Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/tpp-deal-leaked-pharma-000126

by ghosh • 11 years ago

287 172 11 years ago

fixxer7• 11 years ago

Can a progressive democrat please explain to me why their hero is supporting this?

PS To those trying to claim he isn't a progressive... Obama may not be the progressive you want, but he is the one you deserve.

diogenescynic• 11 years ago

You know it's mostly House/Senate republicans who are voting for it right? Strange bedfellows really.

fixxer7• 11 years ago

You're aware that the Executive Branch's vote is equal to the consolidated power of the Congress, right?

bediger40003• 11 years ago

Indeed. I generally like Obama (except for Espionage Act prosecutions, continued existence of Guantanamo detention centers, and drone wars), but this one makes no sense.

Can a conservative republican explain why the Republican leadership is supporting this? I can't really understand why free market people would be in favor of state-granted and enforced-at-taxpayer-expense monopolies. Nor do I understand why extreme patriots would be in favor of Investor-State Dispute Systems. The latter seems like a sovereignty giveaway, to an unaccountable international body. In a way, ISDS seems like big government gone wild, but it's an unelected, unaccountable international government, which should offend small government types, too.

Zelphyr• 11 years ago

Because they're all owned by the same people who wrote this agreement.

stefantalpalaru2• 11 years ago

I generally like Obama (except for Espionage Act prosecutions, continued existence of Guantanamo detention centers, and drone wars), but this one makes no sense.

What's there left to like? Legal pot and gay marriage?

hga• 11 years ago

As a "conservative Republican" since the Nixon era (didn't know why it was important that he beat HHH and George Wallace in '68, knew why it was and still is important that he beat McGovern in '72), I can say in short that we don't support these things.

Why does the Republican leadership support them? At the more reductionist level, I've seen it best described as a "donor riot"; rather obviously the interests of the wealthy who identify as Republican are different that the base (and this is one reason why the Emmanuel Goldsteining of the libertarian Koch brothers strikes us as bizarre, then again they've got some truly dangerous thoughts).

At a more general level, these "establishment" Republicans are, or aspire to be, members of the ruling class. We of the base obviously aren't, and I don't think many of us aspire to be.

"Offend" is a good word, we are mightily offended by all this. But there's only so much we can do short of, say, starting a 3rd party that's successful enough to either threaten the Republican party such that it adopts our positions, or replace it like it replaced the Whigs (or there's a thesis that the Democratic party will die since its war on arithmetic means it will eventually fail to keep its promises, the Republican party will replace it as the party of the state, and the 3rd party becomes the natural opposition). Short of that, we can withdraw our votes, which has a strictly limited effect in the Congress, and we can and have withheld our money, which gets us back to that donor riot.

Ah, I should note there's always been a non-conservative faction in the Republican party. Its abolitionist roots were in opposition to the conservative nature of the Whigs, remember the trusting busting and imperialism of Teddy Roosevelt, and the north-east wing in general is much less conservative. Think of Nelson Rockefeller who opposed conservative Goldwater, not so conservative Nixon, and was Ford's first VP. Or former governor of Massachusetts and "severe conservative" Mitt Romney (hint, that's the first and last time I've every heard someone use the word "severe" like that).

deciplex• 11 years ago

"Republican leadership... free market people... patriot... small government types"

Figure out which of these does not belong, and you will have your answer.

thisisdallas• 11 years ago

I'm by no means a progressive democrat and I am certainly no fan of Obama. In saying that, it's absolutely necessary to understand republicans are pushing for this just as much as democrats. It's not a red vs. blue issue, it's a red and blue issue.

To answer your question, there are probably many reasons, but one reason is because corporations are paying politicians. Here is a story from The Guardian that explains the payoff http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations...

Also, here is another story from the Huffington Post that describes the corporate influence on the TPP. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-h...

One last comment, while it is indeed up to our politicians to vote yay or nay on this, it is absolutely up to the people to keep our politicians accountable. Right now, the American people are for more concerned about feelings and witty social media posts to care about the TPP. When Americans stop caring about politicians and stop holding politicians accountable, it's quite easy for them to pull something like the TPP.

gcb03• 11 years ago

no matter how much you care. if politicians can only run a campaign with millions of dollars, and that amount only come from corporations, and the corporations can see who voted on what it wanted, then the public is largely removed from politics.

vgfbdgfhkzsdrhh3• 11 years ago

That Guardian article is intentionally misleading. All it says is that some large companies support the TPP, and some employees of those large companies donate to politicians' campaigns. The data don't show anything other than standard fundraising.

dragonwriter6• 11 years ago

Can a progressive democrat please explain to me why their hero is supporting this?

Did Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren start supporting TPP when I wasn't looking?

Or was "progressive" an elaborate typo for "centrist"?

fixxer7• 11 years ago

Ha. Fair weather fan.

costolo• 11 years ago

What are you talking about, both Sanders and Warren don't support TPP.

JamesBarney• 11 years ago

Sometimes I think that if a piece of legislation is not on the red vs blue divide its probably on the powerful elite vs little guy divide.

mplscoder• 11 years ago

Centralization of power and control seems to be on a winning streak.

snowwrestler4• 11 years ago

I'm not a progressive Democrat, but I understand why Obama is pursuing this deal.

First, let's consider a contrast. Neoconservatives have for decades been obsessed with the Middle East. This is mostly because of its strategic importance as the source of oil.

There presents itself now an opportunity to change this strategic focus because of two trends. 1) Domestic oil production is up; so is fuel efficiency; so is the development of alternate energy. 2) Korea, China, Vietnam, and other Asian nations have growing economies and strategic ambitions. In the future of the U.S., oil will be less important; Asian trade relationships will be more important.

Thus Obama's "pivot to Asia." It has been mocked by Republicans, given the ongoing problems in both Russia and Iraq/Syria (both long-standing Republican policy bad guys). But really, something as big as the U.S. does not turn easily or fast.

TPP is a major component in that turn. It will create or enhance special relationships with a variety of Asian nations. It will firm up relationships that are currently being challenged by China, which has the biggest ambitions of anyone these days.

The details of the policy chapters are almost unimportant; they just need to be balanced well enough among all the parties, so that everyone gains slightly more than they lose. Trade agreements are, almost by definition, not optimal for any given single interest group or stakeholder.

In terms of IP specifically, it's worth considering that the U.S. is far more dependent on IP than other nations. If you think about our most successful companies, many of them make nothing but IP: Apple, Google, Microsoft, TV shows, movies, recorded music, software, pharamceuticals, etc. So U.S. negotiators are going to try for max protection on those things. (Does not mean they will get it.)

api• 11 years ago

A second point would be that China's consumer class is booting up. The US wants to position itself to sell into that, effectively to reverse the trade deficit.

snarfy• 11 years ago

Democrat or Republican, this is about rich vs poor, and neither party represents the poor.

fixxer7• 11 years ago

I'm not poor and I'm against the TPP. My opinion has nothing to do with how it treats the poor. I don't like how it empowers corporate interests at the expense of individual rights.

afarrell• 11 years ago

Because the US government wants more tax revenue and tax revenue comes from corporate revenue and the salaries/capital gains that flow from it. US companies tend to generate a lot of revenue from IP. Therefore, the US Government has an incentive to help corporations extract more revenue from IP.

enlightenedfool• 11 years ago

hmmm...because he's just another politician who hoodwinked people with great speeches??

Zigurd2• 11 years ago

Gobs of Hollywood money. Obama honestly thinks this is good stuff because people in the passive content business are friends and donors and they like TPP.

hackuser• 11 years ago

Obama is not a progressive and I don't think he's been particularly supported by progressives (other than the fact that they tend to vote for Democrats).

The possible exception is his initial campaign when he was an unknown quantity and, like all such politicians, everyone projected their "Hope" onto him.

dragonwriter6• 11 years ago

Obama is not a progressive and I don't think he's been particularly supported by progressives (other than the fact that they tend to vote for Democrats).

A lot of progressives supported Obama in 2008 primaries, especially toward the end of that season, because, as it was clear who the reasonably viable contenders were for the Democratic nomination, Obama generally seemed slightly to the progressive side of Hillary Clinton (which is perfectly compatible with him being a centrist Democrat rather than a particularly progressive one; I don't think anyone in the Democratic party has mistaken Clinton for anything other than a centrist for a long time.)

wfo• 11 years ago

The 'you projected your hope onto him' suggestion is popular but doesn't really hold water. He explicitly said things that he did a 180 on. Many of them. For some I'm sure they projected hope on him, but many others who voted for him were just straight up betrayed.

fnordfnordfnord• 11 years ago

He's not my hero. I didn't vote for him mainly because I'm not in a swing state; but if I were and you ran him against Romney and Paul Ryan tomorrow, I'd hold my nose and go vote for him. I might even go find myself an ACORN volunteer t shirt and go register a bunch of poors to go vote for him too. Go ahead though, and tell me how much better we'd all feel about TPP if your horse would've won.

fixxer7• 11 years ago

I haven't had a horse in any of these races. I despise them all; I especially despise those sad true believers out there that pin their hopes to an empty suit.

lifeisstillgood• 11 years ago

There is a very interesting podcast (LSE series about a year ago now), with the chair of the previous round of physical goods talks explaining what has gone wrong, and how to fix it. In essence the idea is a good one - set out worldwide standards of trade - like WTO - for intellectual goods as well as physical.

If I remember it's things like having same standards of animal welfare innabbatoirs (the U.S. Think EU chickens are dirty IIRC).

But it has gone south because it was played badly politically - the heads of the main negotiating countries should apparently have a summit, announce it was crap and announce a new round that will be

- public and open - use a highest standard wins (ie if US rules on X are more stringent than EU then the U.S. Rules are the standard for TIPP) - something else about timelines - I think not setting big deadlines - being more multilateral like WTO

It seems a sensible move and likely to take a lot of the sting out of "rules made behind closed doors, race to the bottom etc"

Contrary views welcomed...

kbenson• 11 years ago

Sometimes the "highest standard" is subjective, more regulation doesn't mean better regulation. Regulation, as expressed through licensing, also happens as a means to protect industry incumbents. Should the current most stringent taxi licensing be extended across multiple countries? What about cosmetology licenses[1]? It's a non-trivial issue to dissect what laws are worth keeping and what laws aren't, as there are people affected positively or negatively whichever way you go. It's a complex issue.

1: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episo...

thomasahle• 11 years ago

What about if one country wants to highen their standards in a certain area, will all the countries that signed up then immediately have to follow? Won't the other countries bully the first one to stay to the status quo?

Also, are there really always such a thing as 'highest standard'? Couldn't it be that more often than not, the rules aim for opposing values?

justizin• 11 years ago

Won't the other countries bully the first one to stay to the status quo?

That is _precisely_ what all of these trade agreements are about, TPP, TiSA, etc..

snowwrestler4• 11 years ago

If the idea is "highest [regulatory] standard wins," I doubt the IP provisions of that new deal would be any more palatable to the folks here on HN than the TPP will be.

The "behind closed doors" concern is mostly fake. "Secrecy" is a story line that tests well with folks who don't know how policy gets made in general. For example, the PPACA (aka Obamacare) and Dodd-Frank bills were extensively negotiated in private before being offered on the House and Senate floors for votes. I don't recall much complaining about secrecy then (edit: I mean from Democrats like Senator Warren).

Generally speaking, people object to private negotiations only if they object to the substance of the negotiations.

lhc-• 11 years ago

Warren was not a senator while the ACA was being drafted.

zanny6• 11 years ago

In essence the idea is a good one - set out worldwide standards of trade - like WTO - for intellectual goods as well as physical.

You must play our game of pretend scarcity of information or face trade sanctions? Sounds like fun.

I am incredibly glad to know this has not happened yet, because it can easily be the death of innovation. IP, being a completely artificial market that can only exist through state power, has been abused so much and so often (be it software patents or Oracle v. Google or how the damn happy birthday song or Martin Luther Kings "I Have a Dream" recording is still copyrighted) and I have no doubts that any global IP regime would see the rise of a generation of IP lawyers and the death of a generation of ingenuity in intellectual pursuits.

That is how a lot of these countries can get ahead. China's ability to outright ignore US IP law means it can rapidly innovate on foreign or domestic ideas without having to be constrained by what US companies allow.

dmitrygr• 11 years ago

I, for one, am glad to know that that interests of everyone important are well protected in this treaty.

I just wish I knew how to join this class of people who are important. Apparently being a citizen is not enough anymore.

brudgers2• 11 years ago

There's been several carefully crafted changes to the language of American politics over the past twenty-five years and "citizen" has been replaced by "taxpayer" [1] as the relevant political constituency. Since corporations ostensibly pay taxes, their personhood has been lifted. Likewise, since wealthy individuals tend to pay more taxes on an absolute basis (despite an increasingly regressive system) their interests within the constituency of taxpayers are also lifted.

[1]: The case for "taxpayers" has been assisted by the language of "victim's rights" wherein people first accepted the idea that some citizens should have higher status before the law than others. Using the idea that paying taxes is a form of theft, taxpayers establish their victimhood and by an extension a privileged interest over ordinary citizens in matters concerning taxation. The obverse of the coin is "consumer rights" wherein buying "Little Plastic Shit" is seen as a high form of social engagement and the primary civic duty of ordinary Americans.

avdempsey• 11 years ago

Well said. And correspondingly, very little talk of responsibilities.

slg2• 11 years ago

I think you are letting the citizenry off the hook for their part in this. The only reason corporations gained this power is because they have more collective money (or at least are more willing to use that money) to lobby. The only reason lobbying works is because politicians need money to get elected. The only reason politicians need money to get elected is because people are so susceptible to political marketing. Coporate personhood is therefore just a symptom of a larger problem, a disinterested and easily manipulated electorate.

aqme28• 11 years ago

More noticeably, "people" has been replaced with "citizen."

The bill of rights specifically delineates protections that apply to "people" and protections that apply to "citizens." The dialogue is often about civil rights violations of American citizens, but the original language is more often "people."

From Yick Wo v. Hopkins

The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. . . . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

Example from the other side: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/07/kt-mcfarland-chris... With the Detroit bomber we now have a clear pattern that reveals how the Obama administration deals with terrorists – try them in civilian courts with the full rights of American citizens... The president is treating terrorists like citizens and citizens like terrorists.

Note: I've taken both these examples from an excellent Glenn Greenwald article on the subject

vacri3• 11 years ago

"citizen" has been replaced by "taxpayer"

"When someone describes themselves as a taxpayer, they're about to be an asshole" - Demetri Martin

mohawk• 11 years ago

I just wish I knew how to join this class of people who are important.

Here's a rough guide: be willing to spend lots of $$$ on politicians, and more than the other Johns. Own media companies so you can influence what people think. Work together with other rich people with similar goals, it will take some time.

doctorstupid• 11 years ago

Corporations are the true citizens.

shoo• 11 years ago

Charlie Stross has a somewhat amusing yet reasonably accurate way of putting it: "we are living in the aftermath of an alien invasion".

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders...

Corporations do not share our priorities. They are hive organisms constructed out of teeming workers who join or leave the collective: those who participate within it subordinate their goals to that of the collective, which pursues the three corporate objectives of growth, profitability, and pain avoidance.

...

Corporations have a mean life expectancy of around 30 years, but are potentially immortal; they live only in the present, having little regard for past or (thanks to short term accounting regulations) the deep future: and they generally exhibit a sociopathic lack of empathy.

...

Collectively, corporate groups lobby international trade treaty negotiations for operating conditions more conducive to pursuing their three goals.

...

We are now living in a global state that has been structured for the benefit of non-human entities with non-human goals. They have enormous media reach, which they use to distract attention from threats to their own survival. They also have an enormous ability to support litigation against public participation, except in the very limited circumstances where such action is forbidden.

TeMPOraL7• 11 years ago

It reminds me of the conclusion I reached after hanging out with NWO conspiracy folks for a while. If what they say is true, it seems to me that those Rockefellers and Bilderberg group folks are the only people out there with a reasonable, good idea for the future. I only wish I knew how to join them.

hellbanner4• 11 years ago

What is their reasonable, good idea for the future, TeMPOral?

logfromblammo• 11 years ago

~Oh, no, no, no. You can't just be an important person any more. That's like being only a millionaire. You want to be a very important person nowadays, otherwise you're just the froth, floating on the scum, floating on the unwashed rabble.~

It appears that certain people have forgotten that the grandest plans of the grandest men may be thrown into chaos by a mere handful of angry serfs. I think I would very much prefer to be anonymous and free to act than to be important, and mortally afraid of every moving shadow, or wound up too tight because people are not respecting mah propertah or mah authoritah.

I think that perhaps now might be a good time to learn some glassware-only techniques for solid-phase peptide synthesis and HPLC purification. Alternately, become an unlicensed expert on CRISPR-based gene modifications. I'm very concerned about the provisions for "biologics", and I would much prefer that biohacking be freely available to the people, rather than locked up for the exclusive benefit of the VIPs. There are some genies out there that need to be unbottled quickly, before some jerkasses decide that they're the only ones who deserve to get wishes.

themgt• 11 years ago

When the director of policy for Doctors Without Borders tells the public that "U.S. negotiators have basically functioned as drug lobbyists" and "We consider this the worst-ever agreement in terms of access to medicine", there's really little more that needs saying.

I love that the best defense unnamed "U.S. officials" can offer is that "major compromises" will likely still be made. In other words: yes we're acting as drug company lobbyists, but we expect some of these other countries to stand up for their citizens enough to get a few concessions.

Fantastic stuff. "Thanks Obama" (and Hillary)

thedaveoflife2• 11 years ago

Maybe the best way to ensure access to medicine is by providing economic opportunities to the worlds most impoverished citizens. In other words, if the trade off is say a 10% increase in per capita GDP in exchange for less access to generics, maybe the former is better than the latter?

chad_oliver• 11 years ago

Perhaps, but there is no way that the TPP is going to produce at 10% increase in GDP per capita. I'm generally supportive of free trade agreements, but in the case of the TPP, all the low-hanging economic fruit has already been picked. There are no significant remaining trade barriers that can be removed to generate quick growth.

zanny6• 11 years ago

Those writing the TPP have no interest in passing any of the profits of these trade deals off to impoverished third world nations to enrich their societies.

If you want a mutually beneficial trade agreement, you don't need secret meetings or a rush to get it through congress.

fweespeech2• 11 years ago

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/05/16-us-tr...

Economic modeling estimates that the benefits to the U.S. from the TPP will be $5 billion in 2015, rising to $14 billion in 2025

Yeah, its not worth it.

Btw US GDP is ~$16 trillion. This isn't going to move the meter at all. Its primarily about securing foreign IP rights for US companies, Obama's legacy, and strategic influence.

rayiner6• 11 years ago

I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-ending weight here. They do noble work, but their interest is the well-being of people outside the U.S. The best case scenario for them is U.S. companies doing all the expensive R&D, and their patients outside the U.S. getting the resulting drugs for free.

The USTR, in contrast, has the sole responsibility of maximizing the benefit to the U.S. It's in our interest if people outside the U.S. have to pay us a bunch of money to get the drugs we invent.

That is not to say that we shouldn't be giving free drugs to people who need it. But that's a policy decision decidedly outside the scope of the USTR. We have agencies like USAID whose job it is to handle humanitarian aid.

amirmc• 11 years ago

Your comment seems to conflate 'our', 'us' and 'we' with the drug companies themselves. There should be more to such negotiations than just whatever is in the (self)interest of US-based drug companies.

That all this seems to be happening behind closed doors doesn't inspire confidence.

pdeuchler• 11 years ago

Big fan of your comments usually, so it's disappointing to see such a specious argument. Not only is this a false dichotomy (free drugs vs getting paid fairly), it's dramatically removed from reality.

Currently, without the TPP, the large pharmaceutical companies make billions in profit every year even including the rampant "piracy" in countries like India and China.

Or, with the TPP, all of those generics go poof, billions lose legal access to modern drugs, and pharmaceutical companies increase profits by 30, maybe 40 percent?

Of course that slack will get taken up by USAID, like you said, which means that now American tax payers will be on the hook to provide medicine that is now more expensive because our own government made them so.

Doesn't really add up, does it?

vacri3• 11 years ago

is U.S. companies doing all the expensive R&D

And they're certainly not struggling despite that; not sure why they need a treaty to 'protect' them.

It's in our interest if people outside the U.S. have to pay us a bunch of money to get the drugs we invent.

Only if you think dollars are the only important thing. Plenty of people see welfare (including foreigners) as being a worthy thing in its own right.

Taniwha• 11 years ago

I live in New Zealand - we've chosen to have socialised medicine - we buy drugs in bulk, for the whole country - it gives the national drug buying agency lots of market power - it doesn't force drug companies to sell to us under cost - but it does pick and choose hich drugs it buys with its limited budget - if they want our business they have to compete with other companies in front of a knowledgable experienced buyer acting on our behalf.

No one here is getting drugs for free, just at reasonable prices that may not be available in the US

TPP as currently written will neuter this advantage costing us billions that will come out of my taxes

crdoconnor2• 11 years ago

I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-ending weight here.

Because he has the requisite knowledge to understand it and because he clearly hasn't been bought.

chetanahuja3• 11 years ago

The USTR, in contrast, has the sole responsibility of maximizing the benefit to the U.S

Correction -- that should read "benefit to the US companies".

chetanahuja3• 11 years ago

"I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-ending weight here. They do noble work, but their interest is the well-being of people outside the U.S."

That's quite an interesting interpretation of "without borders".

icanhackit3• 11 years ago

U.S. negotiators have basically functioned as drug lobbyists

I made a similar comment a few days ago - what we need is a crowd-funded lobbying platform for everyday people. A kind of Kickstarter for law and policy.

If a few thousand or even tens of thousands of people chip in a few dollars to lobby for a change in policy, we can compete with corporations who have bought their way into power.

While we're complaining on the internet big business is using pocket change to get what they want. It needs to be as easy if not easier to pay a few bucks for your desired policy as it is to complain about it in an online forum.

smokinn• 11 years ago

There's no way everyday people can compete with corporations anymore.

There are approximately 244,673,000 adults aged 18+ in the US: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html 318,857,056 * (1 - 0.233% of Persons under 18 years, percent, 2013) ~= 244,563,362

And according to https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/ , to match the $3.24 Billion spent on lobbying in 2014 you'd have to get absolutely everyone in the US 18 or over to give you 13$ and a quarter just to match what corporations are spending.

It's not the least bit realistic, and if the pre-2008 growth rate in lobbying spend picks up again it'll just get more and more out of control.

What's really necessary to get this absolutely incredible amount of money out of politics. The two presidential candidates shouldn't have to spend over 30 billion dollars on an election. The amount of money in politics right now is just insane.

scarmig• 11 years ago

How is this any different from the panoply of public lobbying and advocacy organizations that exist today? The Chamber of Commerce pulls in $200 million per year. EDF pulls in $121M. Sierra $98M. CAP $40M. Cato $29M. The Family Research Council $13M. The EFF pulls in $10M.

Even the smallest of these are not small numbers. And, if you're interested in policy or political change, you've heard of all of them, and they all make it pretty damn easy to donate money[0]. It's just people don't care that much, and for the people who do care, there's often someone else on the opposite side of things who cares just as much.

It doesn't seem to me that a crowd-funded lobbying platform offers much. Maybe it makes it easier to start up an organization? Sure, I guess, but it doesn't give me any confidence that they'll use any funds I give in an effective way. At least major, well-known organizations have a brand to defend and have to be able to prove repeatable successes.

[0] The EFF, which I got to in 5 seconds by DuckDuckGoing "EFF donate": https://supporters.eff.org/donate

CyberDildonics• 11 years ago

I think a more practical idea is the notion of people running for office that vow to take a public vote for all their decisions through the internet (yes it could be done realistically with public/private key cryptography)

teekert• 11 years ago

You mean... what voting is supposed to do for free in a normal democracy? Demos Kratos, yeah right, Large Companies Kratos.

benevol• 11 years ago

what we need is a crowd-funded lobbying platform for everyday people

How about https://www.iWouldDo.it ?

kr4• 11 years ago

It seems that the TPP, TTIP and TiSA are not about the sort of “free trade” that would free local businesses to sell abroad. They are about freeing international corporations from the government regulation necessary to protect the economy, the people, and the environment. They are about preserving privatized monopolies and preventing competition from the public sector. And they are about moving litigation offshore into private arbitrary tribunals

What is going on was predicted by David Korten in his 1995 blockbuster, When Corporations Rule The World. Catherine Austin Fitts calls it a “corporate coup d’état.”

This corporate coup includes the privatization and offshoring of the judicial function [0] delegated to the US court system in the Constitution, through Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions that strengthen existing ISDS procedures.

As explained in The Economist [1], ISDS gives foreign firms a special right to apply to a secretive tribunal of highly paid corporate lawyers for compensation whenever the government passes a law to do things that hurt corporate profits — such things as discouraging smoking, protecting the environment or preventing a nuclear catastrophe. Arbitrators are paid $600-700 an hour, giving them little incentive to dismiss cases. The secretive nature of the arbitration process and the lack of any requirement to consider precedent give wide scope for creative judgments – the sort of arbitrary edicts satirized by Lewis Carroll in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

To date, the highest ISDS award has been for $2.3 billion to Occidental Oil Company against the government of Ecuador over its termination of an oil-concession contract, although the termination was apparently legal. Under the TPP, however, even larger and more unpredictable judgments can be anticipated, since the sort of “investment” it protects includes not just “the commitment of capital or other resources” but “the expectation of gain or profit.” That means the rights of corporations extend not merely to their factories and other “capital” but to the profits they expect to receive. Just the threat of a massive damage award for impairing “expected corporate profits” could be enough to discourage prospective legislation by lawmakers.

0]: http://ellenbrown.com/2015/04/24/the-trans-pacific-partnersh...

1]: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756...

Alupis3• 11 years ago

There's also the fact that the Executive branch (for current and all future Presidents) has just greatly expanded it's power, and snubbed out Congress' ability to stone-wall any trade deals they don't agree with (via amendments, etc...).

Obama likes to constantly state that he will act because Congress "refuses" to... which completely ignores the fact that Congress' "lack" of action is exactly what they are supposed to do when there is no agreement on an issue. Just because Congress doesn't execute the President's will doesn't mean Congress is wrong!

Now the Executive branch gets to unilaterally decide what trade agreements are good for the nation (and that usually means which big lobbying firm courted the Executive branch the best) -- that doesn't sound very democratic to me.

bobwaycott• 11 years ago

When the Congress hands the Executive fast-track authority for such dealings, it is quite disingenuous to point the finger at the Executive. The Executive branch is going to take and hold every single power the Congress grants it. The Congress is there to balance a runaway Executive.

Congress surrendered the authority. They are the ones to blame.

trendroid• 11 years ago

This interview with Assange that democracynow did sheds some light on this 'trade' agreement: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_...

The whole interview is worth watching.

nfoz• 11 years ago

Where can I see the leaked document?

stefantalpalaru2• 11 years ago

https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/

jakeogh• 11 years ago

http://readthetpp.com

shmerl• 11 years ago

TPP and any similar agreements should be totally opposed until they'll be negotiated in public.

hellbanner4• 11 years ago

In Spam Nation, the primary reason spam is successful (why people click those weird ads) is because they get working drugs for cheap that in many cases are chemically indifferent to their expensive prescription counterparts.

http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/spam-nation/

mcv2• 11 years ago

So if access to health care for the poor isn't a good enough reason to make drugs cheaper, then surely finally killing spam is?

phkahler• 11 years ago

"The Obama administration often describes TPP as the most progressive free-trade deal in history"

Does anyone see stronger government enforced monopolies (patents) as the opposite of free trade?

rayiner6• 11 years ago

All property is a government enforced monopoly. Without property there is no trade. There is no reason to transact when you can just take or copy.

bediger40003• 11 years ago

You've written this, or something similar, before. It's kind of disingenuous.

For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine.

Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it. Is my fantastic new way of rigging sails being infringed upon by some "pirate" on Lake Michigan? I can't tell. My sailboat still have the fantastic new way of rigging, so I'm fat dumb and happy. I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me.

I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly". Yes, some laws around property need to be in place, and governments need to enforce them. There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist.

As far as "just copy", well, I'm using my capital (expensive computer) to manufacture those copies myself, should I actually do that. The enforcers now need to keep me from using my capital in a way that I control. That's another significant difference you're glossing over.

tomp• 11 years ago

That's a rather empty argument. Sure, protection intellectual "property" is important for encouraging innovation, but the length of protection must be carefully balanced to prevent rent-seeking (resting on laurels of past innovation). Currently, the terms are ridiculous for many categories (software patents, copyright). In particular, there's nothing that "encourages innovation" when terms get extended retroactively (for existing innovations).

shit_parade3• 11 years ago

Governments don't create property rights, nor do they enforce then very well, usually governments seize private property.

We civilized humans have come to terms with natural rights, that there "inalienable" rights granted by being a conscious free willed beings.

All the bootlicking DC apologists would be wise to reread some philosophy and develop a moral code beyond the barbaric might makes right.

indrax2• 11 years ago

Payment for services.

ytdht2• 11 years ago

You can insert a logical not in front of anything important that Obama says and only then, you get the intended meaning.

ytdht2• 11 years ago

of course, that is a generalized statement... and doesn't always hold true, probably...

Rumford• 11 years ago

At least they have avoided giving it an Orwellian name including the phrase "free trade". Free trade can be described in a few sentences. These voluminous inter-governmental managed trade agreements are just protectionism by another name.

Zenst• 11 years ago

Going by rank of the top 10 pharma companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_compani... we can see that 4 are American and 6 are European.

The total revenue of that top 10 is 60% European companies and 40% American.

Now if this TTP chapter is two-way and with that equaly so for European markets then if anything would it not favour Europe more. Though between the two collectives involved. This only shuts out generics made outside of those two markets more than currently.

As for doctors without borders, they operate outside this trade agreement location wise and would not that open up for cheaper supplies from the producers outside this trade agreement. I would of thought so.

Though would perhaps, once settle reduce production runs of generics in some area's that depended upon this `sudo` gr[a¦e]y market. Then that may raise production costs, though if mroe than one generic then it would become more a price war without the more fruitful markets to utilise. Though always new markets and myself not sure about medical drugs and Russia and how that works at all.

But really such agreements need to be public before signing as about trade for the people as a whole and not a niche area that impacts national security of the people.

So the whole aspect not public just does not sit well, nor bode well for trust or indeed any scrutinising and that which has and has leaked. Just hard to get the full picture as hard to scale.

Animats2• 11 years ago

The article missed some of the other giveaways to Big Pharma. One is a narrowing of the patent obviousness requirement for "me-too" drugs. Claritin (loratidine) is the classic example. Loratidine is a stereoisomer; there's a left handed and a right handed version of the molecule. One has an anti-allergy effect, and the other doesn't seem to do much. (That's very common; biology isn't symmetrical at the molecular level.)

When the patent ran out on Claritin, the manufacturer came out with Clarinex, which contains only the one isomer that does something useful. They then pitched doctors hard to switch their patients to Clarinex, with considerable success.

But the manufacturer lost a patent case, on the grounds that separating the isomers and only keeping the useful one is obvious to anyone skilled in the art.[1] Now that isomer separation is routine, although non-trivial, the FDA requires it as a purification step if the non-useful isomer has any negative effects.[2] You can't claim that a step required by existing regulation is a new invention.

There's a clause in the TPP IP section to reverse that decision.[3] "[US/JP propose; CL/MY/PE/SG/VN/BN/AU/NZ/CA/MX oppose: For greater certainty, a Party may not deny a patent solely on the basis that the product did not result in an enhanced efficacy of the known product when the applicant has set forth distinguishing features establishing that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application.]" That's from last year's draft on Wikileaks; I haven't seen the new draft yet.

Incidentally, the TPP resolves the issue of patentablity for software and business methods: "Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 and 3 (which relate mostly to plant and animal patents), each Party shall make patents available for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application." So software and business methods must be made patentable in all TPP-signatory countries. This, again, is from last year's draft. Check the new one once it gets published.

[1] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/schering-plough-lose... [2] http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInforma... [3] https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/

ScottBurson• 11 years ago

Is it really clear that the draft TPP language quoted here would reverse the Clarinex decision? It seems to me that the phrase "involves an inventive step" would permit challenges based on obviousness. See for example [0]. While what is "obvious" and what is "inventive" can always be debated, I don't see that this language alters the ground on which that debate will play out.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...

Animats2• 11 years ago

It's intended to allow patents on "me too" drugs generally.[1][2][3]

[1] http://www.healthline.com/health-news/would-the-trans-partne... [2] https://www.citizen.org/documents/specific%20provisions%20fi... [3] http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/06/04/opinion/implicati...

Havoc• 11 years ago

Don't even need to read it - the whole secrecy farce surrounding it guarantees that its content is 100% rubber glove exam.

chx• 11 years ago

Even The Atlantic which I found one of the better "mass media" sources rejoices for TPP and lists none of the criticism. I am much afraid all this doesn't reach the masses.

Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

Related Stories