[A2k] ACTA, unenforceable parts?

[Jeffrey A. Williams]

Ante and all,

  As you likely know, politicians don't listen very well or only hear
the parts of whatever is being communicated to them that meets
their ideological view, anything else is heard but dismissed.  So good
luck on that score.

Yes there is a definite problem with the conflicts of statutes and
trade policy and practice.  Always has been.  However this again
is mainly due to lack of communications between the executive and
the legislative branches of governments.  Not much we can do about
that a citizens other than to keep diligent and make sure we remind
them frequently of how they need to behave and what is amiss as well
as how to fix it.

Ante wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827