As an IP lawyer, I'd like to say that reading this draft document is super boring. The parts that I skimmed (less than 10%) was all just harmless procedural rules. Can someone point out or quote the controversial parts? Here's the skeleton ToC and a few highlights:
- Article QQ.E.2387: {Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources}
F: Industrial Designs
G: Copyright
- [basically Fair Use:] - Article QQ.G.Y: {Limitations and Exceptions} - "Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions... including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes..."
1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 and 3, 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.
which appears to mean software patents in the EU; and mathematical patents in the US (because MX specifically try to exclude that below)
Also this:
[CL/NZ/PE/MY/BN/VN/CA/MX oppose: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, including Article QQ.G.8 (Berne 18/TRIPS 14.6),] a Party shall not be
required to restore protection to subject matter than on the date of entry into force of this Agreement has fallen into the public domain in its territory.
So the Govt's of CL/NZ/PE/MY/BN/VN/CA/MX appear to want to reprotect parts of the public domain?
The most controversial part of this for me is this:
[NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/MY/SG/CA4/MX5 propose; US/JP oppose: The objectives of this Chapter are:
Who are these parties and why are they negotiating this in secret, away from the public eye. If it is just mundane boilerplate (not finished reading yet) then I have to say that the most surprising thing of all is that we are being governed by copy/paste. I don't think that is the case here.
New Zealand / Chile / Peru / Vietnam / Brunei / Malaysia / Singapore / Canada / Mexico propose; United States / Japan oppose.
International agreements are always negotiated privately before being submitted to legislatures for public comment and ratification.
Domestic laws are done the same way. The terms of any major bill before the U.S. Congress, for instance, are first negotiated in private among a smaller group of legislators before being introduced for public debate and amendment.
Business deals are usually done the same way. Two companies considering a merger negotiate the terms in private first, then present the deal to their boards/shareholders for approval.
While that is true, it does not mean that this is right.
Do note that domestic laws are actually brought up for discussion, and (at least in democratic countries), often have non trivial changes applied, some items dropped altogether, etc.
Similarly, a merger is brought to a vote/discussion, and the terms often change during this discussion - e.g., shareholders want more cash / more equity, and stuff like that.
Agreements like the TPP are take-it-or-leave-it, meaning there's basically no discussion except by the unelected negotiators - which, especially in WIPO related issues, seem to have their past and future employers' interest in mind more than they represent their public.
>> International agreements are always negotiated privately before being submitted to legislatures for public comment and ratification.
The whole problem with that is the folks doing the negotiating do not represent the public and they are in effect agreeing to have laws passed. One group is negotiating to have a second group pass laws, who are supposed to represent a third group - the people. I suppose they think bringing it to congress for a vote makes it all OK, but where was the real debate?
The negotiators are official representatives of these national governments. So, they represent their citizens to the extent that any government staff person does so in each respective country. For the U.S., negotiations are led by the U.S. Trade Representative, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
The best interests of the people being impacted are not being protected. Citizens are being excluded from a process that is supposed to be democratic. It is corrupt.
Patenting any genes, or just natural ones? What about novel applications of existing genes?
I probably don't have a big problem with someone creating an artificial gene and then patenting its use, and I'm not sure I have a problem with someone patenting a random jellyfish gene for fluorescence for use in making glow-in-the-dark corn, or for patenting the use of an apparently useless gene for some discovered utility in another species.
I would have a problem with someone patenting a gene with an existing "use" for that specific use. That is, I don't think someone should be able to patent the use of a "blue eyes gene" for the purpose of giving someone blue eyes. There's no invention there.
On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, why not incentivise the discovery of genes that confer some benefit? The long-run benefit of those discoveries would no doubt outweigh any short-term monopoly costs, and research (both statistically and into applications) would definitely result.
Any, to be honest. I understand that this might greatly reduce the interest in gene discovery but I think putting a legal constraint on something that is then released into the wild and self-propagated can only lead to problems.
It's a somewhat unreasonable stance I admit but I feel the problems caused would outweigh the supposed benefits.
I'm also starting to be against patents in general so it may be a more general shift in my attitude.
You can't patent natural genes for their natural uses. The controversial thing is patenting the process of using particular gene sequences in order to diagnose particular conditions.
Are you sure about that? I might be wrong, but IIRC, Monsanto's RoundUp-Ready Corn was said to be only transgenetically modified (i.e. the Genetically Modified part of the corn came from another organism's genes), but was patent-protected.
This should be extremely controversial. The anti-circumvention language in existing treaties have been a monumental failure, being used more to cement monopolies than prevent copyright infringement (for which it has been wholly ineffective). New treaties should have the goal of removing the existing requirements for such legislation rather than applying them to more countries.
You also missed the extra intellectual property rights for pharmaceuticals in Addendum II. Those are controversial, and in the previous draft, were in the main document. Now they've been moved down to an addendum and are different for different countries.
There's also *
[US/JP propose; CL/MY/PE/SG/VN/BN/AU/NZ/CA/MX oppose: 2bis. 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 a gimme for Big Pharma's "me too" drugs, where it's no better, but slightly different. Clarinex is an example.
It's secret because it would be monumentally ineffective to negotiate a trade agreement in the open. Ratification or rejection, once negotiation completes, should be done in the open, but not the negotiation itself.
The reason is simple: the parties in a trade negotiation generally cannot get everything they want. They have to concede on some points in order to get what they want on other points. Over the course of negotiation, when a party is offering to conceded and what they are standing firm on changes.
You might have a party asking for, say, terms favorable to their automobile manufacturers but to get those they have to allow terms that are unfavorable to their clothing manufactures. As negotiations progress, they may be able to give up the automobile terms to get back the clothing terms and pick up things in agriculture and entertainment.
If all this were open, every one of those changes would be met with intense lobbying and political pressure domestically. The President, every Senator and Representative, every Governor, and probably the mayors of every major city, would be putting pressure on the negotiators to try to favor their biggest backers. The negotiators would be constantly being called to testify at hearings over each iteration. It would be a mess.
Is eff only for US? Seems the form from the link you provided is only for sending messages to US politicians.. would be nice if all countries involved had a form like this.
For direct political lobbying yes. Some of their issues are transnational (like when they put pressure on companies), and they criticize governments worldwide. But when they directly lobby politicians it's typically only the American ones. It can get legally tricky to do otherwise, because many countries have laws restricting foreign organizations from becoming directly involved in elections/campaigning.
> Although there have been a couple of additional rounds of talks since this text, little has changed in them and it is clear that the negotiations are stalling and that the issues raised in this document will be very much on the table in Australia this month.
> some controversial and damaging areas have had little change; issues surrounding digital rights have moved little. However, there are significant industry-favouring additions within the areas of pharmaceuticals and patents. These additions are likely to affect access to important medicines such as cancer drugs and will also weaken the requirements needed to patent genes in plants, which will impact small farmers and boost the dominance of large agricultural corporations like Monsanto.
> some areas that were highlighted after WikiLeaks' last IP Chapter release have seen alterations that reflect the controversy; surgical method patents have been removed from the text. Doctors' groups said this was vitally important for allowing doctors to engage in medical procedures without fear of a lawsuit for providing the best care for their patients. Opposition is increasing to remove the provision proposed by the US and Japan that would require granting of patents for new drugs that are slightly altered from a previous patented one (evergreening), a technique by the pharmaceutical industry to prolong market monopoly.
hint for non lawyers-------if you want to understand a document or a legal set of rules-----skip ALL THE BULLSHIT FIRST---------go straight to that part of the document which describes the 'default' or 'termination' and those rules pertaining to 'recourse' 'punishmnet' and 'jurisdiction' .
knowing what defines the actual breakage of the agreement, or when something breaks, ---what happens.
then you can go back and read all the boring crap that your laywer might need to know at some point after you did whatever you wanted to do.
“But, WILL INDIA & CHINA SUPPORT PUTIN (BRICS); The WHITE KNIGHT”?
TPP, CETA, C-CIT SHAREHOLDERS & NON Shareholders AWAIT
SUPREME COURT of CANADA'S, et al FINDINGS, et al to PROCEED.
It will be good for, not only the NON shareholders of the enterprises that will be generated by the on-going global "cooperation" of corporate treaties, agreements, partnerships, et al, including the China - Canada Investment Treaty, The Trans Pacific Partnership, the EU - Canada CETA,
but,
for the potential shareholders, as well,
who are quite interested to know if President Xi Jinping (China) will support Russia as a co-member of B.R.I.C.S. when President Putin uses his potential role as "The White Knight".
And, while President Putin's potential support as “The WHITE KNIGHT” in the development of the CETAgreement, et al, litigation below can dramatically off-set the hundreds of billions of dollars due to the present & future sanctions leveled by American led, et al, corporations & financial institutions via their governments' signing their global corporate economic treaties/”arrangements”,
and the potential for making trillions of dollars for the Russian economy over the next 30 - 40 years & beyond,
are the citizens (SHAREHOLDERS & NON shareholders) of Germany & JAPAN just being prudent in wanting to wait for the outcome of:
1) the submission to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA & the highest court in Germany, et al, to make their findings regarding “The Submission”:
"The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, et al
v
the harmless Canadian NON shareholders, et al"?
and
2) "The MERKEL Lette; To Sue, or, Be Sued”?
(see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com )
Have the federal representatives of the nations that are the potential signatories of CETA, TPP, et al, willingly provided the NON shareholders of China, Canada, Europe, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, with the aforementioned information? Are the federal representatives, et al, depriving the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, of the due diligence information that enables the family of the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, to make informed decisions regarding their financial planning?
And, would a reasonable person conclude by a preponderance of the evidence, &/or, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these documents, et al, demonstrate that the SHAREHOLDERS of AMERICA, CANADA , the EU & Trans Pacific nations, et al, really do not care which NON shareholders pay them the punitive penalties, etc., by way of their secret (“Death-Star Chamber”) TRIBUNALS, as long as its not the SHAREHOLDERS who pay & not their corporations regardless of which country the corporations:
1) operating from,
2) maintain their headquarters,
3) use to do their cyber banking, accounting, "taxation", etc.
&
4) et al?
And, re; the CHINA – Canada Investment Treaty, is it understandable why the “coveted” Hong Kong investor & his associates are “concerned” with the aforementioned findings of The SUPREME COURT of CANADA, et al, & the effects of the findings, et al, on the EU, AMERICA, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, treaties with CHINA, et al?
In regard to arms sales; how about the sale of arms (non nuclear) in general in regard to the "trade" treaties that are continuing to be secretly negotiated and how will the Tribunals, both; B.R.I.C.S. & non BRICS, adjudicate, decide & penalize the NON SHAREHOLDERS for the sale of legitimate, semi- legitimate & "illegal" sales of arms within the signatories nations & the those of others, &/or, unaligned? Of particular, interest is China, which does have an treaty with Canada, which puts China "at odds" with other arms manufacturing & nuclear powers that it (China) does not have any "arrangements" with.
Are these types of questions that your politicians & the corporate lobbyists calls "forget-me-nots" ("Buyer Beware") that will be (maybe) worked out after the fast tracked signatures are obtained?
On the other hand, it may be worth repeating yet again,
"What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st".
David E.H. Smith
- Researcher
- “Qui tam..."
For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics by way of the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement,
TPP, et al, and The WAD Accord
& List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
A: General Provisions [seems boring]
B: Cooperation [seems boring]
C: Trademarks
D: Geographical Indications
E: Patents [including genetic stuff - probably controversial]
- Article QQ.E.2387: {Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources}
F: Industrial Designs
G: Copyright
- [basically Fair Use:] - Article QQ.G.Y: {Limitations and Exceptions} - "Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions... including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes..."
- [DRM stuff:] - Article QQ.G.10: {Technological Protection Measures}
H: Enforcement