What are the stated goals of the proponents of ACTA? In what way do these goals diverge from the likely effects of the Agreement claimed by those who oppose it?

  • 2
    Do you mean other than to protect the profits of an industry that contributes heavily to political campaigns and lobbists? – SoylentGray Feb 5 '13 at 19:05
  • @Chad, no. What specifically does the ACTA law protect. What unintended consequences will passage f the law cause? i.e. I have heard that the Fair Use Doctrine protects USA reuse of copyrighted material, but many other nations have no such protections. Will due process be eliminated? Any other objections, etc. – user1873 Feb 5 '13 at 19:22
  • What does it protect, will due process be eliminated, how does this effect fair use? are good constructive questions. The rest of this really is not. – SoylentGray Feb 5 '13 at 19:25

Regarding purpose, from Wikipedia (emphasis is mine):

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was a proposed multinational treaty for the purpose of establishing international standards for intellectual property rights enforcement. The agreement aims to establish an international legal framework for targeting counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet, and would create a new governing body outside existing forums [...].

Some of the criticism, also from Wikipedia:

Threats to freedom and human rights

An open letter signed by many organizations [...] states that "the current draft of ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy."

and (from the same Wikipedia link)

Criminalising generic medicine

According to French EP member Kader Arif, "The problem with ACTA is that, by focusing on the fight against violation of intellectual property rights in general, it treats a generic drug just as a counterfeited drug. This means the patent holder can stop the shipping of the drugs to a developing country, seize the cargo and even order the destruction of the drugs as a preventive measure."

| improve this answer | |
  • The second part confuses me - generic drugs are when the patent has expired. So why would the patent holder have anything to say? – user19831 Sep 21 '18 at 6:53
  • @Orangesandlemons that's one of the criticisms of the ACTA as presented by critics. The Wikipedia page may offer some info. It also links to other sources. – JJ for Transparency and Monica Sep 21 '18 at 9:09
  • @Orangesandlemons I'd hazard two guesses. First, that that's the point, patent holder gets a say despite having no right to. Second, that brand name is entirely different from patent and does not expire on set date (it has different rules for "expiry" and may never "expire" if maintained properly) yet ACTA deliberately acts to conflate that, and paint any generic at counterfeit as if brand was patent. – M i ech Nov 20 '18 at 2:47
  • I strongly suspect that the generic drugs are from a country in which the patent has expired, but the holder of the patent in a different member country can act against them as if they still held the patent in all member countries. So, if the patent expires in the US and another country begins manufacturing generics there, the original patent holder, if they still hold a patent in say, the EU, can prevent the American generic drug from shipping to some third world country as if they still owned the patent in America, essentially stifling international trade (and charity work dependent on it). – cpcodes Nov 20 '18 at 18:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .