[A2k] ACTA, unenforceable parts?

[Ante]

On Monday 13 July 2009 23:22:13 Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
> Ante and all,
>
>   I believe this is essentially correct.  None the less ACTA will
> in some form or another become a best practice.  That likelihood
> alone is troublesome as well as difficult to get around without
> significant legal wrangling.  What form ACTA will take in the
> US is not known yet, which in an of itself a concern.  New
> statutes/law may/will be needed.  If such is enacted at some
> point, than U.S v. Capps will become far less relevant.

Being Dutch, I'm interested in this aspect: It may happen that the U.S. does
not have to implement things which conflict with existing statutes, while the
rest of the world, signing it as a treaty, will have to implement these things
even if they conflict with existing statutes.

Our deal is worse.

Something we will have to explain to our politicians.

vriendelijke groet,
cordialmente,

Ante


> Ante wrote:
> > I understand ACTA will be adopted as an executive agreement.
> >
> > In U.S v. Capps, the Court of Appeals held that an executive agreement
> > conflicted with a statute and so was unenforceable.
> >
> > http://books.google.nl/books?id=d3BbX8TSEx0C&lpg=PA96&ots=5wZwkGiaNk&dq=f
> >ree%20trade%20agreement%20executive%20agreement&pg=PA97
> >
> > KEI reported that injunctions, for any imminent infringement of an
> > intellectual property right, are discussed.
> >
> > That would then be unenforceable (in the U.S.), in so far it conflicts
> > with statutes?


An Awesome Lobbying Machine, that brought us TRIPS, may bring us ACTA


U.S. Trade Representative	  ---------------->	Developing states
	^			trade sanctions
	|								|
	|								|
	|								|  public resources
Advisory board							V
	^
	|			<--------------------------------
	|				Money
	|   private rights
Companies						Companies, consumers