Author: James Love

Today I am attending a meeting at the European Parliament on new models of innovation for medical technologies. The event was organized by three MEPs, Thijs Berman, Eva Joly and Carl Schlyter, in collaboration with the European Parliament Working Group on Innovation, Access to Medicines and Poverity-Related Diseaes, and several consumer rights, public health and development NGOs (TACD, Health Action International, KEI, Oxfam and IQsensato).

Continue Reading →

In a October 19, 2010, Senators Bernard Sanders (I-VT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) wrote to David Kappos, the Director of the USPTO, asking for an assessment of conflicts between the October 2010 ACTA text, and U.S. law. (attached here).

Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, David Kappos

Continue Reading →

From: James Love
To: Michele Woods
Cc: Nancy Weiss
Subject: Some examples of US inconsistency with ACTA
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 07:29:09 -0500

This note cites several areas where US law is plainly inconsistent with
ACTA.

In addition, in a separate analysis,I have called attention to proposed
legislation in USA on orphan copyrighted works that are very
inconsistent with ACTA provisions on remedies.
https://www.keionline.org/node/980

Some examples of inconsistencies between ACTA and US law

Continue Reading →

The European Generics Association has written to the European Parliament asking that patents be removed from the Anti-Counterfeiting Agreement. A PDF copy of their letter is here. The text in html follows:

MEP Mr. Gianluca Susta
INTA Committee
European Parliament
1049 Bruxelles- Belgium

Brussels, 5th of November 2010

Ref. EGA comments to the consolidated text on ACTA that reflects changes made during the

September 2010 Tokyo round1.

Dear Mr. Susta,

Continue Reading →

This was originally published in the Huffington Post here.
————
Continue Reading →

Use of Article 1.1 of the TRIPS in the US/China WTO dispute over the enforcement of intellectual property rights

USTR claims that Article 1.2.1 of ACTA provides the flexibility to overlook inconsistencies between US law and ACTA. Below is the text from both Article 1.2.1 of ACTA, and Article 1.1 of TRIPS:

ACTA ARTICLE 1.2: NATURE AND SCOPE OF OBLIGATIONS
Continue Reading →