A KEI note to Library of Congress about ACTA text

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

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.

Some examples of inconsistencies between ACTA and US law

The November 15, 2010 version of ACTA

Six recent secret ACTA documents

European generic drug companies ask EU Parliament to remove patents from ACTA

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,

ACTA: USTR's talking points to WTO Council for TRIPS

The following statement is the oral intervention made by USTR at the WTO Council for TRIPS (October 2010) regarding ACTA.

Talking Points of the United States for TRIPS Council Meeting of October 26, 2010
Agenda Item P

We would like to thank other delegations for their interest in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
Delegations will recall that the United States and other delegations have been interested in discussing the issue of IP enforcement at this Council for many years and so we’re pleased to have another discussion today.

ACTA: Intervention of China to the WTO TRIPS Council

The following is extracted from China's intervention made at the WTO TRIPS Council meeting held from 26-27 October 2010; this reflects China's position on ACTA.


USTR positions in China WTO TRIPS dispute at odds with talking points on ACTA flexibility

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:


Michèle Rivasi asks question about ACTA and Access to Medicine

225px-michel-rivasi.jpg Michèle Rivasi, a Member of the European Parliament, representing South East France for The Greens, has asked the European Commission: "Given the possible impacts of the inclusion of patents the agreement on access to medicines and on innovation, would the Commission consider accepting the exclusion of patents from the agreement as proposed by a number of ACTA negotiating parties?" The full text of her question follows:

Françoise Castex, French Socialist MEP, asks about USTR assertions that ACTA does not require changes in US law

francoisecastex2.jpg As David Hammerstein of TACD has also blogged about here, Françoise Castex, a French Socialist MEP, has submitted this priority question about ACTA to the European Commission, asking the Commission to respond to the assertions by the USTR that ACTA wo

KEI Letter to the European Parliament regarding ACTA, October 25, 2010

(A PDF version of this is available here.)

Knowledge Ecology International

October 25, 2010

Letter to the European Parliament regarding ACTA

Syndicate content