USTR Insists Secret, MPAA-Backed TPP Is 'Most Transparent Trade Negotiation In History'... From Hollywood Studio

from the does-anyone-believe-this-crap? dept

Honestly, it's somewhat difficult to believe that someone who works in the USTR didn't recognize that it was a bad idea to have their new boss, Michael Froman, who was once called one of the most "egregious examples" of the "revolving door" between companies and government, head out to visit two of the largest Hollywood studios just days after the IP chapter of the secretive TPP agreement was leaked, showing that it was basically Hollywood's wishlist of copyright crap. It's even more difficult to believe, given all that and given that Froman decided to go hang out with some friendly folks in Hollywood anyway, that someone at the USTR didn't think maybe, just maybe, Froman should avoid giving an interview in which he'd be asked about the leaked chapter.

But, it happened. Of course, the interview was with Variety, so maybe they figured that only Hollywood people would read it, and that the rest of the world would never catch on to the fact that Froman is either totally clueless or a blatant liar about the TPP. However, he did give an interview, while "touring Paramount's backlot" in which he said a bunch of nutty things. Here's my favorite:

He also called the talks over the trade pact “the most transparent trade negotiation in history,” noting that they have held more than 1,000 briefings on Capitol Hill, have enlisted 600 advisers for input from various groups and have invited stakeholders to address negotiators from all 12 countries, among other efforts.

Let's just say, this is pure bullshit. Extreme bullshit. Honestly, even Variety (which, as you might imagine, tends to toe the Hollywood line) seems to suggest that this claim isn't actually true. And, of course, considering that the USTR is infamously secretive, being "the most transparent in history" doesn't mean you were actually transparent at all. And, in this case, the fact that he's claiming it's "the most transparent in history" days after a chapter that no one in the public has seen during nearly four years of negotiations had to be leaked should highlight the level of bullshit that Froman is spewing.

He seems to have pulled this "most transparent" bullshit from his predecessor, Ron Kirk, who used to claim the same thing. Both are fundamentally trying to mislead. We've said it before, and we'll say it again, listening to lots of people, while not revealing what you're doing, is not transparency. It's listening. Listening may be better than not listening, but it's completely different than "transparency." Let me make this even clearer:

• Listening: People ---- information -----> USTR
• Transparency: USTR --- information ----> The Public

What Froman described above is about listening. They get "advice" from various stakeholders. That's not transparency. That's listening. So long as no one gets to see what crap they're negotiating "on our behalf," there's no transparency. At all. The only time this negotiation had any transparency was when Wikileaks finally released the IP chapter which the USTR should have and could have done years ago.

The other bit of bullshit in the interview was his misleading response to the claim by some that TPP is like SOPA. Now, I should be clear that we've avoided making that comparison, because there is a different set of issues here. And Froman used those differences to try to discredit all criticism of TPP:

“For example, as I understand it, I wasn’t around for it, (the Stop Online Piracy Act) was about blocking rogue Internet sites from accessing the Internet from the United States. There is nothing in the Trans Pacific Partnership, zero, that has anything to do with that,” he said.

But "blocking rogue websites" isn't what's making people make the comparison between TPP and SOPA. It's two things: (1) a backroom deal negotiated in secret with no input from the public which (2) includes basically a wishlist from Hollywood. The fact that the two wishlists are not identical is not really the point, but it's the point Froman chose to focus on, because he's trying to mislead the public.

Froman continues to demonstrate that he has no business in the role he's in:

“Our goal through these trade negotiations is to make sure we are raising the standard of protection around the world, for artists and the people who support them,” he said.

Except that's not supposed to be the goal at all, and the fact that he thinks it is makes him clearly unqualified for his job. Remember that the TPP is supposed to be about free trade, yet here he is admitting that his actual agenda is increasing protectionism. Second, as anyone who knows anything about intellectual property knows, "raising the standard of protection" has been shown repeatedly to be rather harmful to creators and the public. And, again, the entire purpose of copyright law is supposed to be about promoting progress for the public. It would appear that Froman doesn't know this. And yet he's in charge of negotiating this thing? Really?

This is the reason why transparency matters. Because when you take someone who doesn't understand intellectual property at all, such as Froman, and tell him to negotiate a trade agreement in which the only people he shares the negotiating text with are maximalists, all he hears is how they have to "raise" standards, even as most of the world has realized that the "standards" are already way too high and tremendously damaging to the economy and innovation.

Either way, this whole situation is incredible. You have the USTR, just days after the secret treaty that was written with the help of Hollywood's lobbyists is leaked out, declaring that it's the most transparent in history despite the fact that, if he had his way, none of the public would have seen it, and saying so while touring Hollywood studios. The USTR is either extremely confident that no one cares about trade agreements, or a large segment of the staff there is profoundly clueless. Or maybe it's both.

SOPA was taken down because it was a backroom deal and a Hollywood wishlist, without respect for the public. ACTA went down for the same reason. If Froman doesn't want the same thing to happen to TPP, he might want to learn a thing or two about intellectual property and what transparency means. Because as of right now, he appears to be setting himself up to be roadkill for another internet uprising.

Filed Under: acta, michael froman, sopa, tpp, transparency, ustr
Companies: disney, mpaa, paramount

Law Professors Ask President Obama To Open Up TPP Process

from the stop-the-secrecy dept

A group of over 80 law professors, including many prominent and well-known ones, have now called on President Obama to open up the secretive TPP process. They point out that, especially after the recent leak of the TPP's IP chapter, it's shown that the closed, secretive, non-transparent process leads to bad results. Instead, they argue for an open process, like the recent Marrakesh Treaty concerning copyright issues related to the blind. In that negotiation, proposals were made publicly and shared, so that there was widespread public comment and discussion. There is simply no good reason for the US government to continue negotiating this massive, and tremendously important treaty in secret. The lawyers are clear that they're not against the overall TPP agreement -- in fact, many support it. But they cannot accept the backroom process by which it has been negotiated.

We, the undersigned intellectual property law academics and scholars, write to you to ask you to support immediately changing the secretive TPP negotiation process in law and in practice, and follow instead the example set by the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, as explained below.

Intellectual property law is incredibly far reaching in its impact – implicating everything from the price of medicines and textbooks to the ability to exercise free expression and create new business models on the Internet. The TPP’s intellectual property chapter would restrict Congress’s ability to legislate on these key issues, and would do so without public input. Indeed, reported proposals in the TPP would foreclose many policy proposals currently under consideration, including proposals to reform copyright law proposed by the Library of Congress, proposals to reform “data exclusivity” periods for biologic medicines included in the President’s budget, and proposals to amend exceptions for the circumvention of technological protection measures to promote interoperability of cell phones proposed by the Administration itself.

They also point out (nicely), that the administration should know better by now. Not only was the Marrakesh Treaty a success, but ACTA failed because of the USTR's insistence on doing everything in backrooms, and avoiding any and all transparency. So far, it looks like they haven't learned their lesson yet, but pushing the load of crap that is the current IP chapter on TPP seems likely to only give the USTR yet another refresher course in what happens when they decide to make deals like this in backrooms to favor Hollywood and Big Pharma, rather than having an open review in public.

Filed Under: barack obama, law professors, marrakesh treaty, open, scholars, tpp, ustr

The Most Nefarious Part Of The TPP Proposal: Making Copyright Reform Impossible

from the the-tricks-they-pull dept

So with yesterday's revealing of the IP chapter of the TPP, there are plenty of great analyses out there of what's in there, but I wanted to highlight some parts that are the most nefarious and downright slimy in that they represent parties (mainly the US) pretending to do one thing while really doing another. These are tricks pulled by a dishonest, shameful USTR, entirely focused on making his corporate buddies richer at the expense of everyone else. Remember, our current USTR, Michael Froman, has a long history of this kind of crap. While he hasn't been there throughout the negotiating process, it shouldn't be surprising that he "delivers" this sweetheart deal to a few legacy industry players.

Watch closely, and you'll see supporters of TPP, and especially USTR employees, make the claim that nothing or almost nothing in the TPP will require legal changes in the US. They'll say that this is just about "harmonizing" norms across borders to make it easier for businesses to do business internationally. This is a lie.

It's a lie in two different ways. First, there are multiple provisions in here that will absolutely require changes to US law. We'll discuss a few in other posts, but what's much more nefarious and downright obnoxious, is that this would lock in a variety of really bad copyright policies, making it nearly impossible for Congress to go back and change them. And that's a real issue, because, as we've been discussing, Congress is actually discussing copyright reform again. The head of the US Copyright Office, Maria Pallante, has proposed a bunch of changes to copyright law (some good, some bad), and astoundingly, just as Congress is at least trying to have the discussion about whether or not those and other ideas make sense, the USTR is looking to effectively tie everyone's hands by saying "these things cannot be changed," including many of the reforms that Pallante has directly proposed.

That's really quite incredible if you think about it. On the one hand, you have the very head of the Copyright Office suggesting some reforms, and you have Congress beginning the process to explore that. On the other, you have the USTR totally ignoring the sole power of Congress to make copyright and patent law, and effectively saying "you cannot make any of the suggested reforms." And then the USTR has the gall to ask Congress to give up its power to challenge specific provisions in the agreement? While we're concerned about the Congressional copyright reform process, at least it's being done in the open. The USTR has been hashing out the plan in TPP in total secrecy for years.

Who the hell does the USTR think they are that they can flat out override the Constitution and the Congressional process, and effectively block them in and stop any meaningful attempt at copyright reform? All done via a process driven entirely by a few special interests? It's anti-democracy. It's pure corporate cronyism by the worst cronies around.

Now, defenders of this proposal will lie. They'll claim that technically (1) Congress has to approve this and (2) nothing in a trade agreement can limit Congress's ability to pass laws. Neither point is really true (the fun with things that are "technically" true, but false in reality). As mentioned above, the USTR (and President Obama) is pushing extra hard for Trade Promotion Authority, which basically is Congress granting the USTR full power over the TPP. Normally, Congress would be able to debate, challenge and reject questionable provisions in the agreement. But, with TPA "fast track" ability, Congress could only give a yes/no vote on the whole package. And, yes, some will claim that they can just vote no, but the reality is that there are other parts of this agreement that are designed to make that nearly impossible. There are all sorts of little things that we'll be told we "need." TPA is a bit of theater. What's delivered to Congress will almost have to be passed -- so if it's granted (before it's even public what's in the full agreement) -- Congress has effectively approved the whole agreement.

As for the claim that Congress' hands cannot be bound by a trade agreement, this is again technically true, but it ignores that it becomes realistically impossible. The second that Congress tries to change a law that goes against the TPP -- such as, say, reducing the term of copyrights from the insane level today to merely crazy -- lobbyists and pundits will come screaming from every direction about how we can't abandon our "international obligations." We'll hear horror stories about how breaking the agreement will have widespread implications, including trade wars, tariffs and other horrible things. Once it's in the trade agreement, "breaking it" becomes effectively impossible.

The lobbyists for the entertainment industry know this stuff cold. Over the past three decades they've perfected this process of getting crap they can't get done in Congress pushed through in various trade agreements, and then they use that to mold US law to exactly how they want it. They're not even shy about it, admitting this is exactly how they got the DMCA in the first place. Considering that the TPP has a form of DMCA-on-steroids, it shouldn't be a surprise that they're using an even bigger trade agreement to do the same thing.

All of this should lead to a basic question: why is the USTR and President Obama directly trying to undermine Congress' sole authority over copyright and patent policy? Are they proud of the tricks they tossed in the agreement? I imagine that when the USTR staffers move on to their jobs in the same industries that pushed them to write the agreement this way, they'll all laugh about that time they fucked over the American public.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, copyright reform, maria pallante, michael froman, tpp, transparency, ustr

USTR's Weakass Response To TPP's IP Chapter Leaking

from the *cough*-bullshit-*cough* dept

We already wrote about the leaking of a recent draft of the IP chapter of the TPP agreement -- almost two years since the previous leak. While we're going to have some more posts digging deeper into many of the horrific problems with the agreement (and how it was created), first I just wanted to note -- and to respond to -- the USTR's weakass response to both the leak and the outcry that has surrounded it:

The intellectual property negotiation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership discussions has not been completed and a final text has not been agreed to. We are working with Congress, stakeholders, and our TPP negotiating partners to reach an outcome that promotes high-paying jobs in innovative American industries and reflects our values, including by seeking strong and balanced copyright protections, as well as advancing access to medicines while incentivizing the development of new, life-saving drugs.

So much bullshit in so few words. As per usual, this is the USTR at its most obnoxious and dismissive of legitimate concerns. First, while technically true that the agreement has not been completed, that doesn't mean that (1) there aren't substantial portions of it that are complete and (2) it does not show the US's (and others') negotiating points and positions on various important issues. To try to dismiss the concerns by arguing it's not complete yet ignores that we finally know what kind of pure crap the USTR is trying to shove down the throats of the American public, which they've worked on for years in secret.

Second is the claim that they are working with "Congress, stakeholders and our TPP negotiating partners." Again, let's define those carefully. First, "working with Congress." No, not really. As we've described, the access Congress has is incredibly limited. The USTR is willing to work with a few members of specific committees but when others, such as Senator Ron Wyden, sought access to the TPP documents they were greatly limited. And Wyden is not just any Senator, but the head of the Senate's Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs and Global Competitiveness.

While he, personally, was able to go to the USTR's offices to see the document, he would only be able to see it alone in a room. He would not be able to make any copies or take any notes. More importantly, he would not be able to bring any of his staffers who have direct technical expertise on the language -- such as the staff director of that committee, who had the necessary security clearance. Think about that for a second. The USTR claims that it works with Congress, and yet it denied access to the document to the staff director of the Senate's subcommittee on international trade. How, exactly, is that "working with Congress"?

As for the "stakeholders," there are different kinds of "stakeholders" here and none of them are the American public. The USTR has Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs). These are representatives of legacy industries. Take a look at the list of industries represented. Where are the current innovators in that list? You won't find them. What you find is a big list of last century's industries -- the legacy players who are more interested in protectionism and blocking competition than in innovation.

Now, let's look specifically at the members of the "Intellectual Property" ITAC. It's all companies or trade groups which represent big, old, legacy players, who have strong interest in protecting their position, not in innovating and disrupting. The RIAA. GE. Johnson and Johnson. Verizon. The Executive Director of the "Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights"? Really? Could they put together a more biased group of people? Doubtful. Who on that list is looking out for the public interest? Who on that list is looking out for innovators? The answer is absolutely no one.

That group is the main "stakeholder" that the USTR is referring to. They get much greater access to the negotiating texts than most of Congress does. Then there's a second class of "stakeholders" which the USTR pretends to involve in the process. These are the "civil society" and public interest groups -- folks like Public Citizen, KEI and EFF -- who have been working hard to raise the concerns of the actual public and society. The USTR doesn't share crap with them. Nothing. Literally nothing. What they do is every so often, if there is time and space permitting, let those groups hold "stakeholder meetings" in which they can present their arguments to the negotiators.

The USTR pretends this is "transparency" and "working with." It is neither. Transparency is about sharing the details of what the USTR is doing in order to get feedback. Every so often "listening" to concerns of people who don't know for sure what's in the document is not transparency, and it's hardly "working with" those stakeholders. Is it really any surprise at all that when the only stakeholders who matter, the IP ITAC, all represent legacy industries that what comes out from the USTR is a bloated piece of crap designed to protect their interests against the rights of the public?

Third, the idea that the end result of this process is designed to "reach an outcome that promotes high-paying jobs in innovative American industries and reflects our values." Again, that's not true. Which "innovative American industries" are actually represented on that list? Biotech, maybe, but the rest are all legacy players holding onto their markets, not creating economic growth. That doesn't promote high paying jobs -- it lets companies block out real innovation, slow down growth and limit jobs.

Fourth, "including by seeking strong and balanced copyright protections." Ha! First off, nothing in the released text suggests any look towards "balanced" copyright protections. It's entirely about locking in the worst of the worst, making an end run around Congress to block any potential future copyright reform that would fix many of the problems of today's copyright law. TPP is a time bomb designed to subvert real copyright reform. Just the fact that the statement itself argues that "strong" copyright protections are necessary for "balance" suggests that the USTR is not only biased, but totally clueless about the state of copyright law today. Over and over and over again, we've seen that real innovation comes from allowing much greater flexibility and user rights -- not in ratcheting up enforcement and restrictions on innovation. Yet that's what the USTR gives us.

Finally, "incentivizing the development of new, life-saving drugs" may be the most sickening, disgusting and dishonest claim of them all. Whoever wrote this statement should look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves, seriously, how many people they personally are helping to die. The patent portions of the TPP will kill many, many people by guaranteeing that they cannot possibly get access to life-saving drugs. The USTR is parroting the blatant lies of the pharmaceutical industry, who falsely argue that they need strong patent protection in order to "incentivize the development of new life-saving drugs." But there is little evidence to support this, beyond the whining complaints of the pharma industry. Most of the actual discoveries today are really done by universities and other research institutes, often funded by federal grants. It's only late in the process that the pharmaceuticals come in and grab the patents and then seek to focus on which drugs will be most profitable -- not which will save the most lives.

This is why the USTR and the rest of the administration fought so hard against revealing this text all along. They know that their arguments are weak excuses for legacy players seeking blatant protectionism and against the public interest and the interest of actual innovation. The former USTR, Ron Kirk, specifically had stated that if the text of the TPP were public it would make it very difficult to approve, and now we know why. Because it's the worst form of political cronyism by the USTR, giving lots of favors to legacy industries at the expense of the public. When the USTR is unwilling to be transparent or have an open and full discussion with the public, it is not representing the interests of the American public. It is trying to pull a fast one on us.

Filed Under: copyright, patents, process, secrecy, stakeholders, tpp, transparency, ustr

TPP IP Chapter Leaked, Confirming It's Worse Than ACTA

from the no-wonder-it-was-kept-secret dept

We've been waiting a long time for a major leak of the secretive TPP agreement, and thanks to Wikileaks, we now finally have it (pdf - embedded below). It's long and heavy going, not least because of all the bracketed alternatives where the negotiators haven't been able to agree on a text yet. Even though the draft is fairly recent -- it's dated 30 August, 2013 -- it contains a huge number of such open issues. Fortunately, KEI has already put together a detailed but easy-to-understand analysis, which I urge you to read in full. Here's the summary:

The document confirms fears that the negotiating parties are prepared to expand the reach of intellectual property rights, and shrink consumer rights and safeguards.

Compared to existing multilateral agreements, the TPP IPR chapter proposes the granting of more patents, the creation of intellectual property rights on data, the extension of the terms of protection for patents and copyrights, expansions of right holder privileges, and increases in the penalties for infringement. The TPP text shrinks the space for exceptions in all types of intellectual property rights. Negotiated in secret, the proposed text is bad for access to knowledge, bad for access to medicine, and profoundly bad for innovation.

Although many areas are touched by the draft's proposals -- access to life-saving medicines would be curtailed, while the scope of patents would be extended to include surgical methods, for example -- the effects on copyright are particularly significant and troubling:

Collectively, the copyright provisions [in TPP] are designed to extend copyright terms beyond the life plus 50 years found in the Berne Convention, create new exclusive rights, and provide fairly specific instructions as to how copyright is to be managed in the digital environment.

Here are some of the term extensions being proposed:

For the TPP copyright terms, the basics are as follows. The US, Australia, Peru, Singapore and Chile propose a term of life plus 70 years for natural persons. For corporate owned works, the US proposes 95 years exclusive rights, while Australia, Peru, Singapore and Chile propose 70 years for corporate owned works. Mexico wants life plus 100 years for natural persons and 75 years for corporate owned works. For unpublished works, the US wants a term of 120 years.

A more technical issue concerns the use of the "3-step test" to act as a further constraint on possible exceptions to copyright:

In its current form, the TPP space for exceptions is less robust than the space provided in the 2012 WIPO Beijing treaty or the 2013 WIPO Marrakesh treaty, and far worse than the TRIPS Agreement. While this involves complex legal issues, the policy ramifications are fairly straightforward. Should governments have a restrictive standard to judge the space available to fashion exceptions for education, quotations, public affairs, news of the day and the several other "particular" exceptions in the Berne Convention, and more generally, why would any government want to give up its general authority to consider fashioning new exceptions, or to control abuses by right holders?

That's a good example of how TPP is not just trying to change copyright in favor of the maximalists, but also to rig the entire process in favor of strengthening it in the future. Here's another one, where TPP wants to stop any return to copyright systems that require registration -- something that has been suggested as a way of solving some of the problems that arise because of copyright's automatic nature:

The TPP goes beyond the TRIPS agreement in terms of prohibiting the use of formalities for copyright. While the issue of formalities may seem like a settled issue, there is a fair amount of flexibility that will be eliminated by the TPP. At present, it is possible to have requirements for formalities for domestically owned works, and to impose formalities on many types of related rights, including those protected under the Rome Convention. In recent years, copyright policy makers and scholars have begun to reconsider the benefits of the registration of works and other formalities, particularly in light of the extended terms of copyright the massive orphan works problems.

As you would expect, TPP wants strong protection for DRM; but even here, it manages to make things worse than they are:

The copyright section also includes extensive language on technical protection measures, and in particular, the creation of a separate cause of action for breaking technical protection measures. The US wants this separate cause of action to extend even to cases where there is no copyrighted works, such as in cases of public domain materials, or data not protected by copyright.

This would make it illegal to circumvent DRM even if it has been applied to materials that are in the public domain -- effectively, enclosing them once more. Finally, it's worth noting that under the section laying down damages for copyright infringement we read the following:

In determining the amount of damages under paragraph 2, its judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.

It's exactly the phrasing that was used in ACTA, and which turned up in the recent free trade agreement between the EU and Singapore. That encapsulates well how TPP builds on ACTA directly, while the other measures discussed above show how it goes well beyond it in many respects.

That's the bad news. The good news is that we now have a very recent draft of what is perhaps the most contentious section of the agreement. In the weeks to come, we're likely to see many detailed analyses exposing just how pernicious this proposed deal will be for the public in the negotiating countries. The hope has to be that once they find out, they will make their feelings known to their political representatives as they did with SOPA and ACTA -- and with the same final result.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: act, copyright, leaks, patents, secrecy, tpp, trade agreement, transparency, ustr, wikileaks

If The NSA Isn't Engaged In Economic Espionage, Why Is The USTR Considered 'A Customer' Of Intelligence?

from the simple-questions dept

We just had a story about how Australia used its equivalent of the NSA to do economic espionage for the sake of improving trade deals and helping private companies by passing along useful info they gleaned from spying on the Japanese. It had become so common that companies getting the info would joke that it had "fallen off the back of a truck." Of course, many have argued that the US is obviously engaged in similar activity. The most damning evidence, of course, was the release a few months ago of details of how the NSA spied on Petrobas, the Brazilian oil giant.

The US has sworn up, down, left and right that it does not use the NSA for economic espionage. In August, the Department of Defense issued a statement to the Washington Post saying:

“The Department of Defense does engage” in computer network exploitation, according to an e-mailed statement from an NSA spokesman, whose agency is part of the Defense Department. “The department does ***not*** engage in economic espionage in any domain, including cyber.”

Those triple stars were in the original. That was before the Petrobas revelation. After that came out, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper tried to explain that away, arguing that it was not for economic espionage at all, but to get a better sense of whether there was an upcoming financial crisis.

What we do not do, as we have said many times, is use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of - or give intelligence we collect to - US companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line.

Of course, it's a very blurry line between using that information to create policies that help US companies and just giving the information to them directly. Perhaps it's true that the NSA doesn't hand out the information it gleans from foreign companies directly to US companies to help them understand, say, how a foreign product is built -- but reverse engineering is pretty good these days, so it's doubtful that too many US companies need that kind of help anyway. Instead, it seems to be just as nefarious, and certainly a form of economic espionage, to use this information to create trade policies that clearly boost certain US interests.

But that's certainly happening. The NY Times' giant profile of the NSA's activities that came out earlier this month included a list of "customers" for the NSA. Pay close attention to the last two on the list:

This huge investment in collection is driven by pressure from the agency’s “customers,” in government jargon, not only at the White House, Pentagon, F.B.I. and C.I.A., but also spread across the Departments of State and Energy, Homeland Security and Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative.

Now, one can make a (potentially compelling) argument that of course it's US policy to try to improve situations for American companies. And that's perfectly reasonable -- but it seems like a clearly bogus argument for the NSA to say it "does not do economic espionage" just because it (allegedly) does not do one particular tidbit of economic espionage: directly handing companies information. If, instead, it's spying on foreign companies and then providing that information to the USTR, you can assure that two things are happening: economic policies that help the special interests that have a close relationship with the USTR are getting extra favorable policies in their place, and some of that information is seeping out of the USTR to those companies anyway.

And we've already seen, repeatedly, how the USTR appears to have very cozy relations with certain legacy industries, while having almost no relationship at all with younger, more innovative industries. As such, not only is the NSA clearly engaged in economic espionage, it's doing so to the detriment of actual innovation and economic growth, by using this information to prop up legacy industries, while handicapping the innovative industries.

Filed Under: australia, brazil, economic espionage, japan, nsa, surveillance, ustr
Companies: petrobas

What Little Transparency The US Trade Rep Used To Have Is Going Away

from the that's-not-transparency dept

When Michael Froman was first nominated as the US Trade Rep, we hoped he would commit to being more transparent than his predecessors. While that seemed unlikely given his history as a political crony revolving in and out of government and business, the issue was raised directly during his Senate approval process. Unfortunately, like his predecessors, Froman appears to confuse transparency with listening. The two are not the same. Transparency is about sharing what you're doing. Listening is about hearing what others have to say. You can listen while being totally opaque -- and it appears that this is the USTR's strategy.

IP Watch notes that the USTR released its list of weekly press events... in which every one of them is closed to the press. This could just be a coincidence, having to do with the type of meetings the USTR is having, but it's still indicative of the way the USTR operates. But a much bigger concern is that Jamie Love, from KEI, reveals that the USTR has now changed its policy on sharing texts of WTO TRIPS council interventions with outside organizations, such as civil society and public interest groups. That is basically spitting on transparency, with the new USTR basically making it clear that it doesn't want the actual feedback from the groups most closely following these stories from the public interest side of things.

Filed Under: michael froman, transparency, ustr

President Obama Asks Congress To Give Up Its Oversight On Secret TPP Agreement

from the that's-not-a-good-thing dept

We've talked a few times about how the USTR and the administration are asking Congress for "trade promotion authority," which would effectively let it bypass Congressional oversight of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. In fact, in many ways the USTR has been acting as if it already has this. The specifics of "trade promotion authority" or "fast track authority" are a bit down in the weeds, but the short version is that it's the administration asking Congress to completely abdicate its authority and mandate in overseeing international trade agreements. Basically, it removes the ability of Congress to seek any fixes or amendments to a trade agreement -- only allowing them to give a yes or no vote.

This might not be such a big deal if the TPP wasn't negotiated in near total secrecy. We've been told that a final agreement is getting close, but no official text has been released at all. What we know of the IP section is one draft that leaked out from well over a year ago. And, now, we're going to get a product that will be released to the public with little time for debate and no way to make changes should the public point out how ridiculous and dangerous it is.

And, of course, President Obama is insisting it's necessary to undermine the authority of Congress with a secret agreement that will have tremendous impact on Americans... just because he wants it. He announced to "the President’s Export Council" that "We're going to need Trade Promotion Authority." Let's be clear: the only reason the administration "needs" TPA is so that it can ram through the agreement without letting Congress do its oversight job. Trade Promotion Authority offers no benefit to the public at all. All it does is make sure that the USTR has less oversight and fewer limitations on selling out the public for a few big special interests.

The "Export Council" which is basically made up of leaders of those big special interests who are looking for protectionist (not "free trade") policies that help their bottom line, but harm the American public, made an even more ridiculous statement:

“We believe that new TPA legislation is critical to America’s trade leadership in the world,” the group said in one of eight letters to Obama it approved at the meeting.

Did you get that? They're claiming that if we actually let Congress do its Constitutionally-mandated job that somehow undermines America's "trade leadership?" Does anyone take this even remotely seriously? Of course, the problem is that very few are paying attention to this. "Trade Promotion Authority" sounds boring and if some big business leaders claims it's necessary, Congress will probably go with it -- even though it subverts their own powers.

If the USTR had actually been transparent, had released negotiating texts so that the public could give feedback, and that feedback was reflected in the eventual agreements, then maybe you could see how trade promotion authority might make sense. But when you have a secret agreement, driven in large part by industry lobbyists, which the public still hasn't been allowed to see, how could anyone possibly have a legitimate reason for suggesting that Congress abdicate its oversight role?

Filed Under: congress, fast track, international trade, tpp, trade promotion authority, ustr

Desperate To Sew Up TPP Negotiations At Any Cost, Politicians Agree All Future Meetings Will Be Completely Secret

from the slap-in-the-public's-face dept

We've been reporting for several years about the extraordinary levels of secrecy surrounding the TPP negotiations, where little information was released about what was going on, and there were few opportunities for representatives of civic and other groups to meet with negotiators to present their point of view. More recently, there have been some indications that this lack of transparency is fuelling increasing discontent among some of the participating nations.

In order to get the trade deal sewn up by the end of this year, and before resistance spreads further, the negotiators have decided to hold 'inter-sessional' meetings for the remaining unresolved areas. But as this article from Scoop explains, these won't be like routine TPP meetings, with their routinely unhelpful levels of opacity:

Detective work indicates that informal 'inter-sessional' meetings on six chapters are scheduled within the next four weeks -- all in North America.

' "Inter-sessional" is a misnomer', says Professor Kelsey, 'because they are not planning any more formal sessions. There will be no access for the media or stakeholders to these smaller meetings.'

'Past inter-sessionals have been shrouded in secrecy to ensure we can't find out what's happening and we don't have access to those negotiators who see value in talking with us.'

'The last three years of the TPPA have been widely condemned for their lack of transparency. The process is now going further underground'.

That is, rather than opening up TPP in response to widening criticisms, its negotiators will now be meeting in complete secret, presumably until they emerge with some kind of a deal, however bad. Since no information will be released about those gatherings behind closed doors, and there will be no opportunities to convey concerns to the participants, the public in whose name all these talks are taking place will have no way of knowing what is going on or of offering its views. It's the ultimate in arrogant, "we know best" negotiations where citizens are expected to accept what is given, no discussion allowed.

The last time this approach was used on this scale was for ACTA, which was ultimately rejected, largely because the European public took to the streets to express its outrage at the contempt being shown towards it by the negotiators. Interestingly, in Colombia people are already taking to the streets to protest against the effects of free trade agreements with the US, Europe and Canada, at least in part. Do the governments participating in the now-secret TPP negotiations really want to risk the same happening in their own countries?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: intellectual property, negotiations, secrecy, tpp, transparency, ustr

Surprise: Obama's New US Trade Rep Overturns ITC, Stops Ban On Apple Products

from the well-that's-interesting dept

For years, we've been watching how patent holders get two cracks at the proverbial (and, in this case, literal) Apple when it comes to patents. They can sue in court for patent infringement and -- in an entirely separate process -- they can go to the International Trade Commission, and argue their case as well. The regular courts and ITC judges use different criteria for judging the outcome, and also have different remedies (though with some overlap). The ITC can't award monetary damages, but can issue an injunction, barring the importation of infringing products. Over the past few years, the ITC side of things has troubled a growing number of people, and even President Obama targeted some of the problems with the ITC patent review process in his big announcement on fixing the patent system.

Still, in a somewhat surprising move, Obama's recently appointed US Trade Rep., Michael Froman, has stepped in to directly overturn an ITC injunction issued against Apple products -- including iPhones and iPads, after the ITC sided with Samsung, saying that those devices violated Samsung's patents. The decision by Froman is final -- Samsung can't appeal, and it means that those iPhones and iPads won't get blocked at customs, as would likely have happened otherwise. You can read Froman's letter about this, in which he delves into some detail about the administration's worries about "patent hold up" -- mainly on standards-essential patents (SEPs) that have so-called FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing commitments. As the letter notes:

After extensive consultations with the agencies of the Trade Policy Staff Committee and the Trade Policy Review Group, as well as other interested agencies and persons, I have decided to disapprove the USITC's determination to issue an exclusion order and cease and desist order in this investigation. This decision is based on my review of the various policy considerations discussed above as they relate to the effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers.

I would like to underscore that in any future cases involving SEPS that are subject to voluntary FRAND commitments, the Commission should be certain to (1) to examine thoroughly and carefully on its own initiative the public interest issues presented both at the outset of its proceeding and when determining whether a particular remedy is in the public interest and (2) seek proactively to have the parties develop a comprehensive factual record related to these issues in the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge and during the formal remedy phase of the investigation before the Commission, including information on the standards- essential nature of the patent at issue if contested by the patent holder and the presence or absence of patent hold-up or reverse hold-up. In addition, the Commission should make explicit findings on these issues to the maximum extent possible. I will look for these elements in any future decisions involving FRAND-encumbered SEPs that are presented for policy review. The Commission is well-positioned to consider these issues in its public interest determinations.

He also notes that Samsung can continue its fight in the courts.

This is still something of a surprising move -- more or less having the administration step in and flat out overrule a patent infringement ruling for "public policy reasons." Hopefully, this signals a bit of a change in understanding under the new USTR, such that there's a real recognition that overaggressive intellectual property laws and enforcement can have a seriously negative impact. Of course, the more cynical among you might note that this is also the US government stepping in to protect the US company (Apple) against a foreign company (Samsung). An even more cynical group might further note that the Obama administration also probably didn't want to deal with the headache of headlines about how the federal government had suddenly banned a bunch of iPhones and iPads... But, for the sake of being optimistic, let's hope that this really is a sign of a more thoughtful USTR, which isn't quite as wedded to intellectual property maximalism, as its predecessors have been.

Filed Under: itc, michael froman, patent holdup, patents, seps, standards essential patents, ustr
Companies: apple, samsung