Comments on: USA says: You’re nicked, sonny… http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/02/usa-says-youre-nicked-sonny-2/ Two lawyers on law, legislation and liberty. And other stuff. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:26:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: LawFont.com » Crikey on Griffiths http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/02/usa-says-youre-nicked-sonny-2/comment-page-1/#comment-10155 LawFont.com » Crikey on Griffiths Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:35:43 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/usa-says-youre-nicked-sonny-2/#comment-10155 [...] commentary on the case can be found at Larvatus Prodeo, Catallaxy, Legal Soapbox (here and here), Ihchoate, and IPWars - and even the IPKat, as well as the mainstream media (here and [...] [...] commentary on the case can be found at Larvatus Prodeo, Catallaxy, Legal Soapbox (here and here), Ihchoate, and IPWars - and even the IPKat, as well as the mainstream media (here and [...]

]]> By: The long arm of US law « The Legal Soapbox http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/02/usa-says-youre-nicked-sonny-2/comment-page-1/#comment-10153 The long arm of US law « The Legal Soapbox Tue, 08 May 2007 07:29:10 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/usa-says-youre-nicked-sonny-2/#comment-10153 [...] long arm of US law Jump to Comments I’ve written a post earlier on the case of Hew Raymond Griffiths, an Australian resident who has been extradited to the [...] [...] long arm of US law Jump to Comments I’ve written a post earlier on the case of Hew Raymond Griffiths, an Australian resident who has been extradited to the [...]

]]> By: Legal Eagle http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/02/usa-says-youre-nicked-sonny-2/comment-page-1/#comment-10152 Legal Eagle Mon, 07 May 2007 13:14:54 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/usa-says-youre-nicked-sonny-2/#comment-10152 By all means, gently readjust my understanding! I was thinking of a scenario where the US went to the ICJ and tried to establish that there were international IP norms, and then force Australia to accept the extraterritorial operation of its laws. Australia could then argue that it had complied with international law norms and TRIPs and the like - but of course, as you point out, both countries are members of TRIPs and all those other WTO treaties, there's no need to go to the ICJ at all, and any dispute goes to the WTO. Doh! I've had a bit of a look at AUSFTA, and I don't think there's anything in it which says we have to accept an extraterritorial aspect to US law. The closest it gets is Article 17.11.25, which reads: "Each shall provide the other, on mutually agreed terms, with technical advice on the enforcement of border measures concerning intellectual property rights, <i>and the Parties shall promote bilateral and regional cooperation on such matters.</i>" I don't think surrendering our citizens up to US Courts is part of bilateral cooperation - after all, the whole point of AUSFTA is that our laws are adequate for US purposes and vice versa. By all means, gently readjust my understanding!
I was thinking of a scenario where the US went to the ICJ and tried to establish that there were international IP norms, and then force Australia to accept the extraterritorial operation of its laws. Australia could then argue that it had complied with international law norms and TRIPs and the like - but of course, as you point out, both countries are members of TRIPs and all those other WTO treaties, there’s no need to go to the ICJ at all, and any dispute goes to the WTO. Doh!

I’ve had a bit of a look at AUSFTA, and I don’t think there’s anything in it which says we have to accept an extraterritorial aspect to US law. The closest it gets is Article 17.11.25, which reads:
“Each shall provide the other, on mutually agreed terms, with technical advice on the enforcement of border measures concerning intellectual property rights, and the Parties shall promote bilateral and regional cooperation on such matters.”

I don’t think surrendering our citizens up to US Courts is part of bilateral cooperation - after all, the whole point of AUSFTA is that our laws are adequate for US purposes and vice versa.

]]> By: TRIPS Nerd http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/02/usa-says-youre-nicked-sonny-2/comment-page-1/#comment-10151 TRIPS Nerd Mon, 07 May 2007 10:51:43 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/usa-says-youre-nicked-sonny-2/#comment-10151 This case is pretty alarming. And I Love Your Work in general terms. But let me gently readjust one aspect of your reading of the international law angle. TRIPS doesn't give any basis for the extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction for copyright infringement. If Australia failed to have adequate, TRIPS-compliant copyright law (or if it failed to provide for national treatment), then the only course of action for the US would not be to assert its extraterritorial jurisdiction to fill the gap, but rather to take a case against Australia through the WTO dispute settlement system. (For a copyright case which the US lost, see http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds160_e.htm). Of course, as the last post points out, there is now a direct bilateral route for taking up claimed shortfalls in IP protection as well, courtesy of dispute settlement procedures under the bilateral trade agreement. Australia recently criminalized further copyright breaches at the bidding of the US, but these proceedings were commenced well before those amendments. Let's see if Griffiths is penalized more than Australian David Hicks, charged with material support for terrorism and sentenced to seven years, suspended but for nine months to serve http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21478966-2,00.html This case is pretty alarming. And I Love Your Work in general terms. But let me gently readjust one aspect of your reading of the international law angle. TRIPS doesn’t give any basis for the extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction for copyright infringement. If Australia failed to have adequate, TRIPS-compliant copyright law (or if it failed to provide for national treatment), then the only course of action for the US would not be to assert its extraterritorial jurisdiction to fill the gap, but rather to take a case against Australia through the WTO dispute settlement system. (For a copyright case which the US lost, see http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds160_e.htm). Of course, as the last post points out, there is now a direct bilateral route for taking up claimed shortfalls in IP protection as well, courtesy of dispute settlement procedures under the bilateral trade agreement. Australia recently criminalized further copyright breaches at the bidding of the US, but these proceedings were commenced well before those amendments.

Let’s see if Griffiths is penalized more than Australian David Hicks, charged with material support for terrorism and sentenced to seven years, suspended but for nine months to serve http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21478966-2,00.html

]]> By: Anonymous http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/02/usa-says-youre-nicked-sonny-2/comment-page-1/#comment-10154 Anonymous Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:30:41 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/usa-says-youre-nicked-sonny-2/#comment-10154 Legal Eagle.<br/><br/>Your astute research and analysis is spot on regarding TRIPs. A charge brought in Australia under a perfectly TRIPs-compliant Copyright Act 1968 would have best served the interests of justice and the community. <br/><br/>Alas, there were other over-riding interests at stake of which Messers Howard, Downer, Ruddock and Ellison are acutely aware.<br/><br/>Have a careful read of the Aust-US Free Trade Agreement chapter on IP enforcement and the cross-border co-operation it envisages. <br/><br/>Check out as well the wikipedia.org entries for "Hew Raymond Giffiths" and "DOD" which make chilling reference to a new "benchmark" for securing US corporate interests by breaking down national borders.<br/> <br/>Stay tuned for the rubber-stamping of Hew's guilt before judge and jury in Virginia during the week beginning on 14 May 2007. <br/><br/>Please continue to publicise this within and beyond your circles.<br/><br/>BaggageHandler Legal Eagle.

Your astute research and analysis is spot on regarding TRIPs. A charge brought in Australia under a perfectly TRIPs-compliant Copyright Act 1968 would have best served the interests of justice and the community.

Alas, there were other over-riding interests at stake of which Messers Howard, Downer, Ruddock and Ellison are acutely aware.

Have a careful read of the Aust-US Free Trade Agreement chapter on IP enforcement and the cross-border co-operation it envisages.

Check out as well the wikipedia.org entries for “Hew Raymond Giffiths” and “DOD” which make chilling reference to a new “benchmark” for securing US corporate interests by breaking down national borders.

Stay tuned for the rubber-stamping of Hew’s guilt before judge and jury in Virginia during the week beginning on 14 May 2007.

Please continue to publicise this within and beyond your circles.

BaggageHandler

]]>