FFII (https://ffii.org/category/eu/page/5/)
Sources say that the European Parliament’s Trade Committee (INTA) will tomorrow consider asking the Parliament’s Legal service to answer questions about ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). Here are some questions the FFII would like to suggest. The questions may resolve uncertainties regarding ACTA. 1. Does ACTA deviate from the EU acquis?
The recent European Commission IPR strategy paper also mentions ACTA. It is quite odd how they highlight an unsubstantiated claim that the ACTA text was in line with the acquis despite evidence of the contrary. The EU should also be in a position to ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) once it has been signed by the contracting parties in the course of 2011. ACTA, which is fully in line with the EU acquis, is an important step in improving the international fight against IPR infringements, in cooperation with countries sharing the same concerns and views. The Commission will table its proposal for an EU decision to sign the agreement in the coming weeks.
The EU Commission published a new version of the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) text (pdf). A Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan announcement mentions an April 15 round of negotiations: “The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was opened for signature on May 1, following its adoption by participants in its negotiations on April 15.” Changes in the text
removed: “3 December 2010” (the date the prior “final” text was made.)
changed: “This Agreement shall remain open for signature by participants in its negotiation,17 and by any other WTO Members the participants may agree to by consensus, from 31 March 2011 until 31 March 2013.” To: “This Agreement shall remain open for signature by participants in its negotiation,17 and by any other WTO Members the participants may agree to by consensus, from 1 May 2011 until 1 May 2013.” There do not seem to be any other changes.
Brussels, 24 May 2011 — The European Parliament should decisively resolve uncertainties regarding ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), according to an open letter to the Members of the European Parliament by the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure). The FFII urges the Parliament to seek an opinion of the European Court of Justice on the compatibility of ACTA with the EU Treaties, and to commission independent assessments of the effects ACTA will have on access to medicine, diffusion of green technologies needed to fight climate change, fundamental rights, innovation, small and medium sized companies and a fair balance of interests. “We now know the devastating effects that IP (‘intellectual property’) enforcement may have on societies”, the FFII says in the letter. A few years after the European Community ratified the 1994 WTO TRIPS agreement, the AIDS epidemic took millions of lives in Africa. Protected by TRIPS, pharmaceutical companies sold AIDS medicine in Africa for prices higher than in the US.
The Spanish anger movement against the effects of the financial crisis also includes opposition to the ACTA Treaty among its demands. No al control de internet. Abolición de la Ley Sinde. No a ACTA.
Some US rightsholder associations and industry players do not want the European Parliament to ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ) about the inconsistencies of the ACTA treaty with the European treaties. The letter is directed to Polish MEP Jerzy Buzek who is the President of our European Parliament and a member of the European Peoples Party (EPP) group. ACTA Trade Mark Lobby(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();
In January 2011, prominent European academics issued an “Opinion of European Academics on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” (ACTA). The academics invite the European institutions, in particular the European Parliament, and the national legislators and governments to withhold consent of ACTA, “…as long as significant deviations from the EU acquis or serious concerns on fundamental rights, data protection, and a fair balance of interests are not properly addressed”. In April 2011, the European Commission’s services put on-line comments to the European Academics’ Opinion on ACTA. The Commission denies ACTA is incompatible with EU law. The Commission fails to make its point in a convincing way.
FFII response to the Consultation on the Commission Report on the enforcement of intellectual property rights
(Also available as pdf)
March 2011
Summary
We would like to thank the European Commission for this opportunity to provide feedback on the Report. To stimulate startup companies, the EU legal situation should minimize market entrance risks for innovators. Startup companies are often confronted with patent minefields. Even a mere allegation of infringement may easily lead to market exclusion. Startup companies often do not have enough resources to litigate.
Pedro Velasco Martins, EU ACTA negotiator, today answered FFII’s 30 December 2010 questions on the initialling of ACTA. ACTA was initialed on 25 November 2010, through an electronic procedure. The Commission chief-negotiator initialled all the pages of the text, including the criminal measures. The Commission added negotiators’ notes in the course of the negotiations. The EU has not decided yet whether it will publish its negotiators’ notes.
On Monday 21 March 2011, the Legal Affairs Committee may vote on a proposal to ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ) an opinion on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The FFII strongly supports asking the ECJ an opinion. Unbalanced enforcement measures may heighten market entrance risks for innovators. Startup companies are often confronted with patent minefields. Even a mere allegation of infringement may easily lead to market exclusion.