U.S. Senator Wyden Raises Constitutional Questions About ACTA

bs0d3 writes "In a written letter which can be found here, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden questions President Obama's authority to sign ACTA without Congressional approval. 'It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law,' Wyden writes. 'But regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law ... the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress' authority, absent congressional approval.'"

Comments

Re:I actually agree with the Democrat here

[Toonol]

So do I. I'm a crazed far-right Republican, but Wyden is a remarkably sensible Democrat, and the type that can get people to cross party lines to vote for him.

He knows what he's talking about when it comes to technology, and is usually on the correct side on issues such as copyright, privacy, security, etc.

His views on economics are painfully wrong, though.

Re:It's a real issue, because of a DoD privilege

[Solandri]

DoD insists that they be allowed to override intellectual property laws when they want to use a technology without paying for patent rights first.

Are you sure? It sounds more like they just want to preserve the Bayh-Dole Act, meaning if the government helps fund the R&D for a product, they get non-exclusive royalty-free rights to any IP generated from it. I know the DoD has some overreaching powers over IP when it comes to national secrecy or times of war, but I haven't heard of them being able to just use someone's independently-developed patent outright without paying for it (aside from the regular government indemnification from being sued).

Re:Since when...

[scot4875]

Sorry, but anyone referring to Obama as the "Messiah" or the "One" or the "Chosen" or whatever deserves to be modded to oblivion because it's flamebait. Essentially you're insulting both Obama *and* insinuating that his supporters are fanatical, irrational worshippers, without having the balls to come out and say it. It's a nice little straw man for you to attack without putting any effort or thought into it.

I'll admit that I didn't even read the rest of your OP, because I figured it would be more of the same.

--Jeremy