Law Professors Ask Senate to Take Up ACTA, Challenging ACTA Constitutionality (Again): The Context

Today, a group of nearly 50 U.S. legal scholars sent an open letter to the Members of the Senate Finance Committee asking them to “exercise your constitutional responsibility to ensure that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is submitted to [Congress].” This note explains the legal and political context for the letter, including the mounting barriers to ACTA ever going into force as a binding international treaty.

[PRESS RELEASE:  Law Professors Declare Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Unconstitutional Without Congressional Approval]

The letter is the latest in a long series of exchanges between law professors, Senators and the Administration on the validity of the administration’s Constitutional claim that it can ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement without the Congressional approval that normally accompanies any binding international trade agreement.

Remarks of Rep. Waxman on the Fifth Anniversary of the “May 10 Agreement”

Remarks of Rep. Henry A. Waxman – as prepared for delivery | May 10, 2012

I thank my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee for organizing this event.

Five years ago today, we achieved a breakthrough, taking a critical step toward a more progressive trade policy that raises standards for labor, the environment, and public health.

I became involved because much of the U.S. proposal on trade and medicines was being taken from Hatch-Waxman, the landmark law that delivered generic drug competition to the American marketplace.  The only problem was that our trade proposals were being designed to have the exact opposite effect – delaying generic competition in poor countries, countries in which the vast majority of people could not afford brand name medicines.

ACTA-As-Counterproposal at TPP Negotiations; News from Dallas Round

The 12th round of Trans Pacific Partnership talks are underway in Dallas.  Negotiators are covering intellectual property topics including enforcement and patents.  As reported by Inside U.S. Trade, New Zealand, Australia and Singapore have proposed replacing some elements of the US proposal on IP enforcement with ACTA language. The US proposal for IP enforcement in the TPP goes beyond ACTA in a number of ways.  Under  the US proposal, an infringement carried out without regard to financial gain may be still considered “commercial scale” – and therefore subject to criminal penalties.  The US TPP proposals also requires penalties to be applied in certain cases where infringements are not carried out “willfully.”  For a good analysis of the differences between TPP and ACTA, see former PIJIP fellow Carrie Sager’s table comparing the two).

Observations from Stakeholder Tabling Session at Dallas TPP Round

Groups that work on intellectual property were behind roughly half of the tables at today’s tabling session at the TPP negotiations in Dallas.  An incomplete list included PhRMA, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the American Association of Publishers, the Business Software Alliance, the Property Rights Alliance, the Institute for Policy Innovation and the Chamber of Commerce… but also Public Citizen’s Access to Medicine Campaign, InternetNZ, the Library Copyright Alliance, Public Knowledge, and PIJIP.

Intellectual Property, Innovation and Growth (presentation at TPP negotiation side event)

Yesterday I gave a presentation on IPRs, technology and growth at the Dallas round of TPP negotiations.  The following blog is based on my presentation.  The slides I used are here.

Policymakers and US industry groups have been arguing that TRIPS-Plus intellectual property rights will drive growth and innovation in all of the countries involved in the TPP negotiations.  They often refer to studies of how IPRs work in the U.S., and assume that IPRs will have the same effects in other countries.  Of course, the U.S. has characteristics that are conductive to IPR-led growth, such as a large public R&D base and a competitive advantages in IP-intensive industries. 

Chile Threatens to Pull out of TPP because of US IP demands

A new (Spanish language) news story contains a quote by a higher level government official to the effect that Chile may pull out of the TPP negotiations if the U.S. does not significantly moderate its intellectual property demands. This follows similar statements made last month in a public forum by a current trade official, a senior senator from the opposition party and a former lead trade negotiator. Today’s statement arrives from the Directorate General of International Economic Relations (Direcon), Rodrigo Contreras — Chile’s top trade official.

Kirk Responds to TPP Transparency Demands

Yesterday, we sent a letter to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk, signed by over 30 legal scholars, criticizing the decision to cancel full day stakeholder presentations for the current round of negotiations being held in Dallas, Texas, and calling on the administration to “reverse course” and work to expand participation and transparency in the negotiation. The letter specifically called for Kirk to work to give the general public the same rights to see US proposals in the negotiation as cleared corporate advisers now have. The letter received an immediate response from the Ambassador, which we reprint below with a brief response from us.

Law Professors Call for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Transparency

Over 30 legal academics from current or potential future Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) negotiating countries wrote to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk today. The letter, the text of which is posted below, criticizes the USTR decision to cancel full day stakeholder presentations for the current round of negotiations being held in Dallas, Texas. The letter calls on the administration to “reverse course” and work to expand participation and transparency by giving the general public the same rights to see US proposals in the negotiation as cleared corporate advisers now have.

 

TPP Negotiations to Resume This Week in Dallas

The 12th round of negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership will be held from May 8-18 in Dallas Texas.   Topics to be covered in the negotiations include patents and enforcement of intellectual property.  U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vice President for Asian Affairs Tami Overby told inside U.S. Trade that “intellectual property and innovation” will among the Chamber’s top focuses in this round, and that they will “continue to insist that the TPP countries seek a highly ambitious text on intellectual property rights.”

Side events hosted by civil society groups at the Round will include a Public Citizen lunch on Innovation and the TPPA on Marh 10 and a Public Knowledge lunch on Copyright Enforcement: Perspectives of Citizens, Libraries, and Internet Companies to be held on the 11th. 

EP Committee on International Trade to Vote on Opinion on ACTA

Next week, the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade will vote on its draft legal opinion on ACTA. The legal opinion states that the  “Commission has ensured that ACTA provisions comply with the Union acquis and that nothing in ACTA contradicts the obligations between parties under existing agreements, including the TRIPS Agreement;” and that “ACTA will not serve as a basis to interfere with access to medicine and, in particular with trade in generic medicines.”  It recommends that Parliament give its consent to the agreement.

Backgrounder for Reporters on #TPP and Trade: What do Countries Get from the US IP Chapter?

Written remarks of Sean Flynn, American University Washington College of Law Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property

Press briefing on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiation, May 2, 2012, 2pm EST. Hosted by Public Knowledge.

I was asked to provide a brief primer on TPP and the link between its IP chapter and more traditional trade benefits. I think two main points are worth noting in any background on TPP, both of which point toward the huge barriers the U.S. is facing in getting a very maximalist IP chapter into the agreement. I conclude with a few questions trade reporters may consider asking country representatives.

#Special301: USTR 2012 Special 301 Report Ignores Legal Criticism

Beginning with the 2009 report, the USTR began hosting a public hearing and making small efforts to improve public participation in the Special 301 adjudication process. But, as in the past, the 2012 report shows that USTR largely ignores the comments of those it disagrees with. Indeed, despite specific requests that the agency at least respond to serious accusations of factual and legal error — the Report simply pretends that the challenges to its methodology were never made. This course of action, which has been constant in recent years despite an uptick in public interest participation in the process, is strong evidence that Special 301 is an illegal process under US law because it acts arbitrarily.

Creative Commons License
All work on infojustice.org is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

infojustice.org is a project of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University Washington College of Law
4801 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20016 | Phone: 202-274-4442 | Email: pijip@wcl.american.edu