USPTO Refuses To Respond To Senators' Questions On Legality Of ACTA
from the trust-us... dept
The effort the administration is going through to avoid discussing ACTA is really quite stunning. Two US Senators, Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown, asked USPTO Director David Kappos to respond to specific questions about the legality of certain issues in ACTA. Kappos has now "responded" by not actually responding. He sent a letter back that did not actually address any of the issues raised, but merely said "our USPTO issue experts will continue to work with USTR as they finalize the results achieved in Tokyo." That's not a response. That's a dodge. You can read the entire letter after the jump.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, bernie sanders, david kappos, legality, sherrod brown
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Boilerplate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is there anyone in the ACTA that's not obviously sided with trade organizations and corporations? Because otherwise, why would anyone want to implement an agreement that's been entirely written by a bunch of corporations? In other words, how is the ACTA any different from the UN's numerous non binding agreements?
I'm not that surprised that such a document has been written, what surprises me is that anyone anywhere might take it seriously. Are lobbyists across the world THAT powerful?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well yeah
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Passing the Buck
He essentially says: 'I've been advising the USTR, but I'm not responsible for this. I don't have any answers to your questions. Go ask the USTR'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Accordingly, Mr. Kappos' response was entirely appropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
As for your second question, even a casual perusal of the KEI website reveals that the form, structure, questions, assertions, etc. of the letter signed by Messrs. Sanders and Brown very closely, if not exactly, track articles presented there. Moreover, Messrs. Sanders and Brown do not sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, nor to my knowledge have they presented any comments to the committee expressing any concerns they may have with the proposed bill, which would certainly have been the case had either of them held any reservations about the bill as presented.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When it says "You can read the entire letter after the jump." and then the letter is right there and no "jump" to be seen, is the "jump" missing or is it simply really, really, really small and I can't see it, or even invisible? Is Van Halen involved, missing, small or invisible also?
Or did noscript/adblock steal my "jump"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's Sanders and Brown, but you already were corrected on that.
You seem to be implying that neither one really cares about the issue, and are only letting themselves be used by Knowledge Ecology International. That's not the case.
For example, Sen. Sanders gave his support for a Vermont brewery that was accused of infringement by Monster Energy Drink. And Sen. Brown has a strong interest in international trade agreements; he previously voted "No" for CAFTA, which included (among many other things) requirements that Central America implement IP laws.
even a casual perusal of the KEI website reveals that the form, structure, questions, assertions, etc. of the letter signed by Messrs. Sanders and Brown very closely, if not exactly, track articles presented there.
Anyone who communicates in Washington has to use very specific language. It's not a surprise that a phrase here or there would be repeated. If you think they are simple shills, then by all means present evidence that they didn't write the letter.
Messrs. Sanders and Brown do not sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, nor to my knowledge have they presented any comments to the committee expressing any concerns they may have with the proposed bill
ACTA is not a bill, it is an "executive agreement." There is no Senate committee, because Congress is not involved in any way. They do not have to approve it, or even be aware of it, for the President to sign it into law.
Perhaps you're thinking of COICA? If that's the case, it's very revealing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
One of the problems here is that if any strong opposition to the agreement on the basis of Article 1 powers was present within the Senate, it would be raised, and loudly, by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the body within Congress that deals specifically with intellectual property matters. To the best of my recollection, no one on the committee has raised any concerns that ACTA improperly intrudes into the legislative powers of Congress secured by Article 1.
You say that communications in DC requires the use of very specific language. I have read hundreds of letters from members of Congress to officials within the Executive Branch. This one stands out as clearly being far, far, far removed from the norm. In fact, I have personally never read a letter even remotely approaching the substantive content and breadth of this letter.
As for who wrote the letter, neither Mr. Sanders nor Mr. Brown are versed in this area of law to anywhere near the extent required for them to have written it. Letters such as this are prepared by staffers, which in this case is almost certainly Mr. Sander's staff counsel since he is identified as the point of contact. Knowing his background in law, it is inconceiveable that he was the author. Hence, the list of likely authors starts to winnow down very quickly. Given that the letter tracks almost exactly with articles published by KEI, I believe a member of its staff is the likely author.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All online reports/articles concerning the letter from Messrs. Sanders and Brown, and the letter from Mr. Kappos, track back to KEI directly and KEI indirectly because of the article here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's standard blog terminology for if the content is included on the front page or not. It's included in the article page, but not the front page
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Odd that you don't make the same points when Senators republish briefs and laws written by the RIAA and MPAA.
I wonder why not...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for who writes laws, of course people who do not hold elected office have a hand in taking a first cut at bills they would like to see introduced. Personally, I do not see this as a failure of our political system, but as a strength.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, what? So... it's ridiculous and mock-worthy that KEI may have written this letter... but praise-worthy that the MPAA and RIAA wrote ACTA?!?
You really have no shame in your industry *redacted*.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A comment directed to me personally and saying I have no shame is completely out of line and discourteous.
All of the discussions concerning this letter strongly suggest that it originated with them. Clearly it did not. Importantly, at no time have I ever suggested it was wrong for a third party to prepare the letter. To state or suggest otherwise is likewise wrong.
If the KEI or any other thrid party outside of government wants to take a cut at preparing an initial draft of legislation it would like to have introduced is entirely proper. There is nothing nefarious about this in the slightest. This is why I believe this is a strength of our political system. Anyone is free to "petition" our government, and this includes the submittal of proposed legislation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]