
Google Comes Down on the Wrong Side of the TPP - hargup
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160610/15124434685/google-comes-down-wrong-side-tpp.shtml
======
dang
This was discussed at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11880399](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11880399).

------
niftich
TPP the largest cross-national, non-military cooperation pact of our time.
It's a huge power play with serious geopolitical consequences that go far
beyond Google.

Nonetheless, Google benefits from TPP because it enables them to shift
operations to areas with lower costs, and not having their services blocked or
censored in participating countries. They clearly feel that the advantages of
TPP outweigh the drawbacks. I don't expect a public corporation to oppose a
trade agreement on grounds of protectionism or ideology.

Author cites expansion of copyright and corresponding limitation of free use
as specific problems with TPP, but Google comes out in support of those
points. Analysis of other problematic provisions of TPP would serve to make
the article more persuasive, rather than stating that Google is wrong on those
grounds.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> They clearly feel that the advantages of TPP outweigh the drawbacks.

The problem is that's always how this works. You take a thousand people who
each want something that will help them a lot and hurt everybody else a
little. If you only look at them, they come out ahead, because they get +1200
from the thing they wanted and -1000 from the sum of all the little harms
everybody else wanted. But everybody who isn't a huge corporation with the
ability to shovel the thing they wanted into the treaty only gets the -1000,
which makes the treaty a huge net negative because there are a lot more mortal
people taking the big hit than there are huge corporations eeking out a little
at the margin.

> Author cites expansion of copyright and corresponding limitation of free use
> as specific problems with TPP, but Google comes out in support of those
> points. Analysis of other problematic provisions of TPP would serve to make
> the article more persuasive, rather than stating that Google is wrong on
> those grounds.

Author links to their explanation in the article:

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120804/00173819933/tpp-t...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120804/00173819933/tpp-
text-fair-use-leaks-us-proposals-are-really-about-limiting-fair-use-not-
expanding-it.shtml)

~~~
mtgx
That's a good analogy, because both the TPP and TTIP show _extremely_ small
gains to the GDP - and even those gains will only come after a decade or so:

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/study-projects-tpp-will-
provide-...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/study-projects-tpp-will-provide-
modest-gains-for-u-s-economy-1463614427)

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160127/08075533442/yet-m...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160127/08075533442/yet-
more-tpp-studies-predict-slim-economic-gains-highlight-dubious-underlying-
assumptions.shtml)

So even if it Google did manage to pass some small clause in there that's of
great help to them, it doesn't mean that's a good trade deal overall.

Big Pharma could make the same argument, that TPP will be great for them! But
terrible for citizens if it bans generics, and so on.

That's why _overall_ you may get very little gains if at all with the TPP, but
a few big corporations could see _huge gains_ from this deal (to the expense
of everyone else).

~~~
foota
A benefit not reflected straight in the gdp are increases in welfare due to
decreases in prices from competition.

Also, it sounds like this will also help other countries, which is generally a
good thing.

That said, the IP provisions bug me.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> A benefit not reflected straight in the gdp are increases in welfare due to
> decreases in prices from competition.

This is the same fallacy Google has. You like one thing in the treaty so you
vote in favor of some omnibus heap of garbage.

The fundamental problem with this treaty is that there are too many unrelated
things in it. Even if the treaty was net positive (which it probably isn't),
we should never accept something which is +1001 and -1000 when the -1000 parts
are entirely unrelated and are only tacked on by lobbyists because they would
never pass on their own merits.

There is no reason we can't reject this treaty and then go back and sign one
that has only the good parts in it -- _we 're_ the ones asking for the bad
parts. We could have the version that only has the +1001. If we dumped the bad
stuff then we could even use the negotiating leverage to get more good stuff.

~~~
foota
I agree, unfortunately it seems like the political atmosphere for free trade
is trending in the imo wrong direction. So if we have to pass this in order to
get that then I think I support it.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The political atmosphere for free trade is trending in the wrong direction
_because of trade deals like this_. Rejecting them is the only way to get back
to any semblance of sanity.

~~~
foota
I disagree, I think most people don't like trade deals because of the trade
part of them.

------
rm_-rf_slash
Google has come down on the right side of the TPP - for Google. The company is
a major major major player for most of humanity outside of China. Even people
who use exactly zero Google products or services are inextricably linked with
those who do, by just a few degrees of separation. This deal would be a huge
benefit to one of the most global corporations in history. I'm not defending
Google by any means, but the company had every right to defend its own self-
interest.

------
pjc50
"The TPP requires the 12 participating countries to allow cross-border
transfers of information and prohibits them from requiring local storage of
data"

Yup, definitely the wrong side of this. I can't see how this will get passed
in the EU when it directly contradicts all the previous data protection
rulings, but presumably there will be some undemocratic process.

~~~
greeneggs
TTP = Trans-Pacific Partnership

TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-
Pacific_Partnership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Invest...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership)

~~~
Infernal
/s/TTP/TPP/

------
naringas
the TPP is good (great) for entities made out of humans and their tools, but
it's pretty bad for entities comprised of (mostly) human cells, i.e.
individual humans.

------
cardiac
This is what irrational looks like. "just wrong" Um. Ok. Why? `limiting
exploration of fair use` Unless you're one of those empirical people and like
human experimentation, which is rather unethical when people's livelihoods are
at stake, you can literally theorize that right now. Go ahead. Everybody's
listening.

Well, while you continue to think about that and have no answer, we'll
continue using laws that protect content creators.

Many of these opinions are nonsensical anti-capitalist drivel.

TPP is consistency and compromise and if there's a real better way, you better
believe countries will adapt to it.

~~~
mattnewton
Irrational and anti-capitalist these are not. There is nothing free-market
about a patent or copyright, they are exceptions to the free market meant to
try and subsidize "innovation," and smart people are still arguing on whether
or not that is working well today. There are other issues that the TPP forces
the hand of the American legislative system to pass new restrictions where we
had previously voted against doing so. It is an undemocratic, anti-free-market
end run around the American legislative branch.

~~~
pzone
There are very good arguments in favor of the existence of patents and
copyrights. Copyrights and and patent reward creators and innovators for their
work. Of course giving these legal rights too much force (eg indefinite
copyright, overly broad patent licenses) is harmful since it restricts further
innovation and increases the price of consuming creative goods. But the
question is not whether patents and copyright are pure good or pure evil, but
how we should make use of these legal tools to improve society.

[http://economics.mit.edu/files/7720](http://economics.mit.edu/files/7720)

[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10887-015-9114-3](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10887-015-9114-3)

