With The US Out, Canada Gets Copyright Out Of TPP And Moves Closer To Agreement

from the but-we-thought-it-couldn't-be-done... dept

We've been talking about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement for many, many years. And one point that we've made over and over again about the TPP and other trade agreements, is that there actually is a lot of good and important stuff in those agreements, and we don't understand why the US (mainly) keeps insisting on two issues that don't belong in these agreements at all: (1) "intellectual property" chapters, which are almost always the opposite of "free trade" in that they focus on ratcheting up government protectionism and monopolies for a few specific industries and (2) a section on what we refer to as corporate sovereignty, which which the trade world calls "investor state dispute settlement" or "ISDS." That's where companies can demand an private tribunal judge if a country unfairly treated that company poorly and order the country to pay the company millions or sometimes billions of dollars.

Of course, the US has been a major driver of both of those provisions -- but over and over again we were told that these kinds of agreements were "impossible" without an intellectual property chapter and corporate sovereignty. Turns out, once you get the US out of the way, things aren't so impossible. Just a couple weeks ago, we noted that many countries around the world (including the new USTR, Robert Lighthizer) appear to be souring on corporate sovereignty provisions, but the really big news is the TPP.

Right after Donald Trump became President, the US officially dropped out of the TPP negotiations, leading many to believe that the entire process was dead. Instead, the other countries have continued to negotiate, and on Friday agreed in principle on key aspects of a deal, for the newly renamed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)

One of the stumbling blocks, on which Canada allegedly played hardball, was removing much of the intellectual property chapter (including basically all of the really bad stuff). As Michael Geist notes:

The Liberal government demonstrated genuine leadership in demanding significant changes to the flawed TPP intellectual property chapter and refusing to back down under intense pressure from some of the negotiating parties. The result isn’t perfect, but the newly named Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which still requires considerable negotiation, features a significantly improved IP chapter that suspends some of the most problematic provisions.

Weeks after the release of the TPP text in 2015, I wrote a lengthy series on the Trouble with the TPP.  Many of the most problematic provisions, including copyright term extension, digital lock rules, and intermediary liability have been suspended from the CPTPP at the insistence of the Canadian delegation. Their removal is a remarkable victory for those that argued against overbroad, restrictive copyright provisions in the TPP and maintained that there was no reason to include unbalanced copyright provisins in a modern trade agreement.

The new version also appears to remove some of the corporate sovereignty/ISDS provisions.

There's still a lot of work to be done on the agreement, but it certainly appears that Canada has taken the lead with the US out of commission. This is particularly amusing, as Canada was a late entrant into the TPP negotiations, and part of that involved the US demanding that Canada accept the text as it was and not reopen negotiations on key points already agreed upon. And now, the end result is that the US has withdrawn and Canada led the way in ditching some of the key provisions the US had demanded.

And, again, the current deal still has some serious problems. For one, it notes that it's possible that the worrisome intellectual property provisions could re-emerge, zombie-like, at a later date. It also notes that there's still enough of the corporate sovereignty provision to be worried about (and same with telecommunications services provisions). But, on the whole, it appears that the new CPTPP is moving in a much, much better direction, in large part by dumping the intellectual property elements.

Meanwhile, later this week, NAFTA renegotiations will be taking place and intellectual property issues are on the agenda. Perhaps Canada can do the same thing it did with the TPP and convince everyone else to take that issue off the table entirely.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, corporate sovereignty, cptpp, ip chapter, isds, patents, tpp

TPP Leaks Shows US Stands Firm That Companies Should Be Free To Abuse Patents & Copyrights

from the go-home-ustr,-you're-drunk dept

Last week, as you might have heard, negotiators on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement gathered in Maui to try to finalize the agreement. Many believed that negotiators would more or less finish things up in that meeting. Earlier reports had suggested that everyone was "weeks away" from finishing, and many had said that the only thing holding back a final agreement was fast track authority (officially "trade promotion authority") from the US government to make sure that the USTR could negotiate an agreement without further interference from Congress. And, as you'll recall, Congress voted in favor of fast track after a long fight.

However, a funny thing happened in Maui: they didn't reach a final agreement. And it doesn't sound like negotiators are really that close either -- leading many to wonder if the TPP may be running out of time.

Either way, the good folks over at KEI have now started releasing a leaked copy of the "intellectual property chapter" as it stood on May 11th (i.e., the latest draft prior to last week's meeting). The IP chapter had leaked in the past, but only an older version. KEI called out how the US's proposals in the TPP are horrible:

The May 11, 2015, text includes country positions, and reveals extensive disagreements among parties, as well as the isolation of the United States as the country that continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies, publishers and other companies.

The proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation. In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices. The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.

The widely reported dispute over the number of years of protection for biologic drug test data is only one of dozens of measures that significantly expand the power of big drug companies to charge high prices. Taken together these provisions will take the public down a road of more and more rationing of medicines, and less and less equality of access. It could have and still can be different. Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical R&D as a public good, an area where the United States has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the NIH and other federal agencies. Many people reading the provisions released today will appreciate how misguided and wrong are the USTR’s values and negotiating objectives.

Looking through the documents, you can see some real ridiculous and aggressive positions by the US on intellectual property. In particular, the US seems to push back against any attempt by other negotiating countries to allow for the punishment of those who abuse patents or copyrights. Every time the issue comes up, many other countries are on board, but the US (and sometimes Japan) is against. The discussion below is about the parts of the IP chapter that KEI released yesterday. Just as I was finishing up this post, it released the other sections as well, but we'll save those for another post.

For example, there is one proposal put forth by Australia, arguing that countries should be able to "cancel, revoke or nullfy" a patent if "the patent is used in a manner determined to be anti-competitive, or abusive, in a judicial or administrative proceeding...." This actually seems like a pretty good idea. And, basically all of the countries agree... except for the US and Japan. Similarly, the US and Japan again appear to be in favor of patent trolling later in the document, opposing a provision that appears to allow countries to pass anti-trolling legislation: Those are on the patent side. Well, how about copyright? Here, even Japan supports a plan that would allow courts to order those who abuse takedown provisions to pay up against those they unfairly targeted. But the US opposes it: One other thing that caught my eye. Throughout the enforcement part, other countries repeatedly propose the use of the word "predominantly" when it comes to things like destroying equipment used in the creation of infringing works. That is, there are proposals like "judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the forfeiture or destruction of materials and implements that have been predominantly used in the creation of pirated goods or counterfeit trademark goods." The US repeatedly asks for the word "predominantly" to be removed from such sentences. In other words, while other countries recognize that you shouldn't just go around destroying computers that maybe incidentally were used to infringe, the US wants to retain such a right.

I'm sure more questions will be raised as people have more time to go through these documents, but for now, it appears that the US is still pushing for extremist copyright and patent policies and working hard to protect those who deliberately abuse such tools. It's fairly incredible how the USTR wants to deliberately support those who admittedly abuse those laws for anti-competitive purposes. Wouldn't you think the USTR should be encouraging blocking such abuses? I guess when your main advisors have a long history of abusing the laws, you don't think such abuse is that bad...

Filed Under: abuse, copyright, enforcement, ip chapter, leak, patents, tpp, us