[Ip-health] U.S. claim to not be bound by ACTA?
Riaz K Tayob
riaz.tayob at gmail.com
Thu Apr 21 08:17:49 PDT 2011
Thanks for the input.
However, let us also be clear (relevant excerpt below), so there is no
doubt. It is questionable whether the US even complies with its
Statement of Administrative Action in Congress' endorsement of the WTO
treaty (as the EC Bananas case shows). Raghavan has even pointed
<http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/tilt.htm> out that there is
differential application of WTO laws at the Dispute Settlement Body,
particularly the US unilateral use of its Special 301 provisions (a
similar statement of administrative action by India in the Mailbox case
was NOT accepted).
And even legal rights like compulsory licenses are voidable for poor
countries (the problem is with what is rendered illegal and legal) and
this health imperialism exacts its tributes that is measurable in the
lives of Africans, Latinos and Asians.
In this context of duality (one rule for the Empire, and another for its
satelites) it should come as no surprise that that the US is pursuing
another dualistic strategy in ACTA.
And as Americans wonder about Chinese and others "stealing" their jobs,
they also fail to make the link as to how globalised IPR protection has
facilitated such outsourcing of jobs...
On 2011/04/21 04:09 PM, Richards, Ed wrote:
> Sure, if the treaty includes an international enforcement mechanism that we care about, such as the WTO, treaties have some meaning because we care about enforcement.
More information about the Ip-health