USTR's implausible claim that ACTA Article 1.2 is an all purpose loophole, and the ramifications if trueSubmitted by James Love on 22. October 2010 - 14:23
The October 2010 version of the ACTA text is inconsistent with several areas of U.S. law, and proposals for new laws in the areas of the reform of patent damages and access to orphaned copyrighted works. In particular, the obligations in the ACTA text do not incorporate many of the areas of limitations and exceptions to remedies found in U.S. law, and in the statutes of some other countries.
|Senators Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown|
On October 19, 2010, Senators Bernard Sanders (I-VT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) have written to David Kappos, the Director of the USPTO, asking for an assessment of conflicts between the October 2010 ACTA text, and U.S. law.
Noting the ACTA is being negotiated as an "executive agreement" because "it is not intended to impact U.S. law, but that "some experts outside of government are raising concerns that the ACTA text is contrary to U.S. law and its application or would present a barrier to changes in U.S.
Notes on the October 7, 2010 USTR NGO briefing on ACTA
By Judit Rius Sanjuan & Anne Mira Guha
Today, USTR held a nearly 2-hour public briefing on the new version of the ACTA text. USTR representatives present included Stan McCoy, Kira Alvarez, and Rachel Bae. Stan and Kira did most of the talking at the meeting.
The October 2, 2010 version of the ACTA text is now available. A copy is here.
(revised 10:17 am, October 7, 2010)
Today, the Mexican Senate approved unanimously a resolution urging the President to suspend the ACTA negotiations based on public interest concerns.
KEI has received a letter dated September 28, 2010, from Lic. Alfredo Rendón Algara - Director General Adjunto de Propiedad Industrial of Mexico (IMPI). The letter from the Mexican government is in response to KEI's earlier letter to C. Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, Presidente Constitucional de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, regarding the position of the Mexican government in the ACTA negotiations.
ACTA is basically a re-write of Part III of the TRIPS, which is the part dealing with the enforcement of intellectual property rights. How do Part III of the TRIPS and ACTA compare in terms of the frequency of terms? Using the August 25, 2010 text, which includes in some cases duplication where there are competing versions of the text, the comparison now looks like this:
|Terms||Part III of TRIPS||ACTA|