Thread: Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Plan B

It's almost laughable that the Americans think they're getting a bad deal here. Finally they can push their silly copyright/patent/advertising laws all round the Pacific using their legal might all the while saying they will lower tariffs and barriers but still having government subsidies keeping competitively priced imports out of the market.

I hope the other nations are bargaining hard.

An interesting point of view but I think as far as subsidies are concerned it will be the other way round.

Americans now have an insatiable appetite for cheap foreign shit.

Yes....as opposed to cheap domestic shit.

The cheap foreign shit,that keeps your country afloat.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Plan B

It's almost laughable that the Americans think they're getting a bad deal here. Finally they can push their silly copyright/patent/advertising laws all round the Pacific using their legal might all the while saying they will lower tariffs and barriers but still having government subsidies keeping competitively priced imports out of the market.

I hope the other nations are bargaining hard.

An interesting point of view but I think as far as subsidies are concerned it will be the other way round.

Americans now have an insatiable appetite for cheap foreign shit.

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Plan B

It's almost laughable that the Americans think they're getting a bad deal here. Finally they can push their silly copyright/patent/advertising laws all round the Pacific using their legal might all the while saying they will lower tariffs and barriers but still having government subsidies keeping competitively priced imports out of the market.

I hope the other nations are bargaining hard.

An interesting point of view but I think as far as subsidies are concerned it will be the other way round.

Americans now have an insatiable appetite for cheap foreign shit.

Yes....as opposed to cheap domestic shit.

Americans won't work for sweat shop wages. They don't make any cheap shit any more.

If they do, it's assembled from cheap shit made in China.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Plan B

It's almost laughable that the Americans think they're getting a bad deal here. Finally they can push their silly copyright/patent/advertising laws all round the Pacific using their legal might all the while saying they will lower tariffs and barriers but still having government subsidies keeping competitively priced imports out of the market.

I hope the other nations are bargaining hard.

An interesting point of view but I think as far as subsidies are concerned it will be the other way round.

Americans now have an insatiable appetite for cheap foreign shit.

Yes....as opposed to cheap domestic shit.

They don't make any cheap shit any more.

Of course they don't, Harry....

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Plan B

It's almost laughable that the Americans think they're getting a bad deal here. Finally they can push their silly copyright/patent/advertising laws all round the Pacific using their legal might all the while saying they will lower tariffs and barriers but still having government subsidies keeping competitively priced imports out of the market.

I hope the other nations are bargaining hard.

An interesting point of view but I think as far as subsidies are concerned it will be the other way round.

Americans now have an insatiable appetite for cheap foreign shit.

Yes....as opposed to cheap domestic shit.

They don't make any cheap shit any more.

Of course they don't, Harry....

The vast majority of merchandise Walmart sells in the U.S. is manufactured abroad. The company searches the world for the cheapest goods possible, and this usually means buying from low-wage factories overseas. Walmart boasts of direct relationships with nearly 20,000 Chinese suppliers, and purchased $27 billion worth of Chinese-made goods in 2006. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Walmart’s trade with China alone eliminated 133,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2006 and accounted for 11.2 percent of the nation’s total job loss due to trade. But China is hardly the only source of Walmart goods: the company also imports from Bangladesh, Honduras, Cambodia, and a host of other countries.

And that was ten years ago.

So unless you have something you'd care to offer in reply....

Here’s how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill



Critics of the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership are unlikely to be silenced by an analysis of the flood of money it took to push the pact over its latest hurdle.


A decade in the making, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is reaching its climax and as Congress hotly debates the biggest trade deal in a generation, its backers have turned on the cash spigot in the hopes of getting it passed.
“We’re very much in the endgame,” US trade representative Michael Froman told reporters over the weekend at a meeting of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum on the resort island of Boracay. His comments came days after TPP passed another crucial vote in the Senate.

That vote, to give Barack Obama the authority to speed the bill through Congress, comes as the president’s own supporters, senior economists and a host of activists have lobbied against a pact they argue will favor big business but harm US jobs, fail to secure better conditions for workers overseas and undermine free speech online.
Those critics are unlikely to be silenced by an analysis of the sudden flood of money it took to push the pact over its latest hurdle.
Fast-tracking the TPP, meaning its passage through Congress without having its contents available for debate or amendments, was only possible after lots of corporate money exchanged hands with senators. The US Senate passed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) – the fast-tracking bill – by a 65-33 margin on 14 May. Last Thursday, the Senate voted 62-38 to bring the debate on TPA to a close.

Those impressive majorities follow months of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing by the world’s most well-heeled multinational corporations with just a handful of holdouts.
Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:

• Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes.
• The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.
• The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.

The amounts given rise dramatically when looking at how much each senator running for re-election received.
Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden and seven other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans and handful of Democrats as the votes to sway.

• In just 24 hours, Wyden and five of those Democratic holdouts – Michael Bennet of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, and Bill Nelson of Florida – caved and voted for fast-track.
• Bennet, Murray, and Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the three of them. Bennet, who comes from the more purple state of Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January and March 2015, according to Channing’s research.

• Almost 100% of the Republicans in the US Senate voted for fast-track – the only two non-votes on TPA were a Republican from Louisiana and a Republican from Alaska.
• Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who is the former US trade representative, has been one of the loudest proponents of the TPP. He received $119,700 from 14 different corporations between January and March, most of which comes from donations from Goldman Sachs ($70,600), Pfizer ($15,700), and Procter & Gamble ($12,900). Portman is expected to run against former Ohio governor Ted Strickland in 2016 in one of the most politically competitive states in the country.

• Seven Republicans who voted “yea” to fast-track and are also running for re-election next year cleaned up between January and March. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia received $102,500 in corporate contributions. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, best known for proposing a Monsanto-written bill in 2013 that became known as the Monsanto Protection Act, received $77,900 – $13,500 of which came from Monsanto.
• Arizona senator and former presidential candidate John McCain received $51,700 in the first quarter of 2015. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina received $60,000 in corporate donations. Eighty-one-year-old senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is running for his seventh Senate term, received $35,000. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who will be running for his first full six-year term in 2016, received $67,500 from pro-TPP corporations.

“It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” said Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their reelection campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.
“How can we expect politicians who routinely receive campaign money, lucrative job offers, and lavish gifts from special interests to make impartial decisions that directly affect those same special interests?” Gidfar said. “As long as this kind of transparently corrupt behavior remains legal, we won’t have a government that truly represents the people.”


Here?s how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill | Business | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Latindancer

“How can we expect politicians who routinely receive campaign money, lucrative job offers, and lavish gifts from special interests to make impartial decisions that directly affect those same special interests?” Gidfar said. “As long as this kind of transparently corrupt behavior remains legal, we won’t have a government that truly represents the people.”

We can't. We can expect more corruption from Rethugs and Demos.

Originally Posted by MrG

We can expect more corruption from Rethugs and Demos

Only one of them can be "exceptional" though, surely.

Wikileaks Exposes Obama?s Phony Trade Bill?Only 5 of 29 Chapters About Trade ? Red Statements

Alleged a link to some TPP agreement chapters but the links don't work for me.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Alleged a link to some TPP agreement chapters but the links don't work for me

Some "interpretation" but the chapters yet to be released.

"Wikileaks has gotten their hands on a copy of Obama’s phony TPP trade bill. It contains 29 chapters but only 5 pertain to trade. Wikileaks will be publishing the entire bill and they have already released the chapter on Investment. It’s very interesting. It is written in a such a way as to give multinational companies a huge advantage on trade. If a public hospital is built close to a private one, the private hospital has the right to sue the country for expected losses. That is outrageous. Here is where you can find the chapter on investment:

https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment...er/page-2.html

The agreement also regulates the internet and requires internet companies to gather certain data which they will be required to share with certain private companies. Many of the provisions will not only be secret before the vote in the House, but will also be kept secret for four years after the bill is signed. That means we won’t know what’s in it even after it’s passed."

Australian MPs allowed to see top-secret trade deal text but can't reveal contents for four years



Australian politicians have been told they can view the current confidential negotiating text for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, but only if they agree not to divulge anything they see for four years, despite expectations the deal could be finalised within months.


As 10 years of highly secret negotiations over the 12-nation trade and investment pact draw to a close and the US Congress debates whether to grant president Barack Obama fast-track authority, MPs and senators were briefed on the deal Monday night by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade assistant secretary Elizabeth Ward and other officials.
The MPs were told that, despite the negotiations being “in the final stages” and “at the end game”, key provisions had not been agreed – including intellectual property clauses of deep concern to the Australian government and controversial legal avenues for corporations to take action against governments – so-called investor state dispute settlements (ISDS). They were also told the ISDS process itself was still being negotiated, including provisions on transparency.
They were told they could view the current TPP negotiating text on Tuesday “subject to certain confidentiality requirements” and were shown a document they would be required to sign before any viewing.

The document listed requirements which it said were “consistent with the undertaking by Australia and other negotiating partners to treat negotiating texts and other documents exchanged in the course of negotiations as confidential government information in order to facilitate candid and productive negotiations”.
The requirements listed were as follows:
“I will not divulge any of the text or information obtained in the briefing to any party, I will not copy, transcribe or remove the negotiating text” and “I further acknowledge that the negotiating text is confidential and sensitive; disclosure of the negotiating text may affect adversely TPP negotiations and Australia’s relations with other TPP partners.”
It concluded: “I therefore agree that these confidentiality requirements shall apply for four years after entry into force of the TPP, or if no agreement enters into force, for four years after the last round of negotiations.”


Among those attending the briefing were Coalition backbenchers Bruce Scott and George Christensen, Labor backbenchers Stephen Jones, Andrew Giles, Melissa Parke and Terri Butler and independent senator Nick Xenophon.
The four-year confidentiality provision mirrors the secrecy provisions printed on the investment chapter of the TPP, which was published by Wikileaks in March.
That document said it could be declassified “four years from entry into force of the TPP agreement or, if no agreement enters into force, four years from the close of the negotiations” and said it “must be protected from unauthorized disclosure ... and must be stored in a locked or secured building, room, or container”.
When Christensen queried the four-year timeframe at the meeting he was told it was needed because the final version of the document might be different from the current version, and that it was similar to the undertakings required of members of the US Congress who wanted to view the text.


Among the most controversial provisions of the TPP is the proposed investor state dispute settlement mechanism, which could allow multinational corporations to challenge Australian government policies in international arbitration tribunals, for example plain-packaging laws or environmental or health regulations.
The former Labor government put a footnote into the TPP investment text saying Australia did not agree to ISDS provisions. The current government has – according to the leaked Wikileaks version – added that it is prepared to agree to ISDS if “certain conditions” are met.


Australia wants exemptions from intellectual property provisions for “any measures comprising or related to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medicare Benefits Scheme, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator”. The government is particularly concerned to make sure the agreement does not require Australia to extend the period that drugs remain on patent, because of the huge potential impact on the cost of Australia’s pharmaceutical benefits scheme.


Parke said she still had “extremely grave concerns about the ISDS provisions. I note that the briefing confirmed that the Philip Morris scenario could still happen under this agreement”.
The tobacco giant is using ISDS provisions in Australia’s free-trade agreement with Hong Kong to challenge plain-packaging laws that have been upheld by Australia’s high court.


Xenophon said he was also concerned about ISDS, saying “40 years ago Gough Whitlam abolished appeals to the [British] privy council in what was a watershed moment for Australian sovereignty. We now seem to be going back to the colonial era where court cases, not just appeals, will be determined overseas”.
Butler said she also “remained concerned about the ISDS provisions ... I will need a lot more information to be satisfied this is in the national interest, compared with the status quo, which is the bilateral trade agreements we already have with most of these countries”.


After the Wikileaks revelations, the trade minister, Andrew Robb, insisted “the government will not support outcomes that would increase the prices of medicines for Australians or adversely affect our health system more generally; end of story ... Nor would we accept outcomes that undermine our ability to regulate or legislate in the public interest in areas such as health”.
In recent interviews and opinion pieces, Robb has said the deal could provide huge benefits for Australian exporters – including agricultural exports – and says ISDS provisions have been included in many bilateral agreements Australia has already signed. The only time they have been used against Australia is the ongoing case being brought by Philip Morris but Australian companies have successfully used the clauses against companies in India.


He says the government has conducted more than 1000 consultations with different groups about the TPP talks.
“It’s not secretive but of course the whole text is not available because nothing’s agreed until everything’s agreed, so to be putting out bits and pieces over five years, which may or may not end up in the final document, all that’s going to do is be a source of material for those anti-trade groups to worry people and misrepresent, he told the ABC.
The TPP is being negotiated with the US, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.
The cabinet will decide whether Australia signs any final agreement, and then text will be tabled in parliament and be considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties before implementing legislation is considered by the House of Representatives and the Senate.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...ty?CMP=soc_567

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by MrG

We can expect more corruption from Rethugs and Demos

Only one of them can be "exceptional" though, surely.

One of them is better at at, and much more brutal to people who can't fight back. It's their nature.

hopefully the euros will kill this off now and serve seppo lobbyists with interpol notices for bribery

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...rote-tpp.shtml

Revealed Emails Show How Industry Lobbyists Basically Wrote The TPP

from the well-isn't-that-great... dept

Back in 2013, we wrote about a FOIA lawsuit that was filed by William New at IP Watch. After trying to find out more information on the TPP by filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and being told that they were classified as "national security information" (no, seriously), New teamed up with Yale's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic to sue. As part of that lawsuit, the USTR has now released a bunch of internal emails concerning TPP negotiations, and IP Watch has a full writeup showing how industry lobbyists influenced the TPP agreement, to the point that one is even openly celebrating that the USTR version copied his own text word for word.

What is striking in the emails is not that government negotiators seek expertise and advice from leading industry figures. But the emails reveal a close-knit relationship between negotiators and the industry advisors that is likely unmatched by any other stakeholders.

The article highlights numerous examples of what appear to be very chummy relationships between the USTR and the "cleared advisors" from places like the RIAA, the MPAA and the ESA. They regularly share text and have very informal discussions, scheduling phone calls and get togethers to further discuss. This really isn't that surprising, given that the USTR is somewhat infamous for its revolving door with lobbyists who work on these issues. In fact, one of the main USTR officials in the emails that IP Watch got is Stan McCoy, who was the long term lead negotiator on "intellectual property" issues. But he's no longer at the USTR -- he now works for the MPAA.

You can read through the emails, embedded below, which show a very, very chummy relationship, which is quite different from how the USTR seems to act with people who are actually more concerned about what's in the TPP (and I can use personal experience on that...). Of course, you'll notice that the USTR still went heavy on the black ink budget, so most of the useful stuff is redacted. Often entire emails other than the salutation and signature line are redacted.

Perhaps the most incredible, is the email from Jim DeLisi, from Fanwood Chemical, to Barbara Weisel, a USTR official, where DeLisi raves that he's just looked over the latest text, and is gleeful to see that the the rules that have been agreed up on are "our rules" (i.e., the lobbyists'), even to the point that he (somewhat confusingly) insists "someone owes USTR a royalty payment." While it appears he's got the whole royalty system backwards (you'd think an "IP advisor" would know better...) the point is pretty clear: the lobbyists wrote the rules, and the USTR just put them into the agreement. Weisel's response? "Well there's a bit of good news..."

It appears not all is well with the EU with regards to the TTIP.

http://rt.com/news/266107-ttip-vote-...ent-postponed/

"A key vote on the controversial TTIP resolution was postponed by European Parliament last minute on Tuesday. While a large number of amendments have been cited as the reason for the delay, some believe the "mounting public pressure" is "bearing fruit."

The plenary Wednesday vote on Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) resolution was postponed by the European Parliament's president on Tuesday evening. The vote on the controversial report following the ongoing EU-US TTIP trade and investment negotiations will not take place "in view of the fact that more than 200 amendments and requests for split or separate votes have been tabled," President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz announced."

^ Nothing to do with the TPP. The TPP will be passed and as fasicst obomba is pushing through a fast track it will mean that it can not be stopped, it can be changed at will of the corporations, countries added, and is the cementing of corporate run un elected global governance - they will make ALL the laws and chose to break others already in place. When you add this to CODEX Alimentarius (there's a new one for the brain dead zombies who watch the BBC / CNN and other corporate controlled media) this will be catastrophic for the world's populations. All the bellends on here thinking that they are part of the system and doing all right because they have some dollars tucked away need to think what they are going to do when cash is cancelled, all their investments controlled by the bankers, who can when ever they feel like it, take it all. No Cash = no freedom. Game over.

Whilst the secret TPP agreement has yet to be discussed, approved and signed off by any country, China and Australia sign there own "free trade agreement"

Australia, China sign landmark free trade agreement - Xinhua | English.news.cn


Australia and China sign 'history making' free trade agreement after a decade of negotiations - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

China-Australia free trade agreement: Pros and cons - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Plan B

It's almost laughable that the Americans think they're getting a bad deal here. Finally they can push their silly copyright/patent/advertising laws all round the Pacific using their legal might all the while saying they will lower tariffs and barriers but still having government subsidies keeping competitively priced imports out of the market.

I hope the other nations are bargaining hard.

An interesting point of view but I think as far as subsidies are concerned it will be the other way round.

Americans now have an insatiable appetite for cheap foreign shit.

Yes....as opposed to cheap domestic shit.

Americans won't work for sweat shop wages. They don't make any cheap shit any more.

If they do, it's assembled from cheap shit made in China.

Since America has been flooded by illegals willing to work for any wages not only have the number of sweat shops increased but also a lack of good paying jobs.

The US appears to have given the green light to the negotiations of the secret agreement by passing a bill. There seems to be acceptance because the vote will only require a majority instead of passing a % of the voters.

Two examples of "agreements" reached in the existing "global" manner.

1.

IMF and USA set to ruin Ghana

"Just ten years ago, Ghana had the most reliable electricity supply in all of Africa and the highest percentage of households connected to the grid in all of Africa – including South Africa. The Volta River Authority, the power producer and distributor was, in my very considerable experience, the best run and most efficient public utility in all of Africa. Indeed it was truly world class, and Ghana was proud of it.Obviously the sight of truly successful public owned and run enterprise was too much of a threat to the neo-liberal ideologues of the IMF and World Bank. When Ghana needed some temporary financial assistance (against a generally healthy background) the IMF insisted that VRA be broken up. Right wing neoliberal dogma was applied to the Ghanaian electricity market. Electricity was separated between production and distribution, and private sector Independent Power Producers introduced.
The result is disaster. There are more power cuts in Ghana than ever in its entire history as an independent state. Today Ghana is actually, at this moment, producing just 900 MW of electricity – half what it could produce ten years ago. This is not the fault of the NDC or the NPP. It is the fault of the IMF."


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/


2.


The Interests That Power Armenia's 'Electric' Protests'



"Armenia's "Electric Yerevan" protests against a hike in power tariffs coincide with Armenia's sale of a massive complex of dams to a little-known US company with US government approval. We look at how it could impact US influence in the region.

Protests over electricity price hikes in Armenia follow the June 6 privatization of Armenia's Vorotan Hydroelectric Cascade to private US holding company ContourGlobal, reportedly financed in part by the US government's Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).

The protests' declared apolitical nature and the Armenian opposition's relatively marginal role in them could indicate that the conflict is inside Armenia's government and foreign interests rather than an internal political movement. On Wednesday, a rally in Armenia's neighbor Georgia is expected to take place to support the Armenian protests.


© AP Photo/ Narek Aleksanyan
Foreign NGOs May Be Behind Protests in Armenia – Russian Senior Lawmaker



If the protests succeed at reversing the price hike decision, they could force the energy distributor, Russian InterRAO-owned Electric Network of Armenia, which already operates at a loss, out of business and open the company for acquisition, considerably changing the country's energy landscape"

http://in.sputniknews.com/world/2015...014913140.html

Coming to a country near you, soon ?

Well they finally release the TPP full text

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/fr.../tpp-full-text

Despite all the platitudes and bare faced lies from obomba and his mates, it is a horrendous vicious corporate enforcement pact that will destroy countries, and could plunge a billion people into poverty.

You will have to read the independent press to get an idea of the really nasty parts in it. Mainstream are all for it more or less.

It is also a good indication as to what the TTIP will be as well.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

You will have to read the independent press to get an idea of the really nasty parts in it.

Nah. I'll read it myself to form an opinion. Back to you in a couple weeks.
Thanks for the link.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by pseudolus

You will have to read the independent press to get an idea of the really nasty parts in it.

Nah. I'll read it myself to form an opinion. Back to you in a couple weeks.
Thanks for the link.

Feel free.

Yesterday, a month after it was announced that the TPP was "finalized," the official text was finally released. Immediately after that, USTR (somewhat oddly) reposted the whole thing to Medium -- apparently in an effort to appear transparent for an agreement that was negotiated for years in secret. The overall document has been broken out into many different sections, but if you add it all up it's over 6,000 pages long. The Washington Post did what none of the governments actually did and made the document searchable. I spent much of yesterday trying to read through the various sections, and it appears to be super problematic. Along with the text, the USTR posted a bunch of nonsense propaganda about what they want people to think the TPP is really about.

But the problems with the TPP run deep: Despite earlier promises from both the USTR and Australia that intellectual property would not be subject to the "corporate sovereignty" provisions (which they call "investor state dispute settlement" or ISDS), they absolutely are. And this is a massive problem. It means that any country that's a member of the TPP can effectively never move its intellectual property rules in the direction of better benefiting the public -- because some foreign company will claim that this takes away their expected profits. Section 9.1 lists "intellectual property" as the type of asset that is a part of the ISDS process.

We already know what a mess this can create. Remember Eli Lilly is currently using NAFTA's corporate sovereignty provisions to demand half a billion dollars from Canada, after Canada rejected two of its patents because Canada realized the drugs that Eli Lilly had tried to patent did not deliver the benefits the company claimed when trying to get the patent. Canada said that was a good reason to reject the patent. Eli Lilly claimed that this was taking away its assets and demanded half a billion dollars.

Now imagine what would happen if anyone tried to... say... shorten copyright terms? Or require registration for copyright? Or fix the patent system so that you can't patent obvious and broad concepts any more? Does anyone doubt that any country that did so would be beset by these kinds of attacks, which wouldn't even be handled by courts, but by a tribunal of corporate lawyers, often the very same lawyers these companies would hire for other work? Including intellectual property in the investment chapter is a poison pill designed to ensure that intellectual property can only continue to ratchet up, rather than back.

Now, there is a very limited "exception" concerning the "revocation, limitation or creation of intellectual property rights" if it's "consistent" with the TRIPS Agreement -- an earlier trade agreement regarding intellectual property. As KEI notes, this limited exception isn't going to cut it:

The exceptions for intellectual property in the TPP investment chapter are important, and often designed to accommodate existing state practice in the United States or other countries, but one should not overstate the degree to which intellectual property rights are excluded. The meaning of the WTO TRIPS agreement and the TPP IP Chapter itself will be subject to review and arbitration led by private right holders, on topics such as "adequate" or "reasonable" compensation or remuneration for non-voluntary uses of intellectual property rights, the standards for granting patents, and other issues, to determine "to the extent" an action of policy is "consistent" with the TRIPS or the TPP IP Chapter. This not only leads to forum shopping (TRIPS and TPP IP obligations can be interpreted via TPP ISDS), but also empowers private right holder investors (and not consumers) to bring cases and benefit from sanctions against governments.

KEI also notes that these "exceptions" don't apply to any of the new expanded IP requirements that the TPP has introduced -- including things like much higher damages requirements and the possibilities of criminal charges for the vaguely defined "commercial scale" infringement.

What's kind of amazing here is that we've spent years warning about problems with the "intellectual property" chapter and the "investment" chapter individually, and the absolute worst part of this agreement is the way the negotiators tied them together in a ridiculous and dangerous way. This is much, much worse than many of the things we feared would be in the agreement, and it's made even worse by the fact that the USTR directly promised this would not be in the agreement.

There are a number of other problems as well: KEI warns that at least part of the e-commerce provision can be read to ban a requirement for open source software, which would seem to undermine certain open source licenses, like the GPL. Michael Geist notes that the document confirms that Canada basically has agreed to wipe out many useful copyright reforms from a few years ago, and to extend its copyrights yet again, robbing the public of the public domain. Of course, that raises the question of whether or not someone could make an ISDS claim that Canada is taking away their "investment" in Canada... Oh, who am I kidding. ISDS doesn't apply to the public... just to companies.

There are also, as expected, serious problems for affordable medicine and healthcare, privacy, surveillance and more. Despite claiming to demand "nondiscriminatory treatment of digital products" and "cross border transfer by electric means" of information -- an anti-censorship/blocking provision -- the agreement lets Malaysia off the hook on such requirements.

In addition to that, last month we wrote about how it appeared that the negotiators had carved tobacco out of the ISDS section, but upon reading the whole thing, people are pointing out that it's not actually true, as it makes that part voluntary for countries to decide themselves.

In short, the TPP appears to be a massive mess, and in some ways worse than we feared. According to some, concurrent with the release, President Obama told Congress of his intent to sign the TPP, which started the 90-day clock for Congress to "review" the agreement -- conveniently making sure that much of the debate is limited by the end-of-the-year holidays, long Congressional "recesses" that happen around this time, and other key end-of-the-year business. In short, this agreement that was negotiated in near total secrecy (unless you were a big corporate lobbyist) is a really bad deal, and the administration is going to play every trick it can come up with to get it approved. Now would be a good time to let your elected officials know that they need to vote against the TPP.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ally-bad.shtml

^ Slil think obomba is a good guy then?