr Sandesh Gulhane, the shadow health secretary of the Scottish Conservatives when the latter expressed concern regarding the lack of “solid evidence about the health effects [of vaping].” Salem’s response is: “the evidence is pretty clear and statistically significant on the matter; vaping is far less harmful than smoking, and to limit its usage will reduce health prospects of smokers who are trying to quit. If Dr Gulhane has any doubts about that he should check NHS Scotland’s website”. 

The CCC is surprised that such a misinformed claim about vaping is being made by a potential future Scottish health secretary. Public Health England shows that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than tobacco. As such, the CCC champions vaping as an effective method for reducing tobacco harm and calls on the Scottish Conservative Party to reconsider its position on the matter.

Is the future of 6GHz hybrid?

Although both mobile operators and the Wi-Fi industry declared victories following the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-23) in Dubai last December, the agreement allows for both licensed and unlicensed operations in the 6GHz band. This differs from the two most prominent schools of spectrum, American and Chinese, where the 6GHz spectrum is predominantly allocated to Wi-Fi services or 5G. However, it aligns with the European strategy of facilitating coexistence between International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) and Wi-Fi technologies.

Among the countries that have delicensed both the upper and lower 6GHz bands are the United States, Canada, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea. The other group, which includes the European Union, the United Kingdom, and many others has delicenced only the lower 6GHz band. Conversely, China allocated a significant portion of its 6GHz spectrum to 5G in 2023, positioning itself at the forefront of enabling 5G (and, eventually, 6G) technology.

The EU considers the allocation of the 6GHz band crucial for boosting 5G deployment and aims for a hybrid solution where Wi-Fi and International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) can coexist. Final decisions are expected by 2026, with Europe likely providing early insights into the technical feasibility of this coexistence.

Proponents of delicensing the 6GHz band argue that it enables the use of spectrum bands more flexibly, without the constraints of specific services. They emphasize the preference for Wi-Fi over 5G in home internet settings and suggest that delicensing Wi-Fi could lower internet costs in remote areas, as Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E use existing, therefore less expensive technology. Additionally, they point to Wi-Fi 6E’s capacity for speeds up to 9.6 Gbps, three times faster than current standards, and its superior performance in crowded settings. Moreover, Wi-Fi 6E is noted for its energy efficiency (attributed to built-in power-saving features) and adaptability to challenging geographical landscapes.

Proponents of allocating the 6GHz spectrum to International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) and specifically to 5G highlight different benefits. They stress that such an allocation would significantly increase bandwidth and capacity, leading to improved quality of service. 5G, designed to deliver speeds up to 10 Gbps, would benefit from the 6GHz with reduced latency, which is crucial for applications that require real-time responsiveness, such as autonomous driving and telemedicine. Additionally, 5G supports up to a million connected devices per square kilometer, an essential feature for the Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystem.

Both technologies have specific uses: Wi-Fi 6 E is ideal for smart homes, virtual reality, and large-scale events, while 5G excels in autonomous vehicles, telemedicine, and industrial Internet of Things applications. Each has its competitive advantages. 5G typically covers a more comprehensive geographical range than Wi-Fi 6E and can be used both indoors and outdoors. 5G offers slightly faster speeds, whereas Wi-Fi 6E requires less investment in infrastructure.

As governments worldwide ponder the future of the 6GHz spectrum and experts question the benefits versus the costs, many political questions need to be addressed.

Providing affordable connectivity in remote areas is a complex challenge, and there are no clear answers to the best solution. In the past, smaller and geographically flatter countries have found straightforward solutions for mobile connectivity, such as state investment in backbone infrastructure and facilitating last-mile access for commercial use. Larger countries with complex topography face challenges on an entirely different scale, especially in developing markets.

Originally published here

Will The EU AI Act Spark Innovation, or Put The Brakes on Progress?

The Consumer Choice Center are wondering if the EU’s recent AI Act will actually encourage innovation, or put the brakes on it. Given the crossover in compliance between the UK FCA regs and EU legislation this stuff matters, as it’s hard for start-ups to effectively go it alone on AI compliance. Here’s the word;

On February 2, the European Union’s ambassadors green lit the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). Next week, the Internal Market and Civil Liberties committees will decide its fate, while the European Parliament is expected to cast their vote in plenary session either in March or April.

The European Commission addressed a plethora of criticism on the AI Act’s potential to stifle innovation in the EU by presenting an AI Innovation package for startups and SMEs. It includes EU’s investment in supercomputers, statements on Horizon Europe and Digital Europe programs investing up to €4 billion until 2027, establishment of a new coordination body – AI Office – within the European Commission.

Egle Markeviciute, Head of Digital and Innovation Policies at the Consumer Choice Center, responds:

“Innovation requires not only good science, business and science cooperation, talent, regulatory predictability, access to finance, but one of the most motivating and special elements – room and tolerance for experimentation and risk. The AI Act is likely to stifle the private sector’s ability to innovate by moving their focus to extensive compliance lists and allowing only ‘controlled innovation’ via regulatory sandboxes which allow experimentation in a vacuum for up to 6 months,” said Markeviciute.

“Controlled innovation produces controlled results – or lack thereof. It seems that instead of leaving regulatory space for innovation, the EU once again focuses on compensating this loss in monetary form. There will never be enough money to compensate for freedom to act and freedom to innovate,” she added.

Read the full text here


Les carburants durables pour l’aviation (SAF) sont un objectif louable pour les décideurs politiques, mais la promotion des SAF devrait dépasser les frontières et favoriser la collaboration entre les nations, les régulateurs et les autres parties prenantes.

Dans leur quête d’un ciel plus vert, les régulateurs du monde entier s’efforcent de rendre les carburants d’aviation plus durables. L’Union européenne a pris les devants avec sa législation « ReFuelEU », qui impose une augmentation progressive de l’utilisation de carburants aéronautiques durables (SAF). Cependant, le chemin vers l’aviation durable n’est pas sans obstacles, car les SAF restent actuellement trois à quatre fois plus chers que le kérosène conventionnel. De plus, l’augmentation potentielle des prix à la consommation ajoute une nouvelle couche de complexité à un débat déjà épineux.

En novembre 2023, le Conseil de l’UE a adopté l’initiative « ReFuelEU aviation », un élément clé du paquet « Fit for 55 », qui vise à réduire l’empreinte carbone du secteur de l’aviation. La législation impose aux fournisseurs de carburant d’aviation d’inclure une part minimale de carburants aéronautiques durables dans leurs produits, en commençant par 2% en 2025 et en atteignant 70% d’ici 2050. Les carburants synthétiques sont également obligatoires, avec une part progressivement croissante. La loi vise à aligner le transport aérien sur les objectifs climatiques de l’UE, en s’attaquant aux problèmes de faible approvisionnement et de prix élevés qui entravent le développement des carburants aéronautiques durables. Le règlement est entré en vigueur le 1er janvier 2024, certaines dispositions étant applicables à partir de 2025.

La nécessité d’adopter une approche globale plutôt que de succomber à des mesures protectionnistes est une préoccupation majeure dans ce discours. La promotion des SAF devrait dépasser les frontières et favoriser la collaboration entre les nations, les régulateurs et les autres parties prenantes. Alors que l’UE s’efforce de mettre en place des normes strictes, elle doit également surmonter ses réticences historiques et adopter la neutralité technologique.

Un aspect notable de ce défi est le rôle des SAF dérivés de l’huile de palme, en particulier en Asie du Sud-Est. La position protectionniste de l’UE à l’égard des biocarburants provenant de cette région doit être reconsidérée. Les dérivés de l’huile de palme, tels que les effluents des moulins à huile de palme (POME) et le distillat d’acides gras de l’huile de palme (PFAD), constituent une matière première viable pour les SAF dans le cadre de l’économie circulaire.

Les exportateurs d’Asie du Sud-Est et d’Afrique de l’Ouest ont la possibilité de réduire les émissions de l’aviation en fournissant un approvisionnement régulier de ces déchets.

Cependant, un paradoxe émerge lorsque l’on considère que les mêmes voix qui plaident pour l’élimination progressive des combustibles fossiles se sont historiquement opposées à l’utilisation de l’huile de palme. L’approche de l’UE à l’égard de l’huile de palme en tant que matière première pour les SAF semble contradictoire et souligne la nécessité d’une stratégie plus nuancée et plus cohérente. Pour assurer le succès des SAF, les décideurs politiques doivent concilier les objectifs environnementaux et le potentiel des matières premières innovantes.

En établissant un parallèle avec la politique énergétique de l’Allemagne qui, dans son empressement à décarboniser et à dénucléariser, a eu des conséquences inattendues telles qu’une augmentation de l’utilisation du charbon et une hausse des prix de l’électricité, l’UE doit faire preuve de prudence. Il est essentiel de trouver le bon équilibre, pour que les objectifs de durabilité n’entraînent pas, par inadvertance, des résultats économiques et environnementaux négatifs.

Le paysage mondial complique encore les choses, les différents pays adoptant leurs propres approches. Le « Sustainable Aviation Fuel Mandate » du Royaume-Uni et la « Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge Roadmap » des Etats-Unis illustrent la diversité des stratégies. Il n’en reste pas moins que l’harmonisation des normes est essentielle pour que les SAF soient largement acceptés.

Les cadres réglementaires de l’UE, du Royaume-Uni et des Etats-Unis soulignent la complexité de la question. Les critères de définition d’une SAF sont au coeur du débat, et les différences de normes et de certifications compliquent les efforts déployés au niveau mondial en faveur de la durabilité.

Le chemin vers des carburants d’aviation abordables et durables exige un effort collaboratif et mondial. L’UE doit abandonner toute vision protectionniste des SAF dérivés de l’huile de palme et adopter une approche plus équilibrée. Alors que l’industrie aéronautique progresse à grands pas vers un avenir plus vert, les décideurs politiques, les régulateurs et les militants doivent se débarrasser des vieux mantras et privilégier les solutions pragmatiques aux débats idéologiques. Si les carburéacteurs durables doivent un jour devenir une alternative économiquement viable pour le marché de masse, des approches intelligentes et pragmatiques sont nécessaires.

Originally published here

Don’t segregate migrant workers, says activist

Banning migrant workers from living in housing estates will create divisions in society and a sense of “us versus them”, according to a consumer advocate.

Tarmizi Anuwar, the Malaysian representative of Washington-based Consumer Choice Centre, said a ban announced last week by the Negeri Sembilan state government was against the principle of inclusivity and may result in social tensions.

Banning migrant workers from living in housing estates will create divisions in society and a sense of “us versus them”, according to a consumer advocate.

Tarmizi Anuwar, the Malaysian representative of Washington-based Consumer Choice Centre, said a ban announced last week by the Negeri Sembilan state government was against the principle of inclusivity and may result in social tensions.

Arul said the state government will encourage the construction or conversion of buildings for dormitories, after complaints of migrant workers in housing areas causing disturbances and creating cleanliness problems.

Read the full text here

California’s next freedom to lose: speeding

There are perfectly practical reasons to study philosophy. That’s what I told my teenage daughter when she came to me with mild complaints about her reading assignments of Plato and C.S. Lewis, for a unit on free will and virtue. Far from being a luxury for elites with liberal arts degrees, everyday Americans gain from even the most basic philosophical study a reason behind the freedoms they enjoy. Why are you ever free to do anything potentially harmful or dangerous, at all? 

In California, a state famous for protecting the freedom to do hard drugs in public and live beneath overpasses or in public parks, State Senator Scott Wiener has proposed a set of bills aimed at reducing traffic-related deaths. The Speeding and Fatality Emergency Reduction on California Streets package (SAFER) would include mandatory speed governor devices that would halt vehicles from driving 10mph over the speed limit. 

What makes studying philosophy so challenging is that the examples of good and evil, right and wrong, are often so dramatic that it feels abstract to the point of being useless. But as I was looking over my child’s work and seeing this news about California car regulations, I recognized this as an approachable example of why choice matters in a free society. 

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Wiener reasoned his bill by saying, “There’s no reason why people should routinely be allowed to drive more than ten miles per hour above the speed limit.”

Wiener just wants what is best for the community as a whole, and the European Union agrees. The EU already passed legislation requiring speed governor devices across all member countries starting this July. Tough luck for James Bond next time the bad guys are getting away. 

If passed into law, California would see built-in speed governors starting in 2027. The devices would utilize GPS and exterior cameras to assess the speed limits in whatever area you’re in, adjusting the max speed of the car or truck accordingly. 

Senator Scott Wiener’s comments about what Californians should be able to do are important and philosophical in their own right. He goes on to say to the LA Times, “You can want whatever you want. But that doesn’t mean you’re allowed to do it.”

That’s true. You can drive and ride inside a vehicle without a seatbelt if you choose, but it is prohibited by law. If you’re caught, you will be ticketed and fined. New York was the first state to cross this Rubicon in 1984 when it mandated the use of seatbelts in cars. California banned drinking and driving before cars were even common on American streets in the early twentieth century.

There are hilarious videos from 1980s news coverage showing citizens’ reactions to new seatbelt laws, as well as ones against drinking behind the wheel. 

Read the full text here

‘Illegal vapes are already flooding the market’: What impact will disposable vapes ban really have?

Government plans to ban disposable vapes have been welcomed as a “vital” move to protect children’s health and the environment, but campaigners fear it comes with risks without further action.

The long-term health impacts of vaping are unknown and the nicotine they contain can be highly addictive. Withdrawal can lead to anxiety, trouble concentrating and headaches. 

One in five children had tried vaping in 2023, up from 15.8% in the previous year, according to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). Around 7.6% of children were vaping at least once a week.

Rishi Sunak is set to announce the plans on a visit to a school on Monday (January 29).

The prime minister said in a statement: “As any parent or teacher knows, one of the most worrying trends at the moment is the rise in vaping among children, and so we must act before it becomes endemic.”

The ban on disposable vapes is expected to come into effect towards the end of this year or in early 2025.

Read the full text here

How does Deutsche Bahn compare with European rail firms?

For the second time in a month, a nationwide strike has forced German commuters to choose between being stranded at a train station or stuck in a traffic jam. Deutsche Bahn (DB) employees have been on strike since Wednesday, leading to disrupted train schedules and congested roads in what’s planned to be Germany’s longest rail strike to date.

While not uncommon in Germany, these rail strikes are only one facet of the many challenges facing the national railway service. Passengers regularly grapple with prolonged delays and cancellations for a variety of reasons that go beyond labor disputes.

Frequent cancellations

DB operates the majority of Germany’s railways and is responsible for approximately 95% of long-distance transportation, 67% of local transit and 42% of freight conveyance. In 2023, just 64% of long-distance trains reached their destination on time, meaning less than six minutes late, according to a DB spokesperson. These numbers, however, do not include instances where delays are so long that journeys are canceled.

In a 2023 study by the nonprofit Consumer Choice Center, Germany accounted for six out of the 10 worst stations for passenger convenience in Europe. The index, which assessed factors like network connections and the frequency of delayed services, indicated that the German railway system is trailing far behind its neighbors in terms of service and efficiency.

Read the full text here

Peran Organisasi dan Komunitas Memperluas Sosialisasi Anti Pembajakan dan Memperkuat Perlindungan HaKI

Perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual merupakan hal yang sangat penting dan krusial untuk mendorong inovasi dan kreativitas. Melalui perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual, maka para inovator dan pemilik usaha akan mampu untuk memiliki kontrol dan juga mendapatkan manfaat ekonomi dari karya yang mereka buat.

Tanpa adanya perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual, maka tentu pihak-pihak yang tidak bertanggung jawab dapat dengan sangat mudah untuk mencuri dan juga membajak karya atau produk yang dibuat oleh para inovator. Mereka bisa dengan mudah menjual hasil bajakan tersebut untuk mendapatkan keuntungan bagi diri mereka sendiri.

Tentunya, bagi kita yang tinggal di Indonesia, khususnya yang menetap di kota-kota besar, fenomena pembajakan produk merupakan sesuatu yang sudah tidak asing lagi. Bila kita datang ke berbagai pusat perbelanjaan misalnya, kita bisa dengan sangat mudah menemukan berbagai produk bajakan yang dijual secara bebas dengan harga yang tentunya jauh lebih murah bila dibandingkan dengan harga aslinya.

Tidak hanya di toko fisik, bila kita berselancar di dunia maya misalnya, kita bisa menemukan jutaan produk-produk bajakan yang bisa kita dapatkan di berbagai platform toko daring. Hal ini tentu merupakan permasalahan yang besar dan harus bisa segera kita atasi.

Indonesia sendiri merupakan negara yang sudah memiliki berbagai perangkat hukum yang ditujukan untuk melindungi hak kekayaan intelektual. Beberapa diantaranya adalah UU No.7 Tahun 1994 tentang Pengesahan Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, UU No.10 Tahun 1995 tentang Kepabeanan, UU No.12 Tahun 1997 tentang Hak Cipta, UU No.14 Tahun 1997 tentang Merek, dan UU No.13 Tahun 1997 tentang Hak Paten (hukumonline.com, 17/3/2022).

Sayangnya, meskipun sudah memiliki berbagai perangkat hukum untuk melindungi kekayaan intelektual, masih banyak berbagai persoalan terkait dengan hal tersebut yang harus bisa kita selesaikan. Adanya penegakan hukum yang masih belum terlalu kuat untuk menegakkan hukum perlindungan kekayaan intelektual, dan menindak pihak-pihak yang melakukan pelanggaran atas hal tersebut merupakan salah satu hal yang harus dapat diperbaiki dari sisi penegakan hukum.

Di sisi lain, adanya keaktifan dari para pemilik hak kekayaan intelektual untuk mendaftarkan karya dan inovasi yang mereka buat kepada lembaga terkait, seperti kemenkumham, tentu merupakan aspek yang sangat penting dari sisi pelaku usaha. Tanpa adanya kesadaran akan pentingnya perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual dari para pelaku usaha, dan juga keaktifan dari para inovator untuk mendaftarkan karya mereka, maka tentu akan mustahil pemerintah bisa melindungi karya dan inovasi tersebut dari berbagai praktik pembajakan.

Sayangnya, dari sisi pendafftaran, juga masih ada beberapa tantangan yang harus bisa kita selesaikan, salah satunya adalah kesadaran yang masih rendah dari para pelaku usaha dan inovator di Indonesia untuk mendaftarkan kekayaan intelektual mereka. Pada akhir tahun 2021 lalu misalnya, ada sekitar 216.000 jumlah permohonan pendaftaran kekayaan intelektual yang masuk ke Direktorat Jenderal Kekayaan Intelektual (DJKI), yang mana jumlah tersebut masih sedikit dibandingkan dengan jumlah masyarakat Indonesia (dgip.go.id, 20/12/2021).

Dengan demikian, adanya sosialisasi yang masif kepada para pelaku usaha untuk meningkatkan kesadaran pentingnya perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual adalah sesuatu yang sangat penting. Hal ini tidak hanya penting dilakukan oleh lembaga pemerintah terkait, tetapi juga berbagai organisasi masyarakat non-pemerintah yang memiliki fokus advokasi terkait dengan hal tersebut.

Salah satu orgasnisasi yang memiliki fokus advokasi terkait dengan pentingnya kerlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual adalah Masyarakat Indonesia Anti Pemalsuan (MIAP). MIAP sendiri merupakan organisasi masyarakat yang berdiri pada tahun 2004, dan memiliki fokus untuk melawan berbagai praktik dan tindakan pembajakan yang sangat masif terjadi di Indonesia.

Berbagai kampanye sosialisasi tersebut bisa dilakukan dengan berbagai cara. MIAP misalnya, beberapa waktu lalu menyelenggarakan kegiatan MIAP Social Media Content Competition. Kegiatan ini sendiri diikuti oleh lebih dari 70 karta kreatif dari para generasi muda di seluruh Indonesia, dan menganggat tema “Bangga dan Cinta Produk Indonesia — Anak Muda Gak Pakai Produk Palsu” (tengselnews.inews.id, 20/12/2023).

Dalam rangka memeriahkan acara tersebut misalnya, turut diundang juga dalam kegiatan tersebut berbagai organisasi mitra MIAP dalam rangka mensosialisasikan pentingnya perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual dan menghindari produk-produk bajakan. Beberapa organisasi mitra yang diundang tersebut diantaranya adalah Asosiasi Media Siber Indonesia (AMSI) dan Asosiasi Konsultan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Indonesia (AKHKI).

Tidak hanya organisasi mitra, agar kegiatan dan sosialisasi anti pembajakan bisa memiliki dampak secara lebih masif, MIAP juga mengajak perwakilan media untuk hadir di dalam acara tersebut. Diharapkan, melalui adanya kegiatan tersebut, kesadaran masyarakat untuk mencintai produk-produk asli dan juga kesadaran untuk mencegah penggunaan produk-produk bajakan dapat semakin meningkat.

Sebagai penutup, pembajakan merupakan salah satu permasalahan besar yang ada di Indonesia. Untuk itu, adanya kampanye dan sosialisasi untuk meningkatkan kesadaran masyarakat untuk menhindari produk-produk bajakan adalah hal yang sangat penting, dan harus melibatkan semua pihak, termasuk juga organisasi kemasyarakatan.

Originally published here

Scroll to top