TPP Talks Hung Up On Intellectual Property Issues: Maybe Just Drop That Section

from the just-a-suggestion dept

Fri, Mar 20th 2015 12:33pm — Mike Masnick

For years, we've wondered (somewhat rhetorically*) why "intellectual property" issues are included in "free trade agreements" at all. By their very nature, intellectual property laws are the exact opposite of free trade. They are clearly protectionist restrictions on the use of information or content. You can argue that these restrictions serve a good reason, and that may (or may not) be true. But you can't argue that they have anything to do with free trade (at least not if you're being honest).

* Okay, so we actually know why they're included, and it's because the big legacy special interests in the intellectual property world -- including the recording, movie and pharmaceutical industries, long ago realized that by getting intellectual property included in trade agreements they could force countries to pass laws they didn't want. That's because these trade agreements are conducted in near total secrecy, taking input directly from these industries, but then effectively binding countries to pass the new laws that these industries want. The wonderful, but depressing, book Information Feudalism by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite goes deep in exploring how those big industries first began this effort -- and it's only gotten more intense in recent years.

And, of course, now that these industries have convinced trade negotiators that intellectual property is somehow a trade issue, it's been a central issue in a variety of big trade agreements, including the TPP and TAFTA/TTIP. TPP, the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement, is the one that's much further along, and despite promises that it would be completed quite a while ago, it's still limping along. Apparently, at the most recent meeting the main stumbling block was... intellectual property.

Yes, it appears the countries are still fighting over the intellectual property chapter in the agreement:

In the meeting from March 9, they tried to reach compromises in seven contentious areas but remained apart on intellectual property protection periods for data on medicines.

Of course, there's a simple solution here: drop the IP chapter from the TPP and focus on whatever (small) issues are actually holding back the rest of the agreement. If you're going to create a trade agreement, why not have it focus on actual trade issues, rather than on increasing protectionist barriers that serve giant legacy industry players, but at the expense of the public?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: intellectual property, japan, secrecy, tpp, transparency

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dave Cortright (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 1:06pm

Let's focus on the positive: the process is hung up
Regardless of the reason, having issues that prevent these agreements from being ratified and ultimately taking effect? "It's a good thing".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meemar, 20 Mar 2015 @ 1:06pm

I'd argue the ISDS provisions are worse than the IP provisions. But IP is definitely #2 on the list of awful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nop (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 6:39pm
  
  Re:
  I agree completely. The people pushing this shit will never permit the exclusion of the IP or ISDS stuff, because that's what the TPP IS FOR. They don't care that much about the actual trade stuff, because its just a Trojan horse for subverting national sovereignty to the multinational corporations, as has nearly been completed in the uSA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pragmatic, 24 Mar 2015 @ 3:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    ^This. They're not interested in trade, they want a New American Century of total control.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 1:08pm

No-Win Senario
The current IP laws being pushed by Big Business are BAD for EVERYONE including those pushing them. They are just incompetently ignorant of this.

For once the world leaders really NEED stand up and tell their "Masters" that this time they just can not ever pay enough to destroy everyone else for their greedy gains at this level.

But I suspect, that this will never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joel Coehoorn, 20 Mar 2015 @ 1:14pm

Self-Defeating Argument
While I agree that the current direction of IP in free trade agreements is not good, this seems to be making the argument that free trade agreements should not include chapters on IP because it is "clearly protectionist restrictions on the use of information or content."

That makes no sense. If IP is used for protecting local industry, than free trade agreements *absolutely should* include chapters covering this area.

It's just that we need to flip the only thing on it's head, and these chapters should focus on *limiting* IP, rather than extending it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re: Self-Defeating Argument
  This.
  
  Another point is that IP is a non-uniform protection. While TRIPS makes some basic distinctions the interpretation and implementation is in the air. WIPO is more expansive, but still up for interpretation. Since sovereignty questions and fighting border-crossing crime has become a huge part of these agreements, IP is in no way unimportant for that aspect of the deal. Be aware that the primary reason to include IP is not about the specific law but to make it easier to agree on border-crossing cases.
  
  The real problem is that noone involved in these negotiations really care about the adverse effects. That be whether it is in EU, USA or the rest of the world. IP is frequently at odds with technology/innovation/education and they certainly effect everyday life of consumers and the lack of someone to reel those effects in is ultimately why IP in trade deals are such a problem today.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 1:17pm

Are you actually FOR this?
"Of course, there's a simple solution here: drop the IP chapter from the TPP and focus on whatever (small) issues are actually holding back the rest of the agreement."

WHEN TPP SERVES ONLY GLOBALIST CORPORATIONS AND SHOULD BE REJECTED ENTIRE?

Again, I just don't know where you stand on this. I can't come up with any good reason you'd URGE passage in ANY version or degree.

This is definitely NOT in the least promoting "free" trade except in the sense that frees corporations from pesky laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 5:53pm
  
  Re:
  out_of_the_blue has no idea what he's talking about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 1:23pm

"Drop IP" isn't a solution. From what I've read there's only about 5 chapters dealing with actual tangible trade issues. The other 31 involve soveriegnty, rights, and basically - public policies.

The TPP is an end run around democracy. We should call it that and nothing else. It is not about trade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- OldMugwump (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 2:26pm
  
  Re: The TPP is an end run around democracy. We should call it that and nothing else. It is not about trade.
  How can you tell it's not about trade? Nobody has seen it.
  
  It could be about anything at all or nothing.
  
  As for being an "end run around democracy", well is that necessarily a bad thing? Look at our democratically-elected Congress...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nop (profile), 20 Mar 2015 @ 6:42pm
    
    Re: Re: The TPP is an end run around democracy. We should call it that and nothing else. It is not about trade.
    Have you been living under a rock for the last decade? There have been multiple leaks of working drafts that confirm that the big goal of the TPP is to subvert democracy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Nemesh, 20 Mar 2015 @ 3:15pm

Still problems, even without IP issues
Sure, they should cut out the IP language completely. But then you still have the "corporate sovereignty" issues, which also need to be cut. Then there is the rest of the treaty, which is still problematic for American workers. No one remembers what happened the LAST time a huge "Free Trade" agreement was passed? (NAFTA) Oh yeah, we lost the textile industry, the furniture manufacturing industry, and many many more...jobs went "WHOOSH!" right out of the country, along with many people's chance of remaining in the middle class!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 24 Mar 2015 @ 3:55am
  
  Re: Still problems, even without IP issues
  The dismantling of the middle class is actually the goal. The last thing they want is a plethora of educated, thinking people who might present some competition for the incumbents.
  
  Widening the gap between the very rich and the very poor is the most effective way to impose and maintain control.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2015 @ 11:28pm

It's not unlike the way the Hollywood MAFIAA will always try to lump in the issue of non-commercial & casual copyright infringment into any law or trade agreement that deals with professional counterfeiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2015 @ 10:28am

and stop putting pharma profits before medicine costs and people's lives!! if the cost is too high, people cant afford to buy and therefore die. if that is the option favored, rather than selling medicines cheaper and keeping people alive, the companies need to be condemned. on top of that, as the majority of companies of every sort are situated in the USA, the obvious reason for favoring the deals is to give the USA an advantage over everyone else. that can only turn out bad! no country would be able to compete with the USA on anything! other countries would end up being completely indebted to the USA, have population numbers plummet and be ripe for being overun by the USA!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]