Vol. 2 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) Public Comments (USTR)

By |July 8th, 2008|

Comments of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association on the Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

March 21, 2008

The Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) supports efforts to secure the U.S. drug supply from counterfeit medicines. Currently, due in great part to the vigilance of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the quality of America’s prescription medicines is the highest in […]

Vol. 3 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) Public Comments (USTR)

By |July 8th, 2008|

International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) – ACTA Public Comments

Via email ACTA@ustr.eop.gov

Ms. Rachel Bae
Director for Intellectual Property & Innovation Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
600 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20508

Dear Ms. Bae:

Re: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): Request for Public Comments 73 Fed. Reg. 8910 (Feb. 10, 2008)

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) appreciates this opportunity to […]

Vol. 4 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) Public Comments (USTR)

By |July 8th, 2008|

National Electronics Manufacturers Association (NEMA) – ACTA Public Comments

Original Source Document as PDF.

2008 USTR Special 301 Report Summary from IP Justice

By |June 21st, 2008|

United States Trade Representative (USTR) Section 301 Annual Reports (2001-2007)

Section 301 of 1984 Trade & Tariff Act (which amended 1974 Trade Act) gave the US President authority to deal with states that failed to provide “adequate and effective” protection for US intellectual property rights.

Under Section 301, punishment for a foreign country that fails to provide […]

USTR Press Release on ACTA Negotiations

By |June 5th, 2008|

Sean Spicer of USTR on ACTA: "The main focus of the discussion was border measures, particularly how to deal with large-scale intellectual property infringements, which can frequently involve criminal elements and pose a threat to public health and safety. ..."

IP Justice Statement at IGF Open Consultation of IGF Dynamic Coalition for Access to Knowledge and Free Expression (A2K@IGF)

By |May 13th, 2008|

"IPR protection has always been given to creators and inventors in exchange for some benefit to the public. These are usually included in IP law as exceptions and limitations that can provide a benefit to the public. For example, when copyright owners permit the copying of their materials for private and educational use, they contribute to the general pool of knowledge available on the Internet. The practice of remixing, re-using, editing, and combining of audio-video and text to comment on culture and create transformative works depends upon a system of robust exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights. This coalition supports innovation and the creation of wealth through IPR incentivization, but we also seek to support alternative models for creating knowledge goods, including free and open source software, or open scholarly and scientific journals, and on-line access to scholarly research, publicly funded research, and essential documents such as legal information. The A2K@IGF coalition welcomes a discussion in Hyderabd that explores best practices for promoting sharing of knowledge and access to information and that explores a variety of business models designed to encourage creativity and innovation. We welcome participation from all stakeholders in this ongoing discussion to build an open and inclusive Internet to promote human development and individual empowerment...."

IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

By |March 25th, 2008|

In 2007 a select handful of the wealthiest countries began a treaty-making process to create a new global standard for intellectual property rights enforcement, the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). ACTA is spearheaded by the United States, the European Commission, Japan, and Switzerland -- those countries with the largest intellectual property industries. Other countries invited to participate in ACTA’s negotiation process are Canada, Australia, Korea, Mexico and New Zealand. Noticeably absent from ACTA’s negotiations are leaders from developing countries who hold national policy priorities that differ from the international intellectual property industry....

IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

By |March 25th, 2008|

Anti-Consumer and Anti-Public Interest Treaty Proposed by Intellectual Property Industry, US, Europe, Switzerland, and Japan

Provisions for ACTA – According to Office of US Trade Representative

By |March 25th, 2008|

According to Oct. 2007 USTR "Fact Sheet", the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) would contain the following provisions: International Cooperation, Enforcement Practices & New Legal Framework....

ACTA’s Misguided Effort to Increase Govt Spying and Ratchet-Up IPR Enforcement at Public Expense

By |March 21st, 2008|

IP Justice Comments to the U.S.T.R. on the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). IP Justice firmly believes that ACTA’s costs to the public far outweigh any public benefit it might provide. The financial expense to tax-payers to fund ACTA would be enormous and steal scarce resources away from programs that deal with genuine public needs like providing education and eliminating hunger. ACTA would burden the judicial system and divert badly needed law enforcement and customs resources away from public security and towards private profit. Unfortunately the zeal to “beef-up” enforcement measures on which ACTA rides often leads to the violation of privacy rights, bypassing due process protections, and cutting-off the free flow of information. ACTA proposes to set new international norms to lock countries into pre-determined policy choices when flexibility is needed.