3 ms·

Sorry I'm not credible enough for you tptacek. FYI the site is still a work in progress and most of the experts in our coalition are still working on their anno

Sorry I'm not credible enough for you tptacek. FYI the site is still a work in progress and most of the experts in our coalition are still working on their annotations. That said, you're welcome to add your own annotations if you think my interpretation didn't give fascism a fair shake.

5F36B5F62640 11y ago
The problem with your annotations is not that they "didn't give fascism a fair shake". The problem is that you tend to do a poor job of reading the TPP text, and also often seem to have not done the necessary background research in the area a given TPP section covers to understand the meaning. Some examples. Your annotation to Article 20.2 section 3: "TPP prohibits environmental laws that create a “restriction on trade.” What TPP actually says in that section is "disguised restriction on trade". Either you missed the word "disguised", or did not recognize that the phrase "disguised restriction on trade" is almost a term of art in international trade agreements and so should be taken in TPP with the same interpretation and effect it has been given in the numerous other treaties in which it appears. Article 18.2, which says: A Party may provide limited exceptions to the rights conferred by a trademark, such as fair use of descriptive terms, provided that those exceptions take account of the legitimate interest of the owner of the trademark and of third parties. Your annotation is: For example, if someone posts a YouTube video criticizing McDonald's® for making terrible food and destroying the environment, this would ordinarily be protected under the U.S. Constitution. But, under the TPP, any public use of the McDonald's® brand would only be allowable if it is in the legitimate interest of McDonald's®, the trademark holder. Since a video criticizing them would never be in their “legitimate interest,” McDonald's® could be able to bring an ISDS complaint against the U.S. government and force the video to be taken down. You somehow managed to read "take into account of the legitimate interests of" as meaning "in the legitimate interest of", which is quite different. Article 18.37 section 2 says: Subject to paragraphs 3 and 4 and consistent with paragraph 1, each Party confirms that patents are available for inventions claimed as at least one of the following: new uses of a known product, new methods of using a known product, or new processes of using a known product. A Party may limit those new processes to those that do not claim the use of the product as such. Your annotation is: "Being able to patent “new uses of a known product” will allow patent-holders to make very minor tweaks to existing products to effectively extend their patents forever. Pharmaceutical companies love it!" 18.37 section 2 is just requiring that being just a new use of a known product does not automatically exclude something from patentability. It does not get rid of each country's general requirements for patentability, such as the US requirement for novelty, non-obviousness, and usefulness.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

5F36B5F62640 11y ago

The problem with your annotations is not that they "didn't give fascism a fair shake". The problem is that you tend to do a poor job of reading the TPP text, and also often seem to have not done the necessary background research in the area a given TPP section covers to understand the meaning. Some examples. Your annotation to Article 20.2 section 3: "TPP prohibits environmental laws that create a “restriction on trade.” What TPP actually says in that section is "disguised restriction on trade". Either you missed the word "disguised", or did not recognize that the phrase "disguised restriction on trade" is almost a term of art in international trade agreements and so should be taken in TPP with the same interpretation and effect it has been given in the numerous other treaties in which it appears. Article 18.2, which says: A Party may provide limited exceptions to the rights conferred by a trademark, such as fair use of descriptive terms, provided that those exceptions take account of the legitimate interest of the owner of the trademark and of third parties. Your annotation is: For example, if someone posts a YouTube video criticizing McDonald's® for making terrible food and destroying the environment, this would ordinarily be protected under the U.S. Constitution. But, under the TPP, any public use of the McDonald's® brand would only be allowable if it is in the legitimate interest of McDonald's®, the trademark holder. Since a video criticizing them would never be in their “legitimate interest,” McDonald's® could be able to bring an ISDS complaint against the U.S. government and force the video to be taken down. You somehow managed to read "take into account of the legitimate interests of" as meaning "in the legitimate interest of", which is quite different. Article 18.37 section 2 says: Subject to paragraphs 3 and 4 and consistent with paragraph 1, each Party confirms that patents are available for inventions claimed as at least one of the following: new uses of a known product, new methods of using a known product, or new processes of using a known product. A Party may limit those new processes to those that do not claim the use of the product as such. Your annotation is: "Being able to patent “new uses of a known product” will allow patent-holders to make very minor tweaks to existing products to effectively extend their patents forever. Pharmaceutical companies love it!" 18.37 section 2 is just requiring that being just a new use of a known product does not automatically exclude something from patentability. It does not get rid of each country's general requirements for patentability, such as the US requirement for novelty, non-obviousness, and usefulness.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]