14 ms·

Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

287 points by ghosh 11y ago

fixxer 11y ago
Can a progressive democrat please explain to me why their hero is supporting this? PS To those trying to claim he isn't a progressive... Obama may not be the progressive you want, but he is the one you deserve.
- diogenescynic 11y ago
  You know it's mostly House/Senate republicans who are voting for it right? Strange bedfellows really.
  - fixxer 11y ago
    You're aware that the Executive Branch's vote is equal to the consolidated power of the Congress, right?
    - spacemanmatt 11y ago
      It still has to get to his desk, and that means a lot of Republican support. There's no dodging that.
      - fixxer 11y ago
        So the GOP is forcing his hand? He has no free will? Manchurian candidate?
        spacemanmatt 11y ago
        That's ridiculous, and I didn't say or imply that.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- bediger4000 11y ago
  Indeed. I generally like Obama (except for Espionage Act prosecutions, continued existence of Guantanamo detention centers, and drone wars), but this one makes no sense. Can a conservative republican explain why the Republican leadership is supporting this? I can't really understand why free market people would be in favor of state-granted and enforced-at-taxpayer-expense monopolies. Nor do I understand why extreme patriots would be in favor of Investor-State Dispute Systems. The latter seems like a sovereignty giveaway, to an unaccountable international body. In a way, ISDS seems like big government gone wild, but it's an unelected, unaccountable international government, which should offend small government types, too.
  - Zelphyr 11y ago
    Because they're all owned by the same people who wrote this agreement.
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    > I generally like Obama (except for Espionage Act prosecutions, continued existence of Guantanamo detention centers, and drone wars), but this one makes no sense. What's there left to like? Legal pot and gay marriage?
    - LinkDJ 11y ago
      Wait, pot became legal? Why didn't anyone tell me!
      - gcb0 11y ago
        don't know why you're down voted, but your irony is correct. pot is still very much illegal on the federal level... that's important because that's the level that handle your taxes.
        jfoutz 11y ago
        Eh, i guess we'll see how it all shakes out in the next 5-10 years. Based on prohibition, the feds are in a tough spot. No support from local and state police, because it's not a crime. That said the feds could bring a lot of resources to bare against individuals. The targeted individuals would likely be screwed. Probably the biggest risk is Colorado fighting the USA directly. Perhaps it's not interstate trade so the US can't regulate, perhaps Colorado sues for lost tax revenue.
- thisisdallas 11y ago
  I'm by no means a progressive democrat and I am certainly no fan of Obama. In saying that, it's absolutely necessary to understand republicans are pushing for this just as much as democrats. It's not a red vs. blue issue, it's a red and blue issue. To answer your question, there are probably many reasons, but one reason is because corporations are paying politicians. Here is a story from The Guardian that explains the payoff http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations... Also, here is another story from the Huffington Post that describes the corporate influence on the TPP. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-huge-tpp_b_6956540.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-h... One last comment, while it is indeed up to our politicians to vote yay or nay on this, it is absolutely up to the people to keep our politicians accountable. Right now, the American people are for more concerned about feelings and witty social media posts to care about the TPP. When Americans stop caring about politicians and stop holding politicians accountable, it's quite easy for them to pull something like the TPP.
  - gcb0 11y ago
    no matter how much you care. if politicians can only run a campaign with millions of dollars, and that amount only come from corporations, and the corporations can see who voted on what it wanted, then the public is largely removed from politics.
    - zanny 11y ago
      That should not be news to anyone. The only thing that has recently changed is Citizens United makes it easier to just avoid having to pass through money through more middlemen to bribe politicians. Before radio and TV, only the rich elite who had the time to research politics voted. After radio and TV, only the rich elite who had the money to buy election ad slots got representation.
    - vgfbdgfhkzsdrhh 11y ago
      It is illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians. 61% of raised funds come from individuals donating up to $2600 each. 23% come from PACs (which themselves may only raise money from individuals, not corporations), and the rest comes from self-funding and political party committees. Edit: These numbers are from 2010 congressional elections. Also it's illegal for federal elections. State elections have their own rules.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Can a progressive democrat please explain to me why their hero is supporting this? Did Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren start supporting TPP when I wasn't looking? Or was "progressive" an elaborate typo for "centrist"?
  - fixxer 11y ago
    Ha. Fair weather fan.
    - spacemanmatt 11y ago
      Obama has always been a centrist, even though he campaigned as a progressive. Actions are louder than words.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      For that accusation to work (even ignoring the difference between being a "fan" of Obama and agreeing that Obama is a "progressive" rather than a "centrist", which are really orthogonal concerns), you'd have to have me ever claiming Obama was a progressive rather than a centrist.
- costolo 11y ago
  What are you talking about, both Sanders and Warren don't support TPP.
- JamesBarney 11y ago
  Sometimes I think that if a piece of legislation is not on the red vs blue divide its probably on the powerful elite vs little guy divide.
  - mplscoder 11y ago
    Centralization of power and control seems to be on a winning streak.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  I'm not a progressive Democrat, but I understand why Obama is pursuing this deal. First, let's consider a contrast. Neoconservatives have for decades been obsessed with the Middle East. This is mostly because of its strategic importance as the source of oil. There presents itself now an opportunity to change this strategic focus because of two trends. 1) Domestic oil production is up; so is fuel efficiency; so is the development of alternate energy. 2) Korea, China, Vietnam, and other Asian nations have growing economies and strategic ambitions. In the future of the U.S., oil will be less important; Asian trade relationships will be more important. Thus Obama's "pivot to Asia." It has been mocked by Republicans, given the ongoing problems in both Russia and Iraq/Syria (both long-standing Republican policy bad guys). But really, something as big as the U.S. does not turn easily or fast. TPP is a major component in that turn. It will create or enhance special relationships with a variety of Asian nations. It will firm up relationships that are currently being challenged by China, which has the biggest ambitions of anyone these days. The details of the policy chapters are almost unimportant; they just need to be balanced well enough among all the parties, so that everyone gains slightly more than they lose. Trade agreements are, almost by definition, not optimal for any given single interest group or stakeholder. In terms of IP specifically, it's worth considering that the U.S. is far more dependent on IP than other nations. If you think about our most successful companies, many of them make nothing but IP: Apple, Google, Microsoft, TV shows, movies, recorded music, software, pharamceuticals, etc. So U.S. negotiators are going to try for max protection on those things. (Does not mean they will get it.)
  - api 11y ago
    A second point would be that China's consumer class is booting up. The US wants to position itself to sell into that, effectively to reverse the trade deficit.
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      If the US government stops running those huge deficits, partially financed by foreigners, the US trade deficits will close naturally. I just don't know why you'd want to do that, and why you'd want to do that now. But run those deficits too far, and you'll be forced to anyway.
- snarfy 11y ago
  Democrat or Republican, this is about rich vs poor, and neither party represents the poor.
  - fixxer 11y ago
    I'm not poor and I'm against the TPP. My opinion has nothing to do with how it treats the poor. I don't like how it empowers corporate interests at the expense of individual rights.
    - zanny 11y ago
      Poor is relative. The rich at war with everyone are not the 6 figure developers, or even the one-time cashout millionaires who sell their startup to Google. Its the billionaires who control entire swathes of global industry and are ego tripping power maniacs who are addicted to it. Its the Waltons and Kochs, not the Carmacks and Grams. Its even more the dynasties whose names are not national news because they own every news network or their best friend owns it. If someone else in the world makes as much as you do in a year in a day (or better yet an hour for 99.99995% of people), you are incredibly poor relative to them. And 99.99999% of humanity falls into that class of poor. The TPP is not being written for the betterment of the "rich" over the "poor". Its being written to make about 70,000 (overwhelmingly) men even richer than they already are, by subjugating national sovereignty underneath their corporate will.
      - fixxer 11y ago
        My point is that the narrative for my dissent from a bill with strong GOP support is that it violates individual freedom. You might argue semantics, but I claim my motivation has nothing to do with social justice in the progressive sense and everything to do with freedom.
      - spacehome 11y ago
        I read stuff like this a lot, and it sounds plausible, but how can you know this? Where can I go to read someone connecting the dots from billionaires working in secret to advance trade deals through corrupt politicians?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- afarrell 11y ago
  Because the US government wants more tax revenue and tax revenue comes from corporate revenue and the salaries/capital gains that flow from it. US companies tend to generate a lot of revenue from IP. Therefore, the US Government has an incentive to help corporations extract more revenue from IP.
- enlightenedfool 11y ago
  hmmm...because he's just another politician who hoodwinked people with great speeches??
- Zigurd 11y ago
  Gobs of Hollywood money. Obama honestly thinks this is good stuff because people in the passive content business are friends and donors and they like TPP.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Obama is not a progressive and I don't think he's been particularly supported by progressives (other than the fact that they tend to vote for Democrats). The possible exception is his initial campaign when he was an unknown quantity and, like all such politicians, everyone projected their "Hope" onto him.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Obama is not a progressive and I don't think he's been particularly supported by progressives (other than the fact that they tend to vote for Democrats). A lot of progressives supported Obama in 2008 primaries, especially toward the end of that season, because, as it was clear who the reasonably viable contenders were for the Democratic nomination, Obama generally seemed slightly to the progressive side of Hillary Clinton (which is perfectly compatible with him being a centrist Democrat rather than a particularly progressive one; I don't think anyone in the Democratic party has mistaken Clinton for anything other than a centrist for a long time.)
  - wfo 11y ago
    The 'you projected your hope onto him' suggestion is popular but doesn't really hold water. He explicitly said things that he did a 180 on. Many of them. For some I'm sure they projected hope on him, but many others who voted for him were just straight up betrayed.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  He's not my hero. I didn't vote for him mainly because I'm not in a swing state; but if I were and you ran him against Romney and Paul Ryan tomorrow, I'd hold my nose and go vote for him. I might even go find myself an ACORN volunteer t shirt and go register a bunch of poors to go vote for him too. Go ahead though, and tell me how much better we'd all feel about TPP if your horse would've won.
  - fixxer 11y ago
    I haven't had a horse in any of these races. I despise them all; I especially despise those sad true believers out there that pin their hopes to an empty suit.
lifeisstillgood 11y ago
There is a very interesting podcast (LSE series about a year ago now), with the chair of the previous round of physical goods talks explaining what has gone wrong, and how to fix it. In essence the idea is a good one - set out worldwide standards of trade - like WTO - for intellectual goods as well as physical. If I remember it's things like having same standards of animal welfare innabbatoirs (the U.S. Think EU chickens are dirty IIRC). But it has gone south because it was played badly politically - the heads of the main negotiating countries should apparently have a summit, announce it was crap and announce a new round that will be - public and open - use a highest standard wins (ie if US rules on X are more stringent than EU then the U.S. Rules are the standard for TIPP) - something else about timelines - I think not setting big deadlines - being more multilateral like WTO It seems a sensible move and likely to take a lot of the sting out of "rules made behind closed doors, race to the bottom etc" Contrary views welcomed...
- kbenson 11y ago
  Sometimes the "highest standard" is subjective, more regulation doesn't mean better regulation. Regulation, as expressed through licensing, also happens as a means to protect industry incumbents. Should the current most stringent taxi licensing be extended across multiple countries? What about cosmetology licenses[1]? It's a non-trivial issue to dissect what laws are worth keeping and what laws aren't, as there are people affected positively or negatively whichever way you go. It's a complex issue. 1: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episo...
- thomasahle 11y ago
  What about if one country wants to highen their standards in a certain area, will all the countries that signed up then immediately have to follow? Won't the other countries bully the first one to stay to the status quo? Also, are there really always such a thing as 'highest standard'? Couldn't it be that more often than not, the rules aim for opposing values?
  - justizin 11y ago
dmitrygr 11y ago
I, for one, am glad to know that that interests of everyone important are well protected in this treaty. I just wish I knew how to join this class of people who are important. Apparently being a citizen is not enough anymore.
- brudgers 11y ago
  There's been several carefully crafted changes to the language of American politics over the past twenty-five years and "citizen" has been replaced by "taxpayer" [1] as the relevant political constituency. Since corporations ostensibly pay taxes, their personhood has been lifted. Likewise, since wealthy individuals tend to pay more taxes on an absolute basis (despite an increasingly regressive system) their interests within the constituency of taxpayers are also lifted. [1]: The case for "taxpayers" has been assisted by the language of "victim's rights" wherein people first accepted the idea that some citizens should have higher status before the law than others. Using the idea that paying taxes is a form of theft, taxpayers establish their victimhood and by an extension a privileged interest over ordinary citizens in matters concerning taxation. The obverse of the coin is "consumer rights" wherein buying "Little Plastic Shit" is seen as a high form of social engagement and the primary civic duty of ordinary Americans.
  - avdempsey 11y ago
    Well said. And correspondingly, very little talk of responsibilities.
  - slg 11y ago
    I think you are letting the citizenry off the hook for their part in this. The only reason corporations gained this power is because they have more collective money (or at least are more willing to use that money) to lobby. The only reason lobbying works is because politicians need money to get elected. The only reason politicians need money to get elected is because people are so susceptible to political marketing. Coporate personhood is therefore just a symptom of a larger problem, a disinterested and easily manipulated electorate.
themgt 11y ago
When the director of policy for Doctors Without Borders tells the public that "U.S. negotiators have basically functioned as drug lobbyists" and "We consider this the worst-ever agreement in terms of access to medicine", there's really little more that needs saying. I love that the best defense unnamed "U.S. officials" can offer is that "major compromises" will likely still be made. In other words: yes we're acting as drug company lobbyists, but we expect some of these other countries to stand up for their citizens enough to get a few concessions. Fantastic stuff. "Thanks Obama" (and Hillary)
- thedaveoflife 11y ago
  Maybe the best way to ensure access to medicine is by providing economic opportunities to the worlds most impoverished citizens. In other words, if the trade off is say a 10% increase in per capita GDP in exchange for less access to generics, maybe the former is better than the latter?
  - chad_oliver 11y ago
    Perhaps, but there is no way that the TPP is going to produce at 10% increase in GDP per capita. I'm generally supportive of free trade agreements, but in the case of the TPP, all the low-hanging economic fruit has already been picked. There are no significant remaining trade barriers that can be removed to generate quick growth.
  - zanny 11y ago
    Those writing the TPP have no interest in passing any of the profits of these trade deals off to impoverished third world nations to enrich their societies. If you want a mutually beneficial trade agreement, you don't need secret meetings or a rush to get it through congress.
    - thedaveoflife 11y ago
      The reason it is kept secret is presumably because the general public has difficulty seeing the ancillary benefits (reduction of trade barriers) and pays close attention to the obvious drawbacks (IP rights for "evil" corporations). This contention is fairly well supported by a cursory read through this or any other internet thread about a trade agreement. Whether the good in the TPP outweighs the bad is an open question that I don't have an answer to. I am just trying to provide some counter arguments to an otherwise one-sided discussion on here.
trendroid 11y ago
This interview with Assange that democracynow did sheds some light on this 'trade' agreement: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_trans_pacific http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_... The whole interview is worth watching.
nfoz 11y ago
Where can I see the leaked document?
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/ https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/
- jakeogh 11y ago
  http://readthetpp.com http://readthetpp.com
shmerl 11y ago
TPP and any similar agreements should be totally opposed until they'll be negotiated in public.
hellbanner 11y ago
In Spam Nation, the primary reason spam is successful (why people click those weird ads) is because they get working drugs for cheap that in many cases are chemically indifferent to their expensive prescription counterparts. http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/spam-nation/ http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/spam-nation/
- mcv 11y ago
  So if access to health care for the poor isn't a good enough reason to make drugs cheaper, then surely finally killing spam is?
phkahler 11y ago
"The Obama administration often describes TPP as the most progressive free-trade deal in history" Does anyone see stronger government enforced monopolies (patents) as the opposite of free trade?
- rayiner 11y ago
  All property is a government enforced monopoly. Without property there is no trade. There is no reason to transact when you can just take or copy.
  - bediger4000 11y ago
    You've written this, or something similar, before. It's kind of disingenuous. For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine. Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it. Is my fantastic new way of rigging sails being infringed upon by some "pirate" on Lake Michigan? I can't tell. My sailboat still have the fantastic new way of rigging, so I'm fat dumb and happy. I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me. I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly". Yes, some laws around property need to be in place, and governments need to enforce them. There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist. As far as "just copy", well, I'm using my capital (expensive computer) to manufacture those copies myself, should I actually do that. The enforcers now need to keep me from using my capital in a way that I control. That's another significant difference you're glossing over.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine. You've confused possession with ownership. If you loan it to someone -- or someone steals it -- you won't find it in your pocket, you won't possess it, but you will still own it. Ownership is a relation created in law. It is different than possession. In fact, its a meaningful concept only because it can differ from possession. > Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it. That's very much true of lots of real property (and even of tangible personal property that you don't keep in your possession). If I have real property spread around the different states -- and tangible personal property on the grounds of each of those real properties -- it takes a considerable policing effort to tell if the exclusive legal rights I have to those items which make them property are being infringed. > I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me. That's true, again, of all kinds of property in general, real property, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property other than intellectual property in general. The tangible personal property you happen to keep in your immediate possession is actually the exception here, not the norm with property. Largely, the whole point of ownership existing as a legal relationship beyond mere possession is to enable people to have control of things that aren't under their immediate supervision all the time. > I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement And, in general, you are wrong. What you are pointing to is just largely true of physical property (real and tangible personal property) as of intangible personal property in general and intellectual property in particular. > I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly". Government enforced monopoly is exactly the defining characteristic of all property. So, its not a bad term to use for intellectual property, its just a mistake to use that to indicate something that is supposedly distinct about intellectual property as opposed to true of all property. > There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist. There are differences in the steps taken to for enforcement between every pair of categories of property (this is just as true between tangible personal property and real property as between tangible personal property and intellectual property.) Its these kind of distinctions that are a big part of the reason that we name different categories of property in the first place; if they were all identical, rather than subcategories of a common higher-level categories, we wouldn't need named types.
Rumford 11y ago
At least they have avoided giving it an Orwellian name including the phrase "free trade". Free trade can be described in a few sentences. These voluminous inter-governmental managed trade agreements are just protectionism by another name.
Zenst 11y ago
Going by rank of the top 10 pharma companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_compani... we can see that 4 are American and 6 are European. The total revenue of that top 10 is 60% European companies and 40% American. Now if this TTP chapter is two-way and with that equaly so for European markets then if anything would it not favour Europe more. Though between the two collectives involved. This only shuts out generics made outside of those two markets more than currently. As for doctors without borders, they operate outside this trade agreement location wise and would not that open up for cheaper supplies from the producers outside this trade agreement. I would of thought so. Though would perhaps, once settle reduce production runs of generics in some area's that depended upon this `sudo` gr[a¦e]y market. Then that may raise production costs, though if mroe than one generic then it would become more a price war without the more fruitful markets to utilise. Though always new markets and myself not sure about medical drugs and Russia and how that works at all. But really such agreements need to be public before signing as about trade for the people as a whole and not a niche area that impacts national security of the people. So the whole aspect not public just does not sit well, nor bode well for trust or indeed any scrutinising and that which has and has leaked. Just hard to get the full picture as hard to scale.
Animats 11y ago
The article missed some of the other giveaways to Big Pharma. One is a narrowing of the patent obviousness requirement for "me-too" drugs. Claritin (loratidine) is the classic example. Loratidine is a stereoisomer; there's a left handed and a right handed version of the molecule. One has an anti-allergy effect, and the other doesn't seem to do much. (That's very common; biology isn't symmetrical at the molecular level.) When the patent ran out on Claritin, the manufacturer came out with Clarinex, which contains only the one isomer that does something useful. They then pitched doctors hard to switch their patients to Clarinex, with considerable success. But the manufacturer lost a patent case, on the grounds that separating the isomers and only keeping the useful one is obvious to anyone skilled in the art.[1] Now that isomer separation is routine, although non-trivial, the FDA requires it as a purification step if the non-useful isomer has any negative effects.[2] You can't claim that a step required by existing regulation is a new invention. There's a clause in the TPP IP section to reverse that decision.[3] "[US/JP propose; CL/MY/PE/SG/VN/BN/AU/NZ/CA/MX oppose: For greater certainty, a Party may not deny a patent solely on the basis that the product did not result in an enhanced efficacy of the known product when the applicant has set forth distinguishing features establishing that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application.]" That's from last year's draft on Wikileaks; I haven't seen the new draft yet. Incidentally, the TPP resolves the issue of patentablity for software and business methods: "Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 and 3 (which relate mostly to plant and animal patents), each Party shall make patents available for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application." So software and business methods must be made patentable in all TPP-signatory countries. This, again, is from last year's draft. Check the new one once it gets published. [1] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/schering-plough-loses-patent-lawsuit-over-claritin-opening-door-for-cheaper-generic-versions-70880857.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/schering-plough-lose... [2] http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm122883.htm http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInforma... [3] https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/ https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  Is it really clear that the draft TPP language quoted here would reverse the Clarinex decision? It seems to me that the phrase "involves an inventive step" would permit challenges based on obviousness. See for example [0]. While what is "obvious" and what is "inventive" can always be debated, I don't see that this language alters the ground on which that debate will play out. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...
Havoc 11y ago
Don't even need to read it - the whole secrecy farce surrounding it guarantees that its content is 100% rubber glove exam.
chx 11y ago
Even The Atlantic which I found one of the better "mass media" sources rejoices for TPP and lists none of the criticism. I am much afraid all this doesn't reach the masses.

287 points by ghosh 11y ago

Can a progressive democrat please explain to me why their hero is supporting this? PS To those trying to claim he isn't a progressive... Obama may not be the progressive you want, but he is the one you deserve.

diogenescynic 11y ago
You know it's mostly House/Senate republicans who are voting for it right? Strange bedfellows really.
- fixxer 11y ago
  You're aware that the Executive Branch's vote is equal to the consolidated power of the Congress, right?
  - spacemanmatt 11y ago
    It still has to get to his desk, and that means a lot of Republican support. There's no dodging that.
    - fixxer 11y ago
      So the GOP is forcing his hand? He has no free will? Manchurian candidate?
      - spacemanmatt 11y ago
        That's ridiculous, and I didn't say or imply that.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
bediger4000 11y ago
Indeed. I generally like Obama (except for Espionage Act prosecutions, continued existence of Guantanamo detention centers, and drone wars), but this one makes no sense. Can a conservative republican explain why the Republican leadership is supporting this? I can't really understand why free market people would be in favor of state-granted and enforced-at-taxpayer-expense monopolies. Nor do I understand why extreme patriots would be in favor of Investor-State Dispute Systems. The latter seems like a sovereignty giveaway, to an unaccountable international body. In a way, ISDS seems like big government gone wild, but it's an unelected, unaccountable international government, which should offend small government types, too.
- Zelphyr 11y ago
  Because they're all owned by the same people who wrote this agreement.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  > I generally like Obama (except for Espionage Act prosecutions, continued existence of Guantanamo detention centers, and drone wars), but this one makes no sense. What's there left to like? Legal pot and gay marriage?
  - LinkDJ 11y ago
    Wait, pot became legal? Why didn't anyone tell me!
    - gcb0 11y ago
      don't know why you're down voted, but your irony is correct. pot is still very much illegal on the federal level... that's important because that's the level that handle your taxes.
      - jfoutz 11y ago
        Eh, i guess we'll see how it all shakes out in the next 5-10 years. Based on prohibition, the feds are in a tough spot. No support from local and state police, because it's not a crime. That said the feds could bring a lot of resources to bare against individuals. The targeted individuals would likely be screwed. Probably the biggest risk is Colorado fighting the USA directly. Perhaps it's not interstate trade so the US can't regulate, perhaps Colorado sues for lost tax revenue.
thisisdallas 11y ago
I'm by no means a progressive democrat and I am certainly no fan of Obama. In saying that, it's absolutely necessary to understand republicans are pushing for this just as much as democrats. It's not a red vs. blue issue, it's a red and blue issue. To answer your question, there are probably many reasons, but one reason is because corporations are paying politicians. Here is a story from The Guardian that explains the payoff http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations... Also, here is another story from the Huffington Post that describes the corporate influence on the TPP. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-huge-tpp_b_6956540.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-h... One last comment, while it is indeed up to our politicians to vote yay or nay on this, it is absolutely up to the people to keep our politicians accountable. Right now, the American people are for more concerned about feelings and witty social media posts to care about the TPP. When Americans stop caring about politicians and stop holding politicians accountable, it's quite easy for them to pull something like the TPP.
- gcb0 11y ago
  no matter how much you care. if politicians can only run a campaign with millions of dollars, and that amount only come from corporations, and the corporations can see who voted on what it wanted, then the public is largely removed from politics.
  - zanny 11y ago
    That should not be news to anyone. The only thing that has recently changed is Citizens United makes it easier to just avoid having to pass through money through more middlemen to bribe politicians. Before radio and TV, only the rich elite who had the time to research politics voted. After radio and TV, only the rich elite who had the money to buy election ad slots got representation.
  - vgfbdgfhkzsdrhh 11y ago
    It is illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians. 61% of raised funds come from individuals donating up to $2600 each. 23% come from PACs (which themselves may only raise money from individuals, not corporations), and the rest comes from self-funding and political party committees. Edit: These numbers are from 2010 congressional elections. Also it's illegal for federal elections. State elections have their own rules.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Can a progressive democrat please explain to me why their hero is supporting this? Did Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren start supporting TPP when I wasn't looking? Or was "progressive" an elaborate typo for "centrist"?
- fixxer 11y ago
  Ha. Fair weather fan.
  - spacemanmatt 11y ago
    Obama has always been a centrist, even though he campaigned as a progressive. Actions are louder than words.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    For that accusation to work (even ignoring the difference between being a "fan" of Obama and agreeing that Obama is a "progressive" rather than a "centrist", which are really orthogonal concerns), you'd have to have me ever claiming Obama was a progressive rather than a centrist.
costolo 11y ago
What are you talking about, both Sanders and Warren don't support TPP.
JamesBarney 11y ago
Sometimes I think that if a piece of legislation is not on the red vs blue divide its probably on the powerful elite vs little guy divide.
- mplscoder 11y ago
  Centralization of power and control seems to be on a winning streak.
snowwrestler 11y ago
I'm not a progressive Democrat, but I understand why Obama is pursuing this deal. First, let's consider a contrast. Neoconservatives have for decades been obsessed with the Middle East. This is mostly because of its strategic importance as the source of oil. There presents itself now an opportunity to change this strategic focus because of two trends. 1) Domestic oil production is up; so is fuel efficiency; so is the development of alternate energy. 2) Korea, China, Vietnam, and other Asian nations have growing economies and strategic ambitions. In the future of the U.S., oil will be less important; Asian trade relationships will be more important. Thus Obama's "pivot to Asia." It has been mocked by Republicans, given the ongoing problems in both Russia and Iraq/Syria (both long-standing Republican policy bad guys). But really, something as big as the U.S. does not turn easily or fast. TPP is a major component in that turn. It will create or enhance special relationships with a variety of Asian nations. It will firm up relationships that are currently being challenged by China, which has the biggest ambitions of anyone these days. The details of the policy chapters are almost unimportant; they just need to be balanced well enough among all the parties, so that everyone gains slightly more than they lose. Trade agreements are, almost by definition, not optimal for any given single interest group or stakeholder. In terms of IP specifically, it's worth considering that the U.S. is far more dependent on IP than other nations. If you think about our most successful companies, many of them make nothing but IP: Apple, Google, Microsoft, TV shows, movies, recorded music, software, pharamceuticals, etc. So U.S. negotiators are going to try for max protection on those things. (Does not mean they will get it.)
- api 11y ago
  A second point would be that China's consumer class is booting up. The US wants to position itself to sell into that, effectively to reverse the trade deficit.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    If the US government stops running those huge deficits, partially financed by foreigners, the US trade deficits will close naturally. I just don't know why you'd want to do that, and why you'd want to do that now. But run those deficits too far, and you'll be forced to anyway.
snarfy 11y ago
Democrat or Republican, this is about rich vs poor, and neither party represents the poor.
- fixxer 11y ago
  I'm not poor and I'm against the TPP. My opinion has nothing to do with how it treats the poor. I don't like how it empowers corporate interests at the expense of individual rights.
  - zanny 11y ago
    Poor is relative. The rich at war with everyone are not the 6 figure developers, or even the one-time cashout millionaires who sell their startup to Google. Its the billionaires who control entire swathes of global industry and are ego tripping power maniacs who are addicted to it. Its the Waltons and Kochs, not the Carmacks and Grams. Its even more the dynasties whose names are not national news because they own every news network or their best friend owns it. If someone else in the world makes as much as you do in a year in a day (or better yet an hour for 99.99995% of people), you are incredibly poor relative to them. And 99.99999% of humanity falls into that class of poor. The TPP is not being written for the betterment of the "rich" over the "poor". Its being written to make about 70,000 (overwhelmingly) men even richer than they already are, by subjugating national sovereignty underneath their corporate will.
    - fixxer 11y ago
      My point is that the narrative for my dissent from a bill with strong GOP support is that it violates individual freedom. You might argue semantics, but I claim my motivation has nothing to do with social justice in the progressive sense and everything to do with freedom.
    - spacehome 11y ago
      I read stuff like this a lot, and it sounds plausible, but how can you know this? Where can I go to read someone connecting the dots from billionaires working in secret to advance trade deals through corrupt politicians?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
afarrell 11y ago
Because the US government wants more tax revenue and tax revenue comes from corporate revenue and the salaries/capital gains that flow from it. US companies tend to generate a lot of revenue from IP. Therefore, the US Government has an incentive to help corporations extract more revenue from IP.
enlightenedfool 11y ago
hmmm...because he's just another politician who hoodwinked people with great speeches??
Zigurd 11y ago
Gobs of Hollywood money. Obama honestly thinks this is good stuff because people in the passive content business are friends and donors and they like TPP.
hackuser 11y ago
Obama is not a progressive and I don't think he's been particularly supported by progressives (other than the fact that they tend to vote for Democrats). The possible exception is his initial campaign when he was an unknown quantity and, like all such politicians, everyone projected their "Hope" onto him.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Obama is not a progressive and I don't think he's been particularly supported by progressives (other than the fact that they tend to vote for Democrats). A lot of progressives supported Obama in 2008 primaries, especially toward the end of that season, because, as it was clear who the reasonably viable contenders were for the Democratic nomination, Obama generally seemed slightly to the progressive side of Hillary Clinton (which is perfectly compatible with him being a centrist Democrat rather than a particularly progressive one; I don't think anyone in the Democratic party has mistaken Clinton for anything other than a centrist for a long time.)
- wfo 11y ago
  The 'you projected your hope onto him' suggestion is popular but doesn't really hold water. He explicitly said things that he did a 180 on. Many of them. For some I'm sure they projected hope on him, but many others who voted for him were just straight up betrayed.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
He's not my hero. I didn't vote for him mainly because I'm not in a swing state; but if I were and you ran him against Romney and Paul Ryan tomorrow, I'd hold my nose and go vote for him. I might even go find myself an ACORN volunteer t shirt and go register a bunch of poors to go vote for him too. Go ahead though, and tell me how much better we'd all feel about TPP if your horse would've won.
- fixxer 11y ago
  I haven't had a horse in any of these races. I despise them all; I especially despise those sad true believers out there that pin their hopes to an empty suit.

lifeisstillgood 11y ago

There is a very interesting podcast (LSE series about a year ago now), with the chair of the previous round of physical goods talks explaining what has gone wrong, and how to fix it. In essence the idea is a good one - set out worldwide standards of trade - like WTO - for intellectual goods as well as physical. If I remember it's things like having same standards of animal welfare innabbatoirs (the U.S. Think EU chickens are dirty IIRC). But it has gone south because it was played badly politically - the heads of the main negotiating countries should apparently have a summit, announce it was crap and announce a new round that will be - public and open - use a highest standard wins (ie if US rules on X are more stringent than EU then the U.S. Rules are the standard for TIPP) - something else about timelines - I think not setting big deadlines - being more multilateral like WTO It seems a sensible move and likely to take a lot of the sting out of "rules made behind closed doors, race to the bottom etc" Contrary views welcomed...

kbenson 11y ago
Sometimes the "highest standard" is subjective, more regulation doesn't mean better regulation. Regulation, as expressed through licensing, also happens as a means to protect industry incumbents. Should the current most stringent taxi licensing be extended across multiple countries? What about cosmetology licenses[1]? It's a non-trivial issue to dissect what laws are worth keeping and what laws aren't, as there are people affected positively or negatively whichever way you go. It's a complex issue. 1: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episo...
thomasahle 11y ago
What about if one country wants to highen their standards in a certain area, will all the countries that signed up then immediately have to follow? Won't the other countries bully the first one to stay to the status quo? Also, are there really always such a thing as 'highest standard'? Couldn't it be that more often than not, the rules aim for opposing values?
- justizin 11y ago

dmitrygr 11y ago

I, for one, am glad to know that that interests of everyone important are well protected in this treaty. I just wish I knew how to join this class of people who are important. Apparently being a citizen is not enough anymore.

brudgers 11y ago
There's been several carefully crafted changes to the language of American politics over the past twenty-five years and "citizen" has been replaced by "taxpayer" [1] as the relevant political constituency. Since corporations ostensibly pay taxes, their personhood has been lifted. Likewise, since wealthy individuals tend to pay more taxes on an absolute basis (despite an increasingly regressive system) their interests within the constituency of taxpayers are also lifted. [1]: The case for "taxpayers" has been assisted by the language of "victim's rights" wherein people first accepted the idea that some citizens should have higher status before the law than others. Using the idea that paying taxes is a form of theft, taxpayers establish their victimhood and by an extension a privileged interest over ordinary citizens in matters concerning taxation. The obverse of the coin is "consumer rights" wherein buying "Little Plastic Shit" is seen as a high form of social engagement and the primary civic duty of ordinary Americans.
- avdempsey 11y ago
  Well said. And correspondingly, very little talk of responsibilities.
- slg 11y ago
  I think you are letting the citizenry off the hook for their part in this. The only reason corporations gained this power is because they have more collective money (or at least are more willing to use that money) to lobby. The only reason lobbying works is because politicians need money to get elected. The only reason politicians need money to get elected is because people are so susceptible to political marketing. Coporate personhood is therefore just a symptom of a larger problem, a disinterested and easily manipulated electorate.

themgt 11y ago

When the director of policy for Doctors Without Borders tells the public that "U.S. negotiators have basically functioned as drug lobbyists" and "We consider this the worst-ever agreement in terms of access to medicine", there's really little more that needs saying. I love that the best defense unnamed "U.S. officials" can offer is that "major compromises" will likely still be made. In other words: yes we're acting as drug company lobbyists, but we expect some of these other countries to stand up for their citizens enough to get a few concessions. Fantastic stuff. "Thanks Obama" (and Hillary)

thedaveoflife 11y ago
Maybe the best way to ensure access to medicine is by providing economic opportunities to the worlds most impoverished citizens. In other words, if the trade off is say a 10% increase in per capita GDP in exchange for less access to generics, maybe the former is better than the latter?
- chad_oliver 11y ago
  Perhaps, but there is no way that the TPP is going to produce at 10% increase in GDP per capita. I'm generally supportive of free trade agreements, but in the case of the TPP, all the low-hanging economic fruit has already been picked. There are no significant remaining trade barriers that can be removed to generate quick growth.
- zanny 11y ago
  Those writing the TPP have no interest in passing any of the profits of these trade deals off to impoverished third world nations to enrich their societies. If you want a mutually beneficial trade agreement, you don't need secret meetings or a rush to get it through congress.
  - thedaveoflife 11y ago
    The reason it is kept secret is presumably because the general public has difficulty seeing the ancillary benefits (reduction of trade barriers) and pays close attention to the obvious drawbacks (IP rights for "evil" corporations). This contention is fairly well supported by a cursory read through this or any other internet thread about a trade agreement. Whether the good in the TPP outweighs the bad is an open question that I don't have an answer to. I am just trying to provide some counter arguments to an otherwise one-sided discussion on here.

trendroid 11y ago

This interview with Assange that democracynow did sheds some light on this 'trade' agreement: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_trans_pacific http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_... The whole interview is worth watching.

nfoz 11y ago

Where can I see the leaked document?

stefantalpalaru 11y ago
https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/ https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/
jakeogh 11y ago
http://readthetpp.com http://readthetpp.com

shmerl 11y ago

TPP and any similar agreements should be totally opposed until they'll be negotiated in public.

hellbanner 11y ago

In Spam Nation, the primary reason spam is successful (why people click those weird ads) is because they get working drugs for cheap that in many cases are chemically indifferent to their expensive prescription counterparts. http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/spam-nation/ http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/spam-nation/

mcv 11y ago
So if access to health care for the poor isn't a good enough reason to make drugs cheaper, then surely finally killing spam is?

phkahler 11y ago

"The Obama administration often describes TPP as the most progressive free-trade deal in history" Does anyone see stronger government enforced monopolies (patents) as the opposite of free trade?

rayiner 11y ago
All property is a government enforced monopoly. Without property there is no trade. There is no reason to transact when you can just take or copy.
- bediger4000 11y ago
  You've written this, or something similar, before. It's kind of disingenuous. For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine. Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it. Is my fantastic new way of rigging sails being infringed upon by some "pirate" on Lake Michigan? I can't tell. My sailboat still have the fantastic new way of rigging, so I'm fat dumb and happy. I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me. I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly". Yes, some laws around property need to be in place, and governments need to enforce them. There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist. As far as "just copy", well, I'm using my capital (expensive computer) to manufacture those copies myself, should I actually do that. The enforcers now need to keep me from using my capital in a way that I control. That's another significant difference you're glossing over.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine. You've confused possession with ownership. If you loan it to someone -- or someone steals it -- you won't find it in your pocket, you won't possess it, but you will still own it. Ownership is a relation created in law. It is different than possession. In fact, its a meaningful concept only because it can differ from possession. > Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it. That's very much true of lots of real property (and even of tangible personal property that you don't keep in your possession). If I have real property spread around the different states -- and tangible personal property on the grounds of each of those real properties -- it takes a considerable policing effort to tell if the exclusive legal rights I have to those items which make them property are being infringed. > I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me. That's true, again, of all kinds of property in general, real property, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property other than intellectual property in general. The tangible personal property you happen to keep in your immediate possession is actually the exception here, not the norm with property. Largely, the whole point of ownership existing as a legal relationship beyond mere possession is to enable people to have control of things that aren't under their immediate supervision all the time. > I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement And, in general, you are wrong. What you are pointing to is just largely true of physical property (real and tangible personal property) as of intangible personal property in general and intellectual property in particular. > I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly". Government enforced monopoly is exactly the defining characteristic of all property. So, its not a bad term to use for intellectual property, its just a mistake to use that to indicate something that is supposedly distinct about intellectual property as opposed to true of all property. > There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist. There are differences in the steps taken to for enforcement between every pair of categories of property (this is just as true between tangible personal property and real property as between tangible personal property and intellectual property.) Its these kind of distinctions that are a big part of the reason that we name different categories of property in the first place; if they were all identical, rather than subcategories of a common higher-level categories, we wouldn't need named types.

Rumford 11y ago

At least they have avoided giving it an Orwellian name including the phrase "free trade". Free trade can be described in a few sentences. These voluminous inter-governmental managed trade agreements are just protectionism by another name.

Zenst 11y ago

Going by rank of the top 10 pharma companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_compani... we can see that 4 are American and 6 are European. The total revenue of that top 10 is 60% European companies and 40% American. Now if this TTP chapter is two-way and with that equaly so for European markets then if anything would it not favour Europe more. Though between the two collectives involved. This only shuts out generics made outside of those two markets more than currently. As for doctors without borders, they operate outside this trade agreement location wise and would not that open up for cheaper supplies from the producers outside this trade agreement. I would of thought so. Though would perhaps, once settle reduce production runs of generics in some area's that depended upon this `sudo` gr[a¦e]y market. Then that may raise production costs, though if mroe than one generic then it would become more a price war without the more fruitful markets to utilise. Though always new markets and myself not sure about medical drugs and Russia and how that works at all. But really such agreements need to be public before signing as about trade for the people as a whole and not a niche area that impacts national security of the people. So the whole aspect not public just does not sit well, nor bode well for trust or indeed any scrutinising and that which has and has leaked. Just hard to get the full picture as hard to scale.

Animats 11y ago

The article missed some of the other giveaways to Big Pharma. One is a narrowing of the patent obviousness requirement for "me-too" drugs. Claritin (loratidine) is the classic example. Loratidine is a stereoisomer; there's a left handed and a right handed version of the molecule. One has an anti-allergy effect, and the other doesn't seem to do much. (That's very common; biology isn't symmetrical at the molecular level.) When the patent ran out on Claritin, the manufacturer came out with Clarinex, which contains only the one isomer that does something useful. They then pitched doctors hard to switch their patients to Clarinex, with considerable success. But the manufacturer lost a patent case, on the grounds that separating the isomers and only keeping the useful one is obvious to anyone skilled in the art.[1] Now that isomer separation is routine, although non-trivial, the FDA requires it as a purification step if the non-useful isomer has any negative effects.[2] You can't claim that a step required by existing regulation is a new invention. There's a clause in the TPP IP section to reverse that decision.[3] "[US/JP propose; CL/MY/PE/SG/VN/BN/AU/NZ/CA/MX oppose: For greater certainty, a Party may not deny a patent solely on the basis that the product did not result in an enhanced efficacy of the known product when the applicant has set forth distinguishing features establishing that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application.]" That's from last year's draft on Wikileaks; I haven't seen the new draft yet. Incidentally, the TPP resolves the issue of patentablity for software and business methods: "Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 and 3 (which relate mostly to plant and animal patents), each Party shall make patents available for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application." So software and business methods must be made patentable in all TPP-signatory countries. This, again, is from last year's draft. Check the new one once it gets published. [1] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/schering-plough-loses-patent-lawsuit-over-claritin-opening-door-for-cheaper-generic-versions-70880857.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/schering-plough-lose... [2] http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm122883.htm http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInforma... [3] https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/ https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/

ScottBurson 11y ago
Is it really clear that the draft TPP language quoted here would reverse the Clarinex decision? It seems to me that the phrase "involves an inventive step" would permit challenges based on obviousness. See for example [0]. While what is "obvious" and what is "inventive" can always be debated, I don't see that this language alters the ground on which that debate will play out. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...

Havoc 11y ago

Don't even need to read it - the whole secrecy farce surrounding it guarantees that its content is 100% rubber glove exam.

chx 11y ago

Even The Atlantic which I found one of the better "mass media" sources rejoices for TPP and lists none of the criticism. I am much afraid all this doesn't reach the masses.