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.
How the trade group, the International Intellectual Property Association (IIPA) Drives the Agenda at the Office of the US Trade Representative through the "Special 301" Process by Filing Annual Reports on Intellectual Property related trade losses.
The Bush Administration’s Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) issued its much anticipated annual report of foreign countries targeted by the US for insufficiently protecting the interests of US intellectual property owners abroad. Under “Section 301†countries face crippling trade sanctions in retaliation from the US. A total of 43 countries were placed on the USTR's Section 301 Report in 2007. According to the annual review, US monopolies on producing medicine, CDs, and DVDs continue to be the main focus of US IPR foreign policy. China and Russia received a special lashing from the Bush Administration and were placed on the more serious "Priority Watch List" - as expected.
IP Justice prepared a table that summarizes the USTR Special 301 Reports from 2004-2006
IP Justice prepared a table that summarizes USTR Special 301 Reports from 2004 - 2006
IP Justice has prepared a summary of reports in anticipation of this week's release from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) of its annual "Special 301 Report" (a report-card on how well foreign countries protect the interests of large US intellectual property holders). The IP Justice table includes the last three years of USTR Special 301 Reports (2004 - 2006).