July 8, 2008
All Volume 1 ACTA Comments as a single (PDF):
First of all we would like to commend the US government for initiating a dialogue aimed at trying to enhance the global fight against piracy. This is a fight that is critical to maintaining US competitiveness, and one that we risk losing unless we can […]
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 […]
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 […]
National Electronics Manufacturers Association (NEMA) – ACTA Public Comments
Original Source Document as PDF.
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 […]
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. ..."
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....
Anti-Consumer and Anti-Public Interest Treaty Proposed by Intellectual Property Industry, US, Europe, Switzerland, and Japan
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....
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.