[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 mailing list