This takeover may well not be 'of its own making'. Let us remember that AFTA was negotiated under the auspices of the most brain dead of international organizations - the UN International Customs Organization- not because it had any expertise but because it wasn't infected with the success of other countries like WIPO and WTO. I suspect there's a mercan somewhere in the woodpile.
Mickey doesn't need copyright anymore - he's a trademark now, remember? Of course it's crazy, but who will spend their precious pennies to fight Disney. Much easier to get a new mouse.
Patents have only been 'presumed valid' since 1982 when the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was established to give the final rubber stamp to any and all patents. Prior to that, they were usually found to violate anti-trust law. This legislative presumption can be reversed with a flick of the wrist if only there were halfway intelligent and independent legislators.
Preventing such control by the manufacturers was exactly why the 'exhaustion principle', now an important principle in maintaining free movement of goods in the EU, was developed in German law 100 years ago. The ability of humans to move backwards is a constant source of amazement.
Yes, publishers (not authors), and yes, it was arguably a good thing, as it provided an incentive to publishers, but it was a short thing, and not designed to facilitate a life of leisure three generations down the road (e.g. Hugh Grant's life of leisure in 'About a Boy').
Yes, if the EU had an ounce of backbone, the US would have to stick to its own rules, but...
This is what distinguishes us from the Mongols (who, by the way were at least consistent - they believed urban life was evil and acted on that belief)- they never killed actors or musicians.
This is the same state that made it a crime to criticize the food a few years ago after Oprah said something nasty about a piece of meat, or was it an orange?
This is the same state that made it a crime to criticize the food a few years ago after Oprah said something nasty about a piece of meat, or was it an orange?
No, they won't. They won't vote, it's not worth the walk. Obama's just too pathetic.
Some reality: Many countries (all of EU for example) protect clothing design by a form of IP which resembles and may overlap with copyright. Legislators lobbied by designers have tried to pass this in the US - 75 times over the last 100 years by some estimates - but it has consistently been rejected. Basically it is a holdover from the 19th century when the US said "We are a developing country and deserve the right to copy stuff from other countries." Even in those countries where clothing design is protected however, you can only infringe by copying the clothing (i.e. making clothing just like the protected clothing). What is protected, as we all know, are the photographs (by the photographer, or owner of the camera where there's a dispute), so back down MGIs, you may bite off more than you can chew.
I haven't seen the provision but nothing in this post says ICs will be patentable. Even ACTA couldn't pull that off (watch your back Bikey).
All that shiftiness wasn't enough - WIPO? To third worldy; WTO? It stopped working for the US as soon the other countries understood what was going on (and thank you Brazil for taking charge of the mechanism); bilaterals? Let's see how they hold up.
Seattle? Too public? Doha? Sufficiently isolated, but now they know what we're doing just by opening computers. What's left but total secrecy, except you have no credibility left and all holes leak to...This is all nothing new for the US, but why on earth does the EU follow it into these nether regions? Dignity? Could we have some please? EU? Hello? Parliament (thank gods for them) calling.
This has nothing to do with crazy Utah, or mormondom. This is what many genetic-resource rich nations have been fighting for to keep from being ripped off by big pharma, monsanto, etc. You might not like the idea that a US state would do it, but it's not a cocamamie idea. Article 3 of the1992 Biodiversity Convention provides:
Article 3. Principle
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
I hope someone is paying you to say all this. Otherwise, do go out and get a real job (and I'm willing to bet good money it won't be as a lawyer) - it's getting a tad boring for the rest of us.
Good article, good link, but you haven't explained what you set out to explain in your title. TRIPS did the same thing, but secrecy, let alone secrecy at the level of ACTA, was not on the agenda. So?
Three strikes is about copyright. Three strikes is contained in ACTA. What don't you understand about that?
Mr. Ring, Sorry to discourage you but word has it that three-strikes is front and center of the highly secret ACTA. Do you honestly think the US cares more about consumers than the Europeans? Neither give a tinkers whatever, but as long as we cling to 'well at least america...' we're doomed. We are all in this together. And it's not nice, no matter where you are.
Thanks PaulT, Beyond that, ever wonder why BSA (a largely US-based group) is the main lobbying power behind the European data retention directive? See research by German working group on data retention as mentioned on Statewatch's website Oct. 29, 2008, among other places. Insidiousness is alive and well.
ITU
This takeover may well not be 'of its own making'. Let us remember that AFTA was negotiated under the auspices of the most brain dead of international organizations - the UN International Customs Organization- not because it had any expertise but because it wasn't infected with the success of other countries like WIPO and WTO. I suspect there's a mercan somewhere in the woodpile.