

Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter - r0h1n
https://www.wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/

======
teachingaway
As an IP lawyer, I'd like to say that reading this draft document is super
boring. The parts that I skimmed (less than 10%) was all just harmless
procedural rules. Can someone point out or quote the controversial parts?
Here's the skeleton ToC and a few highlights:

A: General Provisions [seems boring]

B: Cooperation [seems boring]

C: Trademarks

D: Geographical Indications

E: Patents [including genetic stuff - probably controversial]

\- Article QQ.E.2387: {Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions
and Genetic Resources}

F: Industrial Designs

G: Copyright

\- [basically Fair Use:] - Article QQ.G.Y: {Limitations and Exceptions} -
"Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright
and related rights system, inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions...
including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to
legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes..."

\- [DRM stuff:] - Article QQ.G.10: {Technological Protection Measures}

H: Enforcement

~~~
ibisum
The most controversial part of this for me is this:

    
    
        [NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/MY/SG/CA4/MX5 propose; US/JP oppose: The objectives of this Chapter are:
    

Who are these parties and why are they negotiating this in secret, away from
the public eye. If it is just mundane boilerplate (not finished reading yet)
then I have to say that the most surprising thing of all is that we are being
governed by copy/paste. I don't think that is the case here.

~~~
snowwrestler
New Zealand / Chile / Peru / Vietnam / Brunei / Malaysia / Singapore / Canada
/ Mexico propose; United States / Japan oppose.

International agreements are always negotiated privately before being
submitted to legislatures for public comment and ratification.

Domestic laws are done the same way. The terms of any major bill before the
U.S. Congress, for instance, are first negotiated in private among a smaller
group of legislators before being introduced for public debate and amendment.

Business deals are usually done the same way. Two companies considering a
merger negotiate the terms in private first, then present the deal to their
boards/shareholders for approval.

~~~
phkahler
>> International agreements are always negotiated privately before being
submitted to legislatures for public comment and ratification.

The whole problem with that is the folks doing the negotiating do not
represent the public and they are in effect agreeing to have laws passed. One
group is negotiating to have a second group pass laws, who are supposed to
represent a third group - the people. I suppose they think bringing it to
congress for a vote makes it all OK, but where was the real debate?

~~~
snowwrestler
The negotiators are official representatives of these national governments.
So, they represent their citizens to the extent that any government staff
person does so in each respective country. For the U.S., negotiations are led
by the U.S. Trade Representative, who is appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate.

------
ccvannorman
I've seen TPP come up in the news before, and it infuriates me.

Only YOU can prevent global legal catastrophes. Get involved.

[https://act.eff.org/action/speak-out-against-the-trans-
pacif...](https://act.eff.org/action/speak-out-against-the-trans-pacific-
partnership-agreement)

~~~
mihok
Is eff only for US? Seems the form from the link you provided is only for
sending messages to US politicians.. would be nice if all countries involved
had a form like this.

~~~
_delirium
For direct political lobbying yes. Some of their issues are transnational
(like when they put pressure on companies), and they criticize governments
worldwide. But when they directly lobby politicians it's typically only the
American ones. It can get legally tricky to do otherwise, because many
countries have laws restricting foreign organizations from becoming directly
involved in elections/campaigning.

In some European countries, one of the members of EDRi might be worth looking
into (some are more politically active than others):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Digital_Rights#Member...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Digital_Rights#Members)

------
DavidEHSmith
“But, WILL INDIA & CHINA SUPPORT PUTIN (BRICS); The WHITE KNIGHT”?

TPP, CETA, C-CIT SHAREHOLDERS & NON Shareholders AWAIT SUPREME COURT of
CANADA'S, et al FINDINGS, et al to PROCEED.

It will be good for, not only the NON shareholders of the enterprises that
will be generated by the on-going global "cooperation" of corporate treaties,
agreements, partnerships, et al, including the China - Canada Investment
Treaty, The Trans Pacific Partnership, the EU - Canada CETA, but, for the
potential shareholders, as well, who are quite interested to know if President
Xi Jinping (China) will support Russia as a co-member of B.R.I.C.S. when
President Putin uses his potential role as "The White Knight".

And, while President Putin's potential support as “The WHITE KNIGHT” in the
development of the CETAgreement, et al, litigation below can dramatically off-
set the hundreds of billions of dollars due to the present & future sanctions
leveled by American led, et al, corporations & financial institutions via
their governments' signing their global corporate economic
treaties/”arrangements”, and the potential for making trillions of dollars for
the Russian economy over the next 30 - 40 years & beyond, are the citizens
(SHAREHOLDERS & NON shareholders) of Germany & JAPAN just being prudent in
wanting to wait for the outcome of: 1) the submission to The SUPREME COURT of
CANADA & the highest court in Germany, et al, to make their findings regarding
“The Submission”: "The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, et al v the
harmless Canadian NON shareholders, et al"?

and 2) "The MERKEL Lette; To Sue, or, Be Sued”? (see;
davidehsmith.wordpress.com )

Have the federal representatives of the nations that are the potential
signatories of CETA, TPP, et al, willingly provided the NON shareholders of
China, Canada, Europe, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, with the
aforementioned information? Are the federal representatives, et al, depriving
the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, of the due diligence information that
enables the family of the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, to make informed
decisions regarding their financial planning?

And, would a reasonable person conclude by a preponderance of the evidence,
&/or, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these documents, et al, demonstrate that
the SHAREHOLDERS of AMERICA, CANADA , the EU & Trans Pacific nations, et al,
really do not care which NON shareholders pay them the punitive penalties,
etc., by way of their secret (“Death-Star Chamber”) TRIBUNALS, as long as its
not the SHAREHOLDERS who pay & not their corporations regardless of which
country the corporations: 1) operating from, 2) maintain their headquarters,
3) use to do their cyber banking, accounting, "taxation", etc. & 4) et al?

And, re; the CHINA – Canada Investment Treaty, is it understandable why the
“coveted” Hong Kong investor & his associates are “concerned” with the
aforementioned findings of The SUPREME COURT of CANADA, et al, & the effects
of the findings, et al, on the EU, AMERICA, the Trans Pacific nations, et al,
treaties with CHINA, et al?

In regard to arms sales; how about the sale of arms (non nuclear) in general
in regard to the "trade" treaties that are continuing to be secretly
negotiated and how will the Tribunals, both; B.R.I.C.S. & non BRICS,
adjudicate, decide & penalize the NON SHAREHOLDERS for the sale of legitimate,
semi- legitimate & "illegal" sales of arms within the signatories nations &
the those of others, &/or, unaligned? Of particular, interest is China, which
does have an treaty with Canada, which puts China "at odds" with other arms
manufacturing & nuclear powers that it (China) does not have any
"arrangements" with. Are these types of questions that your politicians & the
corporate lobbyists calls "forget-me-nots" ("Buyer Beware") that will be
(maybe) worked out after the fast tracked signatures are obtained?

On the other hand, it may be worth repeating yet again, "What the TREATY of
VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA,
C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st".

David E.H. Smith \- Researcher \- “Qui tam..." ______For more Information &
Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics by
way of the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and The WAD Accord &
List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS. see;
davidehsmith.wordpress.com

------
chippy
Wikileaks press release for background [https://www.wikileaks.org/tpp-
ip2/pressrelease/](https://www.wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/pressrelease/)

~~~
dmix
Highlighting what has changed:

> Although there have been a couple of additional rounds of talks since this
> text, little has changed in them and it is clear that the negotiations are
> stalling and that the issues raised in this document will be very much on
> the table in Australia this month.

> some controversial and damaging areas have had little change; issues
> surrounding digital rights have moved little. However, there are significant
> industry-favouring additions within the areas of pharmaceuticals and
> patents. These additions are likely to affect access to important medicines
> such as cancer drugs and will also weaken the requirements needed to patent
> genes in plants, which will impact small farmers and boost the dominance of
> large agricultural corporations like Monsanto.

> some areas that were highlighted after WikiLeaks' last IP Chapter release
> have seen alterations that reflect the controversy; surgical method patents
> have been removed from the text. Doctors' groups said this was vitally
> important for allowing doctors to engage in medical procedures without fear
> of a lawsuit for providing the best care for their patients. Opposition is
> increasing to remove the provision proposed by the US and Japan that would
> require granting of patents for new drugs that are slightly altered from a
> previous patented one (evergreening), a technique by the pharmaceutical
> industry to prolong market monopoly.

------
ccarter84
Bill Moyers did a pretty solid piece on this.
[http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-the-top-secret-
trade...](http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-the-top-secret-trade-deal-
you-need-to-know-about/)

------
canvia
Related articles expanding on this leak:

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141016/07235828845/leake...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141016/07235828845/leaked-
tpp-ip-chapter-would-lead-to-much-greater-online-surveillance-because-
hollywood-still-hates-internet.shtml)

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141016/05300128842/lates...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141016/05300128842/latest-
intellectual-property-chapter-tpp-agreement-leaked-would-be-disaster-public-
health.shtml)

------
ebauch
I uploaded it at openrev.org so people can actually comment and highlight the
important parts and created a wikileaks group for future documents :)

[http://www.openrev.org/paper/secret-tpp-treaty-
intellectual-...](http://www.openrev.org/paper/secret-tpp-treaty-intellectual-
property-chapter-working-document-for-all-12-nations-with?gr_link=2801)

------
teslaberry
hint for non lawyers-------if you want to understand a document or a legal set
of rules-----skip ALL THE BULLSHIT FIRST---------go straight to that part of
the document which describes the 'default' or 'termination' and those rules
pertaining to 'recourse' 'punishmnet' and 'jurisdiction' .

knowing what defines the actual breakage of the agreement, or when something
breaks, ---what happens.

then you can go back and read all the boring crap that your laywer might need
to know at some point after you did whatever you wanted to do.

