
Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership - cdubzzz
http://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text
======
lighthawk
According to 18.37.3 and 4, microorganisms cannot be excluded from
patentability. I assume this is to allow patenting of things like probiotics.
However, all humans rely their skin, mouth, and gut floras to be healthy. If
the bacteria and yeast in that flora can't be excluded from patentability, are
they considered not a part of the human animal? I understand that probiotics
should be protected, but I wonder if someone could take advantage of this and
claim patent on any naturally occurring microorganism by just isolating it and
showing that it has some use.

Something else not specified in this section are viruses. Viruses are not
strictly microorganisms, and no mention is made of them, but yet they can be
manufactured and used for treatments- recently even for cancer:

[http://www.mayo.edu/research/departments-
divisions/departmen...](http://www.mayo.edu/research/departments-
divisions/department-molecular-medicine/harnessing-viruses-treat-cancer)

[http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/02/fda-
approval-...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/02/fda-approval-
imlygic-cancer-hunting-viral-treatment)

If viruses could be excluded from patentability since they aren't mentioned,
then any research or manufacturing done would not be patentable, and therefore
some companies may hesitate to invest too heavily in research.

~~~
aroch
I think the _spirit_ of this to allow for drastically modified yeast that
produce, say, anti-cancer drug X to be patented. To make the biological
equivalent of an industrial methods patent. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to
protect your IP even though significant effort has gone into creating a
chimeric yeast, because its just a collection of natural products (natural
product's are currently not patentable).

Still, seems a little odd / slippery slope-y to me. On the one hand, I
understand and, to some extent, agree with the need to protect / profit off
what you've developed. On the otherhand, USPTO is pretty bad at biological
patent screening and I can see a huge landrush to patent bacteria for no good
reason.

(Full disclosure, I am in the process of patenting a modified natural product
made by a bacteria)

~~~
david-given
I've never understood why people patent organisms. That's not an ethical thing
--- I understand why people want IP protection.

It just seems like the wrong _mechanism_. Isn't the goal of restricting
copying of your engineered organism better suited to the _copyright_ system,
rather than the _patent_ system? Patents are for processes, right? But an
organism is a thing, not a process. Isn't making an illegal copy of that thing
a copyright violation?

~~~
aroch
Patenting an organism that you've tweaked, tuned and bent to your will is, in
the end, no different than patenting a unique alloying mix or manufacturing
machine.

They aren't patenting the organism per se, they're patenting the processes
they've developed that make use of the organisms as the scaffold/factory. In
the case I outlined previously of a yeast making a drug, you would want the
patent on the cellular machinery that you've built to make the drug, which is
the process.

~~~
avar
No, they're patenting the organism, or the end result. If you come up with an
entirely different process to tweak the same organism by happenstance it's
still covered by the patent.

This is pretty much the definition of how patents differ from copyright law,
if I word-for-word write come up with the same work as you and I can prove
that I didn't copy yours, it's not covered by copyright law.

With patents it doesn't matter that I came up with it on my own, you own the
rights to the end result.

~~~
Dylan16807
That's an argument against patents existing at all. It's not really relevant
to a discussion of what counts as patentable, because such a discussion
assumes that patents are a valid mechanism.

~~~
btilly
Patents aim to trade a temporary bad result (monopoly) for a permanent good
result (incentives to invent stuff).

Discussing exactly how bad the temporary bad result is informs discussion of
when that trade-off is worthwhile. And this is true whether or not your
conclusion is that patents are never OK or only sometimes OK.

~~~
Dylan16807
When discussing whether X should be patented, it is appropriate to discuss the
trade-offs specific to X.

It is a poor time to discuss trade-off generic to all patents. Focusing on
them shifts the discussion away from the issue at hand, and toward a political
stance that people have already heard.

avar's post does the latter.

Just like in a topic about whether to vote for a specific tax levy, it's
inappropriate to talk about whether property taxes as a whole should be
abolished.

~~~
omginternets
>Just like in a topic about whether to vote for a specific tax levy, it's
inappropriate to talk about whether property taxes as a whole should be
abolished.

Making the argument that a given problem is recurrent is very constructive:
consideration of the generic problem can provide arguments for prioritizing
your problem as it relates to X. This is especially true when present
instances of a problem affect future probability of the same problem
occurring.

This is notably the case in law where jurisprudence makes laws progressively
more difficult to repeal.

------
walterbell
Note the _ex officio_ statement in the IP chapter: even if a copyright holder
_does not_ want to initiate border measures (e.g. destroy fanzines), this can
be enforced by governments, [http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-
agreement/transpacif...](http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-
agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/18.%20Intellectual%20Property%20Chapter.pdf).
In 2013, Japanese lawyers warned about the fair use implications,
[http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-
fanzin...](http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-fanzine-
environment.html) &
[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/IP_Theor...](http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/IP_Theory_13/Papers2Discuss/Kaneko_Japanese_fair_use.htm)

    
    
      Article 18.76: Special Requirements related to Border Measures 
    
      5. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities 
      may initiate border measures ex officio [118] with respect 
      to goods under customs control that are:  
    
        (a) imported; (b) destined for export; (c) in transit,
    
      and that are suspected of being counterfeit trademark 
      goods or pirated copyright goods. 
    
      [118]  For greater certainty, ex officio action does 
             not require a formal complaint from a third party 
             or right holder.

~~~
verandaguy

        For greater certainty, ex officio action does
        not require a formal complaint from a third party
        or right holder
    

I wonder if it's possible for a "third party or right holder" to explicitly
state that they don't wish to start border measures.

~~~
Someone1234
They could just grant the fan site a license. Or had a broad license that fan
materials can use.

It isn't unheard of.

~~~
nitrogen
The text quoted in the original comment says "suspected of", though. So that
may not help.

------
unprepare
I suspect it will take a while for all of this text to be digested and for
people much smarter than me to find a lot of nasty stuff in there.

Meanwhile, I found the New Zealand and US side letter amusing:

>To the extent contemplated in the Code, New Zealand shall not permit the sale
of any product as Bourbon Whiskey or Tennessee Whiskey, unless it has been
manufactured in the United States according to the laws of the United States
governing the manufacture of Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey and the
product complies with all applicable regulations of the United States for the
sale or export as Bourbon Whiskey or Tennessee Whiskey.

I assume this must be quite prevalent in New Zealand if they wrote a letter
specific to this one issue. I didn't see a similar letter with France
regarding cognac or champagne.

~~~
pmelendez
<jokingly tone> The most amusing part to me is the glorification of Bourbon
and Tennessee Whiskey. IMO, They don't stand a chance in front a good Scotch
or even a Rye. </jokingly tone>

~~~
corin_
I know this is purely subjective, but personally I genuinely haven't found a
bourbon I like, while I love plenty of single malts (not just from Scotland
but also Irish/Japanese). Maybe someday that'll change for me or maybe I'm
just destined to not be a fan of Bourbons - I have plenty of friends who love
them. Haven't tried Tennessee.

(But as a Brit I completely approve of your joking, too)

~~~
hodwik
Try a Buffalo Trace _antique collection_ and you'll see why bourbon is a
respected spirit among connoisseurs.

The problem is, making real bourbon is very difficult because you have to let
so much evaporate off that producers lose a lot of product. E.g. 84% of the
Buffalo Trace 2015 George T. Stagg evaporated off. That's a lot of lost
product -- so they're opening these 53 gallon barrels and pulling out about 8
gallons of product. Producers don't like those numbers, but that's how you
make real bourbon. So it leaves most people thinking they dislike Bourbon
before ever having drank a real classic bourbon.

By comparison, Scotch is a very simple, cloying beverage. Scotch's complexity
all comes from the peat, it's all show. If you pour enough peat in any whiskey
it will taste roughly like Lagavulin. Bourbon is a more honest beverage,
you're not covering anything up, which means a bad Bourbon is very bad and a
good Bourbon is very, very good.

Scotch is the IPA of whiskey. It's criminal if you ask me.

~~~
tptacek
_Scotch 's complexity all comes from the peat, it's all show_

This isn't even close to true; the entire Speyside region (which produces more
Scotch, and more popular Scotch, than any other region) refutes it --- most
Speysides have little if any peat.

~~~
hodwik
The Speysides are artificially evaporated because the North Scottish climate
doesn't allow the barrels to adequately breathe -- it kills the whiskey. By
comparison, the heavy temperature swings in Kentucky open and close the
barrels every season, so you see a much larger angel's share, and thus a much
more complex whiskey.

Drinking an 18 year Bourbon is like drinking a 40 year _barrel-aged_ Speyside.
Sure, if you can get your hands on a 40 year old barrel-aged Speyside Scotch,
I misspoke. But that's rather outside the budget of even the most die-hard
Whiskey fans.

As a result, most Speysides fall roughly into that same category as the shite
bourbons. Once you stop covering up their failings, you're left with a boring,
watery, lifeless whiskey.

It's like if we were talking beer and I said "Americans just cover up their
beer with flavorants so you don't realize they're watery garbage. German and
Belgian beers are superior." and you fired back "That's not true! Coors Lite
doesn't do that!" No, you're right, Coors Lite doesn't do that.

~~~
tptacek
I am having trouble with the idea that a bourbon-casked Glenrothes, with no
peat and practically no other flavors other than the malt, has been "covered
up" with flavoring, while a "serious" Scotch like Laphroiag, which has so much
peat it tastes like unsweetened cough medicine filtered through a swamp bog,
is standing on the true quality of the whiskey itself.

Is there more crappy Speyside than crappy Islay? Yes, of course: there is more
Speyside _period_ , the world's most popular Scotch whiskey comes from
Speyside, and most blended Scotch is built from Speyside distilleries.

What any of this has to do with the idea that Scotch is all about peat is past
me. Once again: the most popular Scotch in the world has minimal peat, and
lots of Speysides have no peat at all. Ergo: it cannot be the case that Scotch
is simply peat-flavored whiskey.

People who talk enthusiastically about American beer don't generally think
about Coors Lite, let alone talk about it.

The age comment you made about bourbon and Scotch is also weird, since most
bourbon is aged less than 12 years to begin with. At 18 years, you're asking
me to compare a cask-strength Pappy or Buffalo antique --- bourbons that were
built to be aged past the point where most bourbon would suffer for it --- to
Scotch. That's a pretty apples/oranges comparison.

~~~
hodwik
Glenrothes is a great example.

To pick up a 40 year barrel-aged Glenrothes you're looking at paying about
€4500 a bottle, and that gets you about 90% evaporation. That's only 6% more
angel-share than a $70 dollar bottle of BT Antique Collection.

If you can afford that, more power to you, but that's not really in the realm
of what I'm talking about. The Scottish climate is just inappropriate for the
making of proper whiskey in a timely and cost-effective fashion.

You said, "At 18 years, you're asking me to compare a cask-strength Pappy or
Buffalo antique --- bourbons that were built to be aged past the point where
most bourbon would suffer for it --- to Scotch."

I've been talking about BT/Pappy, etc. the whole time. Did you read my first
comment?

"The problem is, making real bourbon is very difficult because you have to let
so much evaporate off that producers lose a lot of product. E.g. 84% of the
Buffalo Trace 2015 George T. Stagg evaporated off. That's a lot of lost
product -- so they're opening these 53 gallon barrels and pulling out about 8
gallons of product. Producers don't like those numbers, but that's how you
make real bourbon. So it leaves most people thinking they dislike bourbon
before ever having drank a real classic bourbon."

~~~
tptacek
First: it's weird to me that you qualify bourbon by how much evaporates off.

Second: if you're going to talk about "how you make real bourbon", you're
probably better off not bringing a Veblen NDP like Pappy into the discussion.

Third: there is plenty of amazing bourbon to be had that isn't a Buffalo
antique at $120 a bottle, so I object to the "real bourbon" notion you're
putting forward. 84% of Weller didn't evaporate, it's not aged 18 years, costs
$30, and it's the same juice as Pappy, just handled more competently so it
doesn't taste like grass clippings.

Fourth: who the hell drinks 40 year old Glenrothes? I'm talking about the
Glenrothes you buy at the liquor store.

Fifth: once again, what does any of this have to do with whether Scotch is
defined by peat flavor? I'm pretty sure you were just wrong about that.

~~~
hodwik
I'm talking evaporation because evaporation is first and foremost what matters
in aging. Great whiskey is thick whiskey.

Why would you throw around NDP like that's a bad thing? NDPs are no better or
worse. Pappy, if you're talking Stitzel-Weller Pappy, is one of the best
Bourbons you can/could buy, period.

Yes, Weller 12 is great (like Pappy 12). It's not syrupy enough, but that
aside, it's a quality Bourbon at a competitive price. Is it as good as a 23
year SW Pappy? You're kidding yourself -- they're in completely different
leagues.

What's more, with a Weller 12 you're still looking at 42% angel-share.
Considerably higher than anything you'll see out of Scotland.

I'm sorry my peat comment upset you. Maybe it's a regional thing, by and large
when we say Scotch we mean Islay or High-land. Either way, it's a lot of
watery garbage, peat or no.

~~~
tptacek
Strong disagree on pretty much all of this. The idea that US whiskey is more
viscous than Scotch sounded so batty to me that I just checked, with a
Willett, a TH Saz, and a GlenDronach 18; the Dronach is the leggiest of the
three. (The Dronach is _obviously_ not the best of those three whiskies.)

I think I don't believe you that viscosity is a simple function of
evaporation.

Think about it: in both US and Scottish whiskey, the spirit going into the
barrel is much higher proof than what's in the bottle, or what you should
reasonably drink it at if you've got a cask-strength bottle. If "good whiskey"
is "thick whiskey", where "thickness" is the amount of water the distillate
had lost relative to alcohol, then we'd all just be buying the highest proof
spirit; you could treat the ABV like a point score for quality. Both US and
Scottish whiskey is diluted to a place the distiller wants it to be at.

We also wouldn't need tasting notes describing the legs, because if it's just
about evaporation, then it's purely a function of ABV, and that's printed on
the bottle!

Certainly the idea that one should evaluate a whiskey based solely on its
legginess finds support in _zero_ whiskey sources I can find.

I don't just think Pappy is overpriced Veblen whiskey that people overpay for
because it's the only brand they've heard of --- although people absolutely do
that, and secondary market prices, which are the only place you can reliably
buy the stuff, make it one of the major rip-offs in all of spirits. I also
think Pappy is _inferior_ to Weller. Maybe I've just been given flawed
bottles; the 20 literally tastes like grass clippings, and I'd take a FR SB
over any of the other Pappies any day.

At any rate: Scotch is not "all about the peat". You have to not drink a lot
of Scotch to think that. Which is fine! Just moderate your stridency a bit. :)

~~~
hodwik
You ought not compare a forcibly evaporated Scotch in an overly active cask,
to a true SBM that is naturally viscous due to aging in a living breathing
cask.

It's not just the water loss that matters, but the total evaporation that
increases your protein ppm, and the length of time those proteins have had to
break down in solution, that provides the complexity to a proper whiskey.

You don't detect that by legs, but by mouth-feel -- surface tension and
viscosity are not the same thing.

~~~
lifeformed
I find this conversation fascinating, even though I know nothing about
whiskey.

~~~
hodwik
I'm glad, I enjoyed having it. I would note that I was taking a very extreme
position for hyperbole's sake, which Ptacek took quite literally, and I was in
the mood to argue.

Scotch is a fine beverage, it's just not Bourbon.

------
rustynails
New Zealand copyright laws extended from 50 to 70 years with grandfather
clause. While it aligns with the Mickey Mouse clause used by other countries,
it goes against the original intent to benefit society as people can't extend
or make use of copyright works for an extra 20 years.

There is also provision to unlock DVDs purchased overseas that is still
retained.

I could not see provision to restrict tax free havens or to curb tax avoidance
by multinational corporations.

------
walterbell
From the _" Legal and Institutional_" section,
[http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/assets/docs/TPP_factsheet_Legal-...](http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/assets/docs/TPP_factsheet_Legal-
and-Institutional.pdf)

    
    
      Any Party may withdraw from TPP by providing 
      six months notice of withdrawal.
    

How many ISDS lawsuits
([http://isdscorporateattacks.org](http://isdscorporateattacks.org)) and World
Bank fines
([https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU](https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU))
would it take for a country to withdraw from TPP?

~~~
giltleaf
Depends on how successful (ie valuable to the participants) the trade
agreement is.

------
saint_fiasco
> _Article 14.17: No Party shall require the transfer of, or access to, source
> code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition for the
> import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products
> containing such software, in its territory._

Does this make GPL unenforceable, or am I reading too much into this?

~~~
riskable
INAL but I think it has more to do with deals like where China requires the
source code of certain products before they're allowed to be imported or used
by the Chinese government.

It doesn't read like it would prevent an _individual_ from applying the GPL to
their software but it might prevent the government from doing the same...
Which would be exceptionally strange and problematic.

It could mean that government agencies would be prohibited from contributing
to GPL-styled open source software or even _using_ said software since they
would be required to distribute it to anyone that asks for the code.

~~~
Xixi
I think you missed a piece of the article: "by a person of another Party".

So for example the Japanese government cannot force a US company to release
source code _as a condition_ to allow its use/import/sell in Japan. But the
Japanese government can write/finance as much GPL software as it wants, and
can import as much GPL software as it wants. The Japanese government can even
mandate all software for its own procurements to be GPL-only.

What Japan cannot do is outlaw the sell or use of closed source _foreign_ (by
a person of another Party) software _on its territory_. So say if Ford wants
to sell cars in Japan, the Japanese government cannot force them to release
the source code for a mandatory code-audit _as a condition for import_...

I really don't think it's a good article.

(IANAL, of course)

~~~
raquo
It seems that this particular article is more about creating equal conditions
for domestic vs foreign producers – see "as a condition of import". Japan can
still require ALL cars sold in Japan to release their source code. They just
can't single out foreign made cars for this. (IANAL)

~~~
Xixi
I would think it is more to prevent the theft of sensible source-code (cg
drivers, etc.) that would "magically" end up on the desk of local
competitors...

Imagine that Google launches a self driving car in Japan, but the Japanese
government ask access to its source code... How many hours before Toyota gets
it and start "auditing" it?

~~~
riskable
> How many hours before Toyota gets it and start "auditing" it?

Why would that be a problem? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me as long as
_everyone_ has the right to audit the code. There's a huge public interest in
disclosure of source code for things like self-driving cars.

If Toyota, Mitsubishi, and other Japanese companies were given the code _but
no one else_ then there would be a problem.

------
BillFranklin
> 2\. No Party shall require a covered person to use or locate computing
> facilities in that Party’s territory as a condition for conducting business
> in that territory.

No Russian server situations

[http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-
agreement/transpacif...](http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-
agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/14.%20Electronic%20Commerce%20Chapter.pdf)

~~~
jellicle
That clause is just to undermine the European Union data directives.

~~~
kuschku
Which is, funnily, not possible, because the EU original treaties (which are
not really changeable) contradict these treaties.

Meaning, the treaty could not be ratified as long as the clause is valid. The
question is now if the clause is null and void, or the whole treaty will be
null and void (as in the case of Safe Harbor)

~~~
renlo
And it's an agreement for countries in the Pacific. Not for any countries in
the EU.

------
bendmorris
In 19.1 on labour, party nations are required to "adopt and maintain in its
statutes and regulations" certain rights, including

\- "freedom of association"

\- "a prohibition on the worst forms of child labour"

\- "the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation"

\- "acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of
work, and occupational safety and health."

Sounds nice, but there is absolutely no guidance on what types of regulations
these incredibly subjective "rights" would require, and I imagine every party
will interpret them differently (and probably conclude that their existing
regulations _already_ provide all of these guarantees.)

~~~
badloginagain
> \- "a prohibition on the worst forms of child labour"

Just the worst. A little child labour, that's OK. I'd love to see the circles
any lawyer would have to run to give a legal definition of the "worst" forms
of child labour.

~~~
bad_user
> _A little child labour, that 's OK_

This may be an unpopular opinion, but what's wrong with child labor under
proper conditions? Only 50 years ago and even today in the country side
children have been working the land alongside their parents.

And even though I don't agree with exploited children and this rule sounds
good, there is such a thing as the sovereignty of a country, so I'm surprised
that such rules made it into a trade agreement at all.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Its a first-world response. We can have all the morals we can afford.

------
walterbell
EFF has published their initial analysis of the final text,
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/release-full-tpp-
text-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/release-full-tpp-text-after-
five-years-secrecy-confirms-threats-users-rights)

 _" The most shocking revelation from today’s release is how the TPP's
Investment chapter defines "intellectual property" as an asset that can be
subject to the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process. What this
means is that companies could sue any of the TPP nations for introducing rules
that they allege harm their right to exploit their copyright interests—such as
new rights to use copyrighted works for some public interest purpose. A good
example of this might be a country wishing to limit civil penalties for
copyright infringement of orphan works ...

... the E-Commerce chapter has the next most serious ramifications for users
... it restricts the use of data localization laws, which are laws that
require companies to host servers within a country’s borders, or prohibit them
from transferring certain data overseas ... The E-Commerce chapter ... imposes
a strict test that such measures must not amount to “arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade”—a test that
would be applied by an investment court, not by a data protection authority or
human rights tribunal."_

EFF wrote previously about conflict between TPP and US Copyright Office
efforts to improve the situation with Orphan Works,
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/users-ustr-dont-
sign-a...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/users-ustr-dont-sign-away-
our-ability-fix-orphan-works-problem), _"... the Register of Copyrights
acknowledges a need to do something about the fact that "orphan works are a
frustration, a liability risk, and a major cause of gridlock in the digital
marketplace." The report includes a discussion of several proposals that could
expand access to orphan works. One proposal is to put limits on the legal
consequences for those who do anything technically infringing, in order to
make it less daunting to take a chance and use them."_

------
codewithcheese
In Soviet Russia trade agreement protects you from company.

In America trade agreement protects company from you!

/joke

------
TheCraiggers
I'm curious- has anybody compared this official text with the leaks to see how
close they were or what they may have changed in the last few weeks?

------
temuze
Article 13.6: International Mobile Roaming

1\. The Parties shall endeavour to cooperate on promoting transparent and
reasonable rates for international mobile roaming services that can help
promote the growth of trade among the Parties and enhance consumer welfare.

That sounds... great!

~~~
jefe_
I propose the following addition:

1 (b) Seeing as consumer welfare is not limited to cross-border scenarios, the
Parties shall also promote fair and reasonable telecom pricing and access in
their home territories. The standard for pricing and access shall be
calculated by the Parties using the following 'Lossless Commute' formula:

AvgDailyCommuteTimeInMinutes * 11MB * 30DAYS * PerMBCost = .05 *
AnnualFederalPovertyLevel / 12

This would allow people in the United States, with average commute times, the
ability to obtain the bandwidth necessary for streaming CD Quality Music
during their commute for $45 per month. The .05 of the Monthly Federal Poverty
Level is set based on the current mandate requiring employers to offer
healthcare with the employee contribution not exceeding .095 of the Monthly
Federal Poverty Level. In 2015, if it is reasonable to believe that an
individual can obtain quality health insurance coverage for ~$93 per month, it
is very reasonable to believe an individual can receive 18GB of bandwidth for
half of that.

------
andrewmutz
I would suggest that while reading this and forming an opinion, you take _all_
the consequences of the treaty into account.

In something this large there will definitely be points that are
objectionable, but that doesn't mean TPP as a whole isn't good for the parties
involved.

Reaching agreement between governments that span the globe and govern hundreds
of millions of citizens requires a lot of horse-trading and compromise. The
final agreement can still be good for the world, even if there are
objectionable provisions.

~~~
cromulent
The agreement is, as you say, between governments, not between the hundreds of
millions of citizens they govern, and was negotiated in secret. So, as a
whole, it may be good for "the parties involved", but I would suggest that it
is absolutely right for any citizen to criticise any part of this they want
to, as vociferously as they desire.

You could equally make the opposite point: In something this large there will
be points that are good, but that doesn't mean that the TPP as a whole isn't
bad for the average citizen.

~~~
azernik
_No_ treaties are negotiated between citizens, and _most_ treaties are
negotiated in secret. We usually don't hear see intermediate drafts of
agreements until well after they've either passed or failed.

This is a good thing. We want negotiators to have freedom to throw out
unpopular ideas, and the only part where public scrutiny is important is the
actual final text that our governments might sign.

~~~
raquo
Huge, all-encompassing all-or-nothing deals like the TPP are not good. They're
merely easier to negotiate.

What's the point of post-factum public scrunity if the deal can not be
modified at this point? It's just a farce.

~~~
azernik
Because it can be rejected.

~~~
raquo
But that will not happen regardless of how good or bad the individual
provisions are.

------
0942v8653
Reddit discussion:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3rlu3g/full_text...](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3rlu3g/full_text_of_the_tpp_has_just_been_released/)

------
arbitrage314
I've heard many folks complain about TPP on the premise that it will destroy
and/or degrade American jobs. I believe there is lots of truth to that--people
in other countries are usually willing to work for less than Americans.

Even so, TPP will help job-hungry people in other countries (at least
slightly) by dumping more jobs into their job markets. So, if we're going to
help Americans by ditching TPP, we're going to do so at the expense of people
in other countries.

Is that the right trade? Helping Americans by hurting others? Maybe it is.

Or maybe I'm missing something... Thanks for your thoughts!

~~~
totalrobe
I work in global trade - jobs generally go to where labor/costs are most
efficient. Apparel and shoes will probably never be produced in the US again
because the manufacturing process is rather low tech / low skill and countries
with lower labor costs have a comparative advantage here.

Some economists believe that ultra cheap container shipping has had more to do
with globalization than any FTAs have... if you haven't read "The Box" by
Levinson it's worth a checking out.

TPP is actually projected by industry to be a net income to US companies of
around 8 billion - a lot of this will be coming from lower import tariffs on
shoes and apparel from vietnam.

~~~
xyzzyz
* TPP is actually projected by industry to be a net income to US companies of around 8 billion - a lot of this will be coming from lower import tariffs on shoes and apparel from vietnam. *

How much of these 8 billions will go to US workers, though? Last few decades
suggest that very little, if any.

~~~
totalrobe
Probably little directly but it will help US companies remain cost competitive
in the global marketplace (and remain profitable) which does mean that a lot
of the high level jobs (marketing, supply chain, design, etc) are still in the
states.

~~~
xyzzyz
It is obviously true that it is easy for powerful few to make laws and rules
that only they benefit from. The question is whether it's right and just.

~~~
totalrobe
As much as HN wants to believe, TPP is not just a giant conspiracy.

Sure there are some questionable copyright/IP details, but there are a lot of
benefits here for US manufacturers as well - historically import tariffs in SE
asia have been quite high which makes it difficult for US exporters to be
competitive there.

The deck is stacked against US manufacturing in several major economies. If
you don't believe me, look at import tariffs in china and brazil (and most of
south america and asia). It's quite prohibitive to import many finished goods
into these countries as they've been very diligent about protecting their
manufacturing base.

~~~
xyzzyz
What your comment is implying is that these $8 billion will be gained at the
expense of the workers in Chinese and Brazilian manufacturing base.

I don't see TPP as conspiracy. It is perfectly clear what is going on.

~~~
totalrobe
TPP doesn't involve China or Brazil.

I mentioned China and Brazil because these are countries with high tariffs on
imported finished goods which encourages manufacturing in-country.

------
MichaelMoser123
We were told that the draft says that ISP's are liable for copyright
violations on their network or something. Is that in the final document?
Anybody knows enough legal language in order to clarify this issue?

Also does the document say anything about terms/expiration of copyright? How
does it treat creative commons?

how does the final document compare to the leaked draft?

~~~
chipperyman573
ISP copyright was addressed in this reddit post:
[https://reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3rlu3g](https://reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3rlu3g)

>ISPs must move quickly to remove material with a copyright claim against it:

> _these conditions shall include a requirement for Internet Service Providers
> to expeditiously remove or disable access to material residing on their
> networks or systems upon obtaining actual knowledge of the copyright
> infringement_

>If your data/material/whatever is pulled down because of a bogus claim, you
can't sue ISPs:

> _An Internet Service Provider that removes or disables access to material in
> good faith under subparagraph (a) shall be exempt from any liability for
> having done so_

>[All pulled from Chapter 18, Annex 18 E/F]

~~~
DarkLinkXXXX
Now, I must know: is automatic take down, without any checks (automated of
some kind, or otherwise), considered good faith?

~~~
zanny
I'm sure the MPAA would appreciate your show of faith.

Fundamentally its tiny individuals vs giant ISPs and media conglomerates.
Justice matters not in such proceedings, only the amount of money you have to
fight it out in court.

------
cdubzzz
Here is the USG version including the US letter exchanges:
[https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-
agreements/tran...](https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-
agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/TPP-Full-Text)

------
SFjulie1
When decisions are irreversibly taken that will bind the future of citizens
without their consents it has to be named by its real name: autoritarism.

Technocracy boils down to aristocracy by diploma (eventually related to birth)
instead of pure aristocracy. Still, the people of the nations should be the
one edicting the laws. And if we mandate people to do laws in our name it is
not acceptable that our consent is not sought by debating.

Modern so called democracies are only democracies by name in this case.

I might not the only one thinking that governments are losing their
legitimacy. I am apt for being called under the flag and in case my government
call me to defend their values/regim... I will not.

The social contract has been broken between modern governments and citizens.
The social contract does not bind me anymore since the other party is not
respecting the term of the contract.

------
seren
Is there a reason why the US are negotiating separately a transpacific and
transatlantic trade agreement ? The fact that, except for the US, no one knows
what will go in both agreement until the end of the negotiation seems pretty
odd.

~~~
debacle
It's widely assumed that these trade agreements are simply pro-hegemony anti-
China agreements, so in that case it makes sense for the US to try and work
two different deals to get as much out of each as possible.

~~~
walterbell
China's RCEP covers similar ground as TPP,
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-
thought-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-no-
trade-agreement-could-be-worse-tpp-meet-rcep)

TPP allows new trade from China to the US, as automobile parts that will be
counted as "Made in Japan/TPP" and qualify for reduced tariffs,
[http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-winners-
toy...](http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-winners-toyota-
japanese-automakers-could-still-use-mostly-2127095)

------
mikeyouse
The White House published the full thing as well, along with descriptions and
summaries of each section:

[https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership](https://medium.com/the-
trans-pacific-partnership)

------
dthal
How are people who are starting from zero on this supposed to understand it in
60 days? This disclosure only a little more than a transparency fig leaf.

~~~
azernik
By the usual means that complicated issues are explained to the public -
professional journalists poring over it for clauses of public concern. How
many people actually read through the ACA, or the myriad budgets and semi-
budgets passed in the US over the past decade with much even shorter public-
disclosure periods than this?

~~~
dthal
The ACA wasn't negotiated in secret. Budgets are normally continuing
resolutions; they only negotiate the delta from previous years, which is
usually small. And again, budget negotiations don't involve years of secret
negotiations.

~~~
azernik
I'm sorry, continuing resolutions are now our ideal? And even then, the full
process is on a similar timescale to just the public disclosure period of this
treaty.

Same with respect to full budgets - they're long, they're complicated, but the
period during which they're publicly available is on a similar timescale to
this 60-day period.

~~~
dthal
>>I'm sorry, continuing resolutions are now our ideal?

I did not say that continuing resolutions are an ideal. My point was that
although budgets are complex, only a relative small part of them changes from
one cycle to the next. People don't have to digest the whole budget, because
they already know what was in it before. They only have to understand the
changes.

------
walterbell
Zip file download (with all annexes) seems to be broken. Chapters + annexes
are available as dozens of individual files. Zip file mirror needed.

~~~
cuonic
It's linking to their internal dev site
([http://dev.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-
agreement/transpacif...](http://dev.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-
agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip)), they forgot to update
the link, just remove the dev and you're in:
[http://mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-
agreement/transpacific/T...](http://mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-
agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip)

------
ryall
I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords

~~~
zanny
New? They have been around for several centuries now. Its just a see-saw of
personal liberty and corporate control, and we are very much rapidly
descending upon their side of the swing now.

------
mbrock
I wonder if there are any systems for defining these things in a more
explorable format, because I don't particularly enjoy reading legalese.

assert> forbid(anyone-in(nz), sale(illegitimately-labelled-product("Bourbon
Whiskey"))

query> prohibitions-for(anyone-in(nz))

Or something. Semi-logical legal code.

~~~
burkaman
I assume the reason they don't do this is that the important and contentious
parts of that assertion would be:

What do you mean by "anyone"? What does "sale" mean? How do you define
"illegitimately labelled"? etc.

And before you know it you're writing your own legalese to cover every
possible question.

~~~
rquantz
Or worse, they start running the law on a computer. Instead of human
interpreters, they'll just run their models and say, oh, the computer says
you're guilty.

~~~
Retra
You don't make the computer output "guilty." You make it show you a likeliness
of violation and a history of enforcements along with the relevance mitigating
factors.

~~~
rquantz
But that doesn't sound as good as a dystopian science fiction story :)

------
belorn
I see that they are retaining the paragraph that leads several countries to
join Russia in burning and bulldozing food and other commodities, if and when
trade mark infringed.

------
tosseraccount
[ edit: this apparently does not get the annexes ]

For those who want to grep it ...

download ...

wget [http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-
agreement/transpacif...](http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-
agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip)

unzip ...

unzip TPP_All-Chapters.zip

convert to text ...

pdftotext "0\. Preamble.pdf" 0.Preamble.txt

pdftotext "1\. Initial Provisions and General Definitions Chapter.pdf"
1.InitialProvisionsandGeneralDefinitionsChapter.txt

pdftotext "2\. National Treatment and Market Access for Goods Chapter.pdf"
2.NationalTreatmentandMarketAccessforGoodsChapter.txt

pdftotext "3\. Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures Chapter.pdf"
3.RulesofOriginandOriginProceduresChapter.txt

pdftotext "4\. Textiles and Apparel Chapter.pdf"
4.TextilesandApparelChapter.txt

pdftotext "5\. Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation Chapter.pdf"
5.CustomsAdministrationandTradeFacilitationChapter.txt

pdftotext "6\. Trade Remedies Chapter.pdf" 6.TradeRemediesChapter.txt

pdftotext "7\. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Chapter.pdf"
7.SanitaryandPhytosanitaryMeasuresChapter.txt

pdftotext "8\. Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter.pdf"
8.TechnicalBarrierstoTradeChapter.txt

pdftotext "9\. Investment Chapter.pdf" 9.InvestmentChapter.txt

pdftotext "10\. Cross-Border Trade in Services Chapter.pdf" 10.Cross-
BorderTradeinServicesChapter.txt

pdftotext "11\. Financial Services Chapter.pdf"
11.FinancialServicesChapter.txt

pdftotext "12\. Temporary Entry for Business Persons Chapter.pdf"
12.TemporaryEntryforBusinessPersonsChapter.txt

pdftotext "13\. Telecommunications Chapter.pdf"
13.TelecommunicationsChapter.txt

pdftotext "14\. Electronic Commerce Chapter.pdf"
14.ElectronicCommerceChapter.txt

pdftotext "15\. Government Procurement Chapter.pdf"
15.GovernmentProcurementChapter.txt

pdftotext "16\. Competition Policy Chapter.pdf"
16.CompetitionPolicyChapter.txt

pdftotext "17\. State-Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies Chapter.pdf"
17.State-OwnedEnterprisesandDesignatedMonopoliesChapter.txt

pdftotext "18\. Intellectual Property Chapter.pdf"
18.IntellectualPropertyChapter.txt

pdftotext "19\. Labour Chapter.pdf" 19.LabourChapter.txt

pdftotext "20\. Environment Chapter.pdf" 20.EnvironmentChapter.txt

pdftotext "21\. Cooperation and Capacity Building Chapter.pdf"
21.CooperationandCapacityBuildingChapter.txt

pdftotext "22\. Competitiveness and Business Facilitation Chapter.pdf"
22.CompetitivenessandBusinessFacilitationChapter.txt

pdftotext "23\. Development Chapter.pdf" 23.DevelopmentChapter.txt

pdftotext "24\. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Chapter.pdf"
24.SmallandMedium-SizedEnterprisesChapter.txt

pdftotext "25\. Regulatory Coherence Chapter.pdf"
25.RegulatoryCoherenceChapter.txt

pdftotext "26\. Transparency and Anti-Corruption Chapter.pdf"
26.TransparencyandAnti-CorruptionChapter.txt

pdftotext "27\. Administrative and Institutional Provisions Chapter.pdf"
27.AdministrativeandInstitutionalProvisionsChapter.txt

pdftotext "28\. Dispute Settlement Chapter.pdf"
28.DisputeSettlementChapter.txt

pdftotext "29\. Exceptions Chapter.pdf" 29.ExceptionsChapter.txt

pdftotext "30\. Final Provisions Chapter.pdf" 30.FinalProvisionsChapter.txt

~~~
anc84

        for file in *.pdf; do pdftotext "${file}"; done
    

Less HN clutter ;)

~~~
tosseraccount
It gets rid of the goldarn blanks in the filenames.

~~~
mahouse
Blanks in the filenames are a problem? Is this MS DOS 6?

~~~
pdkl95
Blanks are only a problem for people that haven't read bash(1). Once you learn
to simply use "$@" everywhere, you never worry about blanks again.

------
jonawesomegreen
Am I the only one who is constantly surprised that these treaties can be
negotiated in secret?

~~~
josephpmay
Can you think of any major treaty in history that has NOT been negotiated in
secret?

------
brokentone
Why is this not released to the public before it is signed by lawmakers?

~~~
x3n0ph3n3
It hasn't been signed by lawmakers?

------
voltagex_
Oh boy, they should have stripped metadata from those PDFs.

~~~
teekert
What did you find? Or what can be in it?

~~~
fukusa
Author: GRIFFIN, Richard (LGL/TLU) is all I could find.

------
shmerl
So, when exactly is the critical vote for this garbage?

------
late2part
You have to pass TPP to know what's in TPP.

------
abbabon
Am I the only one who thought TPP stood for Twitch Plays Pokémon ? :(

~~~
Aaronneyer
Haha nope, I was half expecting this to be the full text log from Twitch Plays
Pokemon, and was like "Man, that's about to be one big ass text file..."

~~~
ahstilde
That would be fascinating. Plus you could recreate it.

------
jsprogrammer
Great start!

>Article 1.1: Establishment of a Free Trade Area The Parties to this
Agreement, consistent with Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of GATS,
hereby establish a free trade area in accordance with the provisions of this
Agreement.

Begin with a bunch of undefined acronyms that apparently pull in tons of other
shit not written down in this paper.

E: mmm, that delicious taste of downmods in the morning

------
swehner
Obviously, some economists like globalization and "levelling the playing
field". However, it will probably be recognized as a fashion and fad soon
enough. (How far do economists think ahead? 3 months or what?)

There's value in preserving local differences.

But that's not even getting into the details of these arrangements.

~~~
forrestthewoods
Globalization is a fad? Only if World War 3 takes us back to the stone age.
The box has been opened and it can't be closed.

