There seems to be a little tug-of-war going on with the potential intellectual property agreement known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). ACTA seeks to provide international enforcement of intellectual property rights through cooperation and coordination among international governmental agencies.
Most people agree that protection of intellectual property encourages creativity that is essential to continued growth and success of the economy; however, there seems to be disagreement surrounding some of the text of the Act, the secrecy in drafting it and the potential of its passage without Congressional approval.
Today's technological advancements and the ability of foreign manufacturers to produce lower cost goods present almost limitless opportunities for distribution of goods that are authorized by the IPR owner. However, this same technology and low cost production provide the same opportunities for proliferation of products that infringe on intellectual property rights. For example, anyone with a computer equipped with a CD and/or DVD burner and a stack of discs can illegally copy and distribute protected works. The lack of protection and enforcement has led to widespread unauthorized copying and use of unlicensed marks to flood the market with goods that violate intellectual property rights.
Parties involved in negotiations include the U.S., the EU, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Morocco, Singapore, Switzerland and New Zealand. Click HERE to view the most recent text published on November 15, 2010.
On December 17, 2010, the USTR published a notice in the Federal Register, requesting written comments from the public on the final text of the Agreement. Click HERE to read the comments submitted in response to the final text of ACTA.
• Some of the comments, including those from a group of university professors, stated that ACTA must be submitted for Congressional approval pursuant to Article I Section 8 and that the Obama administration could not unilaterally enter into an international agreement on intellectual property rights.
• Other comments opposed portions of the agreement because they believed that the current text of those parts would foster increased criminal penalties for infringement in the U.S.
• Some comments supported ACTA for the increased authority it provides to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The same comments also praised the enhanced provisions for seizure of infringing goods and criminal enforcement for violators.
As importers, exporters and other members of the trade community, what do you think of ACTA? Are there provisions that need change? Does the President have the authority to sign the agreement without Congressional approval? We’d like to hear your comments.
Click HERE to view recent ACTA events on the USTR web site.
Stay tuned to this blog for more developments.
No comments:
Post a Comment