New ACTA Leak Details Differences, Broadening Scope 02/03/2010 by Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)A new document on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) under negotiation has been circulated online. While it is unclear who it was leaked to, a copy of it is available here [pdf]. Apparently a working document from the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union to its delegations, it contains a comparative table of US and EU proposals on civil enforcement as well as “special measures related to technological enforcement means and the internet,” with comments from the Council and bracketed text submitted by other countries involved in the negotiations. One of the more frequent disagreements between countries to appear in the text is over whether or not language should be referring to “intellectual property rights” or merely “copyrights and related rights and trademarks.” There is also a proposal on enforcement measures on which destruction of infringing materials is a possible remedy. At this, the Council noted “destruction of materials and implements is a TRIPS+ provision” and adds it is “important to set limits.” More detailed analyses of the document have been done by Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa Law School and by James Love of Knowledge Ecology International. Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Related "New ACTA Leak Details Differences, Broadening Scope" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
[…] New ACTA Leak Details Differences, Broadening Scope (source: Intellectual Property Watch, […] Reply