French MEP Kader Arif explains: “The problem with ACTA is that it treats a generic drug as a counterfeit drug with a focus on combating infringements of intellectual property rights in general. This means that the patent holder can stop sending drugs to a developing country, seize the cargo and even order the destruction of drugs as a preventive measure. He continued: “Generic drugs are not falsified medicines; they are not the falsified version of a drug; They are a generic version of a drug that is manufactured either because the patent has expired or because a country has to pursue a health policy,” he said. During the ACTA negotiations, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has always maintained that this is a single executive agreement that deals with issues entrusted to the President by the pro-IP act and that it does not need congressional review and approval on that basis. The question is whether the USTR had the authority to conclude the IP implementation agreement on behalf of the United States when the U.S. Deputy Trade Ambassador signed ACTA in October 2011. Opponents criticized the law for its negative effects on fundamental civil and digital rights, including freedom of expression and the privacy of communications. [81] [87] [90] The Electronic Frontier Foundation mocked, among other things, the exclusion of civil society groups, developing countries and public opinion from the negotiation process of the agreement and called political money laundering political money laundering. [96] [97] The signing of the EU and many of its Member States led to the resignation in protest against the rapporteur appointed by the European Parliament (Kader Arif) and widespread protests throughout Europe. [72] [73] [81] [98] Parliament had three options: first, it could have agreed to ACTA. The Council would then have taken a decision on the conclusion of the agreement. In this case, all Member States would have had to ratify it in order for the agreement to enter into force; second, Parliament could have renounced a response to ACTA. Legally, there was no time limit for responding; Third, Parliament could have referred ACTA to the Court of Justice.

If this had been the case, the vote on Parliament`s approval would have been postponed until the opinion of the Court of Justice. In an open letter signed by many organizations, including Consumers International, European Digital Rights (EDRi), an umbrella organization of 32 European civil rights and data protection NGOs, the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ASIC (French Federation of Web 2.0 Companies) and the Free Knowledge Institute, “the current draft would severely limit the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens. , in particular freedom of expression and the privacy of communications. [106] The FSF argues that ACTA will create a culture of surveillance and mistrust. [107] Aaron Shaw, research fellow at Harvard University`s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, argues that “ACTA would create excessively strict legal standards that do not correspond to contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange or civil liberties.

Comments are closed.