All of the copyright advisors to the admin on the TPP are from the industry. ALL of them.

[cali]

Five key questions – and answers – about the leaked TPP text

Susan Sell is a professor of political science at George Washington University, who has carried out landmark research on international negotiations over intellectual property. Below is her response to five questions about the intellectual property chapter of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which the Obama administration has been negotiating with trading partners behind closed doors. A draft of the chapter was leaked to WikiLeaks two days ago.

The draft TPP text was kept secret from the general public. Who has seen it and why?

The United States Trade Representative and the Obama administration have kept the treaty texts secret from the public. However, they have shared texts with 700 or so “cleared advisers,” all of whom come from intellectual property rights holders’ industries. Members of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights have had access to texts all along. These members include representatives of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Entertainment Software Association, as well as firms such as Gilead Sciences, Johnson and Johnson, Verizon, Cisco Systems, and General Electric.

Select members of Congress have had very limited access to the draft treaty texts. After Thursday’s leak of the intellectual property chapter it is obvious why the USTR and the Obama administration have insisted on secrecy. From this text it appears that the U.S. administration is negotiating for intellectual property provisions that it knows it could not achieve through an open democratic process. For example, it includes provisions similar to those of the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that the European Parliament ultimately rejected. The United States appears to be using the non-transparent Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations as a deliberate end run around Congress on intellectual property, to achieve a presumably unpopular set of policy goals.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/15/five-key-questions-and-answers-about-the-leaked-tpp-text/

There is NO excuse for this. There is NO defense for this.

It's hard to argue that President Obama and this administration are doing anything but the heavy lifting for corporate interests.

And yes, the President and the administration and corporate assholes who are the USTR, deserve the harshest of criticism for selling out the people to benefit corporations. Oh, and fuck Hollywood bigwigs whose "wishlist" the admin is fulfilling.

[cali]

1. This isn't true just of the copyright chapter. It's true of the entire vile thing

virtually all the advisors are from corporate interests.

It's so brazen it's almost unbelievable.

[billhicks76]

71. Change We Can't Believe In

Warren 2016 2014? Lol

[cui bono]

86. More like "Change We Can't See"

[Sunlei]

129. are you a stakeholder and trade under 2005 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement?

stakeholder means you have a company that trades goods.

The 2005 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) is a free trade agreement among Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore. It aims to further liberalise the economies of the Asia-Pacific region.

Since 2010, negotiations have been taking place for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposal for a significantly expanded version of TPSEP. The TPP is a proposed free trade agreement under negotiation by (as of August 2013) Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. From Wikipedia

[cali]

130. so you don't think that the American People at large are stakeholders?

Most experts sure as shit do.

[Sunlei]

136. the way the Gov defines 'stakeholders' no 'the people' are not corp owners or traders.

now if you own stocks in those corps then you are a stakeholder through your stocks board.

[L0oniX]

2. Corporate Democrats need to be expelled from the party.

Corporate Democrat is an oxymoron! Ask FDR.

[cali]

3. if only.

I'm afraid that's not the answer in the short run for stopping this nightmare.

[Sunlei]

131. sounds like you don't want American owned companies to be able to sell and trade /w other countries?

[PETRUS]

135. Oh, really?

US companies already trade with these countries. How does not passing the TPP put a stop to that, exactly?

[Sunlei]

137. they will be shoved out by other countries like Mexico & Canada who will have a trade agreement.

Why would you want American Corps to be able to continue not paying any taxes?

[PETRUS]

139. What the hell are you talking about?

Seriously.

Cali's objections are very specific, as are mine. The problem is THIS process and THIS agreement.

[Progressive dog]

5. FDR created the National Recovery Administration

so he was a corporate Democrat by your definition.

[L0oniX]

8. Wow ...weak coffee this morning?

President Roosevelt described the spirit of the NRA: "On this idea, the first part of the NIRA proposes to our industry a great spontaneous cooperation to put millions of men back in their regular jobs this summer."

Gee ...is that what's going on today?

Oh and "a corporate Democrat by your definition" uhm that was "oxymoron"

[zeemike]

12. For those that don't know history

They should watch this..

[Progressive dog]

18. Where did I mention the CCC,

FDR was a capitalist, he was one of the 1%. He saved capitalism in the USA.

[zeemike]

20. Yes he was one of the one percent.

But no so consumed with greed that he would ignore the needs of the people of his country to protect the one percent and their wealth and power.
No one wants to destroy capitalism, they just want a fair deal...and so did FDR who is now considered a traitor to his class because of it.

[Progressive dog]

26. So, we should wait for the TPP deal

before we pass judgement on it.
I'm trying to think how the TPP ignores the needs of my fellow citizens when it doesn't yet exist.

[cali]

27. what the hay? by that "logic" we should wait to pass judgment

on legislation to cut Social Security.

the TPP is loaded with bad ideas and was crafted, in large part, by corporate interests.

We know more than a little about what is being proposed.

Please explain how this could be anything but ignoring the needs of of our fellow citizens?

<snip>

The United States Trade Representative and the Obama administration have kept the treaty texts secret from the public. However, they have shared texts with 700 or so “cleared advisers,” all of whom come from intellectual property rights holders’ industries. Members of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights have had access to texts all along. These members include representatives of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Entertainment Software Association, as well as firms such as Gilead Sciences, Johnson and Johnson, Verizon, Cisco Systems, and General Electric.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/15/five-key-questions-and-answers-about-the-leaked-tpp-text/

You are employing one of the most intellectually bankrupt arguments ever when you claim that it's not bad because it hasn't been passed yet.

[Progressive dog]

66. We should wait to pass judgement on rumors of

cuts to social security. In order to actually cut them, they need a law. If the law passes, that means that both houses of congress passed it and the President signed it.
Who else would be asked for input on intellectual property if not those owning it. I have a lot bigger problem with the government not negotiating drug prices than I do with the concept (in the Constitution) of protecting intellectual property.

Anyway,There is no bill to not have been passed yet. It is an easy concept, if something is still being negotiated, then it is silly to oppose it.

[MrModerate]

104. Couldn't disagree more . . .

When something becomes legislation, it's usually too late to change, or at least to change without herculean effort — and at the expense of political capital that could be better spent elsewhere.

As to who other than "those owning it" should be asked about how intellectual property laws are written, how about EVERYONE ELSE? The tradition of intellectual property eventually migrating to the public domain is long respected and a really good idea. These guys are trying to hold onto copywrights on material a full century after the author has died. That's flatly nuts.

As to not negotiating drug prices, that too is something that showed up in bills that people didn't pay enough attention to before they were signed, and now the pharmaceutical companies have just about crashed the healthcare system. I think looking at some of those bills before they were passed would have done us a world of good.

[Progressive dog]

110. When something becomes a bill, it

usually has been "marked up" in numerous Congressional committees after extensive hearings. It seems to me that when a Democratic administration is attacked on a Democratic website over something that they haven't proposed to Congress, something that requires the consent of a Democratic controlled-60% needed- Senate, the Democratic party and what it stands for is losing.
The negotiating of drug prices is a perfect example of changes proposed by the Democratic administration that died in the Congress. In the ACA, it was given up in negotiations with the drug companies. The ACA does require the drug companies to provide a 50% discount to medicare recipients in the doughnut hole. No one failed to look at it before they signed it, when you "negotiate", you don't get everything you want.

[zeemike]

29. Well it was you than changed the conversation from TPP to NRA

And compared it, not me.
I was disputing that...it is not at all like TPP not even close...and it was not kept secret from the public.
And now you are trying to like me to the centrist defense of it?
Talk about running people around in circles...

[Progressive dog]

62. No I did not, you should read what I replied to

Since all the posts are clearly visible, you should do a little review.
Anyway,TPP does not exist, so it has not been kept secret.

[rhett o rick]

30. I wish I could draw. I see a gun pointed at the head of the middle class and conservatives

saying, "Just wait. How do you know the bullet will kill you?"

[cali]

31. +1

[Progressive dog]

63. Sounds like seeing people drowning at the beach when

they haven't gone in the water yet.
The TPP does not exist, it may never exist. The President cannot make his own laws. His negotiators have even less authority.

[cali]

64. ridiculous. The TPP most certainly does exist.

absolutely unbelievable that anyone would claim it doesn't exist.

The TPP hasn't been ratified yet. It hasn't been voted on, but to declare that it doesn't exist is absurd.

[Progressive dog]

67. No it doesn't, negotiations are taking place,

there is no TPP until negotiations are finished. Then it has to become law.
It does not exist until it is in final form.

[rhett o rick]

85. You are trying desperately to change the argument to whether the TPP technically "exists" until

it's finalized. That's not the argument. When the TPP is finalized there is no logical reason to believe that it wont be damaging to the 99%. If there is such an argument, let us hear it.

We need to work to prevent it from ever becoming finalized.

Plez explain why you care that we are concerned.

[tomp]

116. and there was no iraq war until congress voted authorization?

i get the "dog" part, but the "progressive" part, not so much.

[Progressive dog]

119. Childish name calling always

makes me want to listen to the child.
The Congress did vote authorization for the Iraq war on October 16, 2002. The war began in March of 2003. So, to spell it out, there was no Iraq war until congress voted authorization. You might want to look stuff up before changing the subject to your area of expertise.

[cali]

122. that there was going to be a war was clear to anyone paying attention

and nothing is more startlingly childlike than your "arguments" in this thread.

[Progressive dog]

138. Do you ever read more than a sentence before replying,

or care what my post was in reply to before posting your wisdom.
Let me explain, the previous poster implied that the Congress had not authorized the Iraq war to make a point. Then he wanted to make his ignorance an excuse for claiming that I was not a progressive. There are no Progressive facts, there are just facts.
Why don't you just admit that the poster was wrong about the Iraq war resolution and move on.

[tomp]

146. late response but for the record.

it is you who should brush up on your reading comprehension.

my statement was clear: the run up to the war (or whatever else is under discussion) is important and has to be addressed PREVENTATIVELY. to argue otherwise is absurd, though that seems to be your forte.

p.s.: your screen name is offensive.

[Progressive dog]

147. For the record LOL

[rhett o rick]

76. No it's like people on the beach looking at a giant tsunami and you telling them not to worry

because it doesnt exist.

It does exist, they havent spent years working on it to not exist. It is just not in final form, but it's there. We may be able to stop it, but it's there.

The argument that it doesnt exist is wrong. Now maybe you want to argue that in its final form it wont cause us harm. I say crap because those working on it are not looking out for anyone but themselves.

Why are you trying to squelch concerns about the TPP?

[GoneFishin]

84. Or "maybe it's one of those fake guns with the funny flags that says BANG, let's at least wait

until they pull the trigger before we go running around with our hair on fire".

[cui bono]

88. OMFG... you can't possibly be serious.

I cna't believe how many people say that on here.

What else in life do you apply that to? Do you not think about consequences of any of your decisions before you make them?

Jesus fucking christ, that is one of the stupidest things people on here say, especially about something this importat. Have you not read even one thing about what will happen if this takes effect?

IF WE WAIT UNTIL IT HAPPENS IT WILL BE TOO FUCKING LATE. HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?????!!!!

I remember when this place was filled with people smarter than I. It's hard to read some of the posts here now.

Go ahead, hide this post, I don't care, this needs to be said.

Btw.... why do you have "Progressive" in your name? Must be to try to convince people you really are progressive. No really, see? It's in the name it must be so!

[dflprincess]

97. Yes, let's wait unti the damage is done - I'm sure it will get "fixed later"

as we've heard so many times before.

[Progressive dog]

112. Which part of a bill becoming law are

you not familiar with?

[dflprincess]

143. I might ask you the same question

as you're the one who apparently thinks it's foolish to protest bad legislation until after it has passed and become law.

[Progressive dog]

145. It is foolish until there is a bill or

at least a bill being written.

[whathehell]

72. Yes, and I would add just one more thing: He was called a "traitor to his class" in his own time.

In 2009 historians rated him the Third Greatest President (some said 'second') in American history,

following ONLY Washington and Lincoln.

[L0oniX]

79. "They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." - FDR

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html

"For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

- Got to love that.

[whathehell]

93. Damn..

We so need someone like him now.

May his memory never die.

[fasttense]

108. No one wants to destroy capitalism?????

Yes, I do want to destroy capitalism. It is the leftover swill of feudalism and slavery and was modeled after those 2 systems.

It offered more freedoms to the poor but it left intact the kingly powers of feudalism in the boss and the destructive powers of slave masters in the CEOs, boards of directors and shareholders. It should have been shed years ago. Humanity should have evolved away from it by now.

The TPP is merely the Enabling Act for total corporate Rule. It will solidify the royal powers of bosses and the death and life grip of corporate boardrooms.

The TPP will allow the dinosaur of capitalism to continue to trample the masses while a few greedy psychopaths, ride it's back.

[tomp]

115. +1. thank you. said before I could. nt

[rhett o rick]

33. He did not "save capitalism". He modified it with socialistic programs

to make a balance that worked. Hitler "saved capitalism" in Germany.

[Progressive dog]

59. Roosevelt saved capitalism, the USA is not socialist

the USSR was socialist and China used to be socialist. Our economic system is capitalism, FDR saved it by regulating it. It is capitalism. Since the Nazi's controlled all aspects of production, Hitler did not save "capitalism" in Germany. Socialist programs like universal health care and old age pensions existed before Hitler and continued under Hitler.
Don't confuse Nazi-ism with capitalism or socialism, it was neither.

[cali]

61. He both saved it and modified it by adding SOCIALIST style programs.

your name is funny as hell.

Do you seriously consider yourself a progressive? You certainly don't appear to be an economic progressive. You appear to support a corporate agenda.

I suppose you confuse being socially liberal as being progressive. It's only a piece of it.

[rhett o rick]

82. Capitalism does not include social programs. FDR modified capitalism into a

capitalistic/socialistic system that worked until undone by the corporatists.

[BuelahWitch]

13. Yep, exactly

Looks like the person you replied to wants to re-write history. Anything to discredit our greatest Democratic president.

[L0oniX]

80. The enemies of Democracy are embedded here.

[Progressive dog]

16. It used corporate input to set prices (higher)

and also set production. Kind of like one of those monopoly things.
Gee, how is what's going on today different. Oh, I get it, FDR actually implemented the NRA and the TPP is still under discussion.

[cali]

17. What the heck does the NRA have to do with the TPP???

The TPP is a monstrosity and that we know for certain. The under discussion nonsense is just that. The evidence that the TPP is a corporate creation is overwhelming and much of that evidence has been posted here.

You can't actually defend it so you resort to this weak sauce.

[Progressive dog]

22. Well, the post I replied to had nothing to do with the TPP,

except in the posters imagination.
The TPP does not exist so it can't be a monstrosity.
The copyright stuff and patent stuff can be done separately by each country. The US already has pretty tough laws and we are paying higher prices because of them.

[cali]

28. Legislation that cuts social security hasn't been passed so

it's not a monstrosity.

what a ridiculous argument. It's embarrassing to see anyone post such nonsense.

[rhett o rick]

35. So help me understand why someone would use such a ridiculous argument.

He cant support the TPP if, by his own logic, doesnt exist. So why so adamant to get others to "not worry"? I am asking as a serious question. I have only one idea but want to see what you think first.

[cali]

42. blind partisanship and devotion to the President is all I can come up with, rhett

What's your idea?

I find it shocking that so many DUers are defending this.

I'm disgusted that anyone who claims to be a liberal would do so.

[rhett o rick]

49. Blind devotion and/or a strong belief in corporatism (maybe even fascism).

What upsets me, to a fault, is that they are not here to argue a side. They can not provide anything meaningful so they usually resort to the "you must be a racist" attacks or in this case, "Trust your President."

[cali]

51. I honestly don't think that these DUers have a strong belief in corporatism

they simply support the President no matter what. It's dangerous.

[rhett o rick]

53. I think you are correct. A lot of our society is centered around authoritarianism.

Family life, schools, religions, Boy Scouts, etc. It's a rare thing to find an authoritarian figure that teaches opened mindedness unless you get to college and even then you can find authoritarianism. There seems to be a need by many to find a leader and then give them blind faith.

[cui bono]

89. It's a talking point for sure. Definitely got a memo for this one, it's used by many on here.

"It doesn't exist yet so how can you be against it." "You can't be against something that doesn't exist."

I've asked the question, how can they be for it then? And it's always let's wait and see what's in it before we criticize. Who do they think that flies with? Not any thinking person.

And the plan is there, the idea is there. It's written down somewhere. So the guts do, in fact exist. It simply hasn't been legislated/implemented yet which is something completely different.

By their logic, one can say the ACA doesn't exist yet since it goes into effect in January 2014, which isn't here yet.

I just went postal on this poster but I don't care. It's the stupidest argument ever and shouldn't be used on a political board because if everyone followed that logic there would be zero activists. ZERO.

[rhett o rick]

133. It just doesnt make sense to me. He/they provide no argument and try the logic

that it doesnt exist, which has to be embarrassing because it clearly exists except by their idiotic definition. It's like saying not to worry about the hurricane until it makes landfall because it doesnt exist until then. And their logic fails also because they are essentially defending the president's involvement in something that, by their definition, does not exist.

Above I concluded that the intent was to completely support Pres Obama no matter what. But I've changed my mind. Even someone that blindly follows the President has to be smarter than to use "it doesnt exist" as an argument. Seriously. I believe it's just a disruption tactic.

[RosettaStoned77]

106. Napster?

Maybe he's Dr.Dre or one of those Metallica guys! Either way, BIG fan here. I downloaded all your albums.

[Divernan]

107. Absoutely embarassing - and questionable

Have we seen this before? An individual bound and determined to make as many posts as possible with as many words as possible, no matter how illogical and unfounded. Somewhere in the funky neighborhood of Fremont in Seattle, a bridge is missing it's you-know-what.

[FiveGoodMen]

7. The top corporate Dem is currently in the White House

And the next one is the favorite to run for 2016.

[Enthusiast]

109. The next one is the only one

the corporate overlords find acceptable. All the other contenders will be denigrated by the corporate media until they are perceived to be "too liberal".

[bemildred]

4. That's how our government works these days. Bought and paid for with obscene profits. nt

[cali]

6. I know lots of people here don't want to acknowledge that

or that the TPP is largely a huge gift to those interests that supported the President- and Hollywood is at the top of that list.

[jsr]

94. No truer words

[Corruption Inc]

102. They'll all be here tomorrow reccing the distraction du jour kitty cat pictures

and insulting everyone who dares speak the truth as you just did.

Rec'd.

[cali]

114. yep. I know.

and I'll still be posting about the TPP.

Thanks

[daleanime]

9. K&R....

[Mnemosyne]

10. K&R for more visibility. nt

[krispos42]

11. K&R n/t

[840high]

14. sadly k/r

[gtar100]

15. Is the new thinking that nation states are so old school

and the cool kids are for corporate states? Like it's society's next evolutionary step? To me it seems that democracy is their true enemy. We're falling back into a new form of kings and queens, emperors and such except the new titles are CEO or president of this or that corporation. Human greed isn't satisfied with just having the most, it also desires complete power like a god. They will not be satisfied until we worship them.

Nothing new here. But what stands in the way is democracy. And this nasty concept that "all men are created equal".

[lonestarnot]

23. K & R!

[aggiesal]

19. Welcome to fascism. n/t

[rhett o rick]

37. Global fascism. nm

[KoKo]

78. Truly it's Global Fascism..if you read the financial news how we are

tethered into "Austerity" in the European Union as well as here in the USA...because of the F**ing BANKERS and Wall Street then one can Connect the Dots. It's not just the TPP but the TPIE that is the deal with the EU to also have the Conglomerates take over tying into the TPPP. So it will be a GLOBAL ECONOMY ruled by "Councils" who are "Panels of Judges" who decide in Secret when a country has a grievance with another country they no longer have sovereinty over their own population but to some damned Global Council (Secret Star Chamber) who will decide their fate.

They are not going to give up on this. It started with GAT, WTO,Nafta and has been in the works for a long while.

We have to keep on this. Monsanto and Nestle and the rest of the Global Giants will be deciding for the whole world.

I'm sorry to sound like I'm raving here...but, I'm tired and don't have time to make this post sound more "nuanced." Nobody reads much here on DU anymore...so one is forced to make statements that are short and sound inflammatory...yet are the TRUTH...from those of us who read diversified media which requires time and searching that most of us working folks have little ability to do these days because they are under Attack and so have to deal with their own homelife when they have a few moments of working either multiple jobs or a job that's in jeopardy.

Sorry... Just had to vent. And my spelling and typo's are there.....I think I even got the new European/American Trade acronym wrong...but, whatever. I'm tired.

[rhett o rick]

83. Please dont apologize for venting.

[woo me with science]

91. [phone]

Thank you, KoKo, for saying it.

[ReRe]

87. By gosh, I think you've got it!

The TPP is a coup, any way you look at it, but I never thought of it as a turn to fascism. I think that may be exactly what is so repulsive about it all. It's the "on" switch to fascism.

[sendero]

21. Most of the regulation and legislation..

... enacted by congress is in fact written by the industry it applies to. This is nothing new. Our government is completely run from top to bottom by corporate interests.

I'm a bit surprised this isn't known by everyone - they don't really try to hide it and it is not remotely new.

[cali]

24. Much of it is, but by no means all of it

this really does take it to a new level and the proof of that is the end run around the defeat of SOPA

[annabanana]

25. Much like consulting with insurance companies on the issue of health care.... n/t

[polichick]

55. Yes, and big pharma too. "Our" gov't is no more.

[jsr]

117. Bingo!

[treestar]

32. So who should do the advising?

Name the panel that should do the advising.

[cali]

34. Seriously? Sure. Public advocacy groups and experts on the issue like Sell

should be in the mix.

Unbelievable that you think that corporations being the only advisors is just fine and dandy.

VERY Disturbing that anyone could claim that. And that's just what you're doing here.

[treestar]

40. Where did dI say that?

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I would just like to know who else should be able to advise.

[cali]

45. why would you even ask that question?

The answer is beyond obvious.

[rhett o rick]

101. Because it's easy to ask questions but much harder to actually make a stand. nm

[rhett o rick]

46. Is seems like people trying to figure out where you stand often ends up with them guessing

(putting words in you mouth) where you stand. That's easily remedied if you were to state your positions.

So here your chance to clear up your stance on the TPP. How do you feel about the TPP?

[cui bono]

92. *crickets*

[Oilwellian]

98. *toads*

[rhett o rick]

41. So are you ok that there isnt anyone defending the rights of the 99%? I can think

of lots of groups that should be represented.

[ThoughtCriminal]

43. How about some non-industry representatives?

Consumer advocates, privacy advocates (ie IFF), union representation?

But mostly, how about a little more transparency?

[TheKentuckian]

50. If you believe the corporations are the only voices that matter, how is your argument

not the same as the Libertarian one with the addition of a hood ornament middle man to rubber stamp their whims?

[cali]

57. colorfully stated. The question posed by that poster reveals

a lot.

[marmar]

128. Are you serious?

[KoKo]

36. Cali--Did you catch this debate between Bill Watson (Cato) and Lori Wallach (Public Citizen)?

(I thought it was pretty good about the Copyright Laws in addition to this latest info in your post)

DEBATE on TPP: between Bill Watson-Cato Institute & Lori Wallach, Public Citizen-Global Trade WatchTPP Exposed: WikiLeaks Publishes Secret Trade Text to Rewrite Copyright Laws, Limit Internet Freedom


http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/14/tpp_exposed_wikileaks_publishes_secret_trade

[cali]

38. Yes, thanks, KoKo. Lori Wallach is a hero.

[rhett o rick]

39. I see a number of hero's stepping forward. We may make a fight out of this. nm

[rucky]

44. Did anybody read the Wikileak of that section?

I tried. If anybody could translate the beefy stuff into plain English...TIA

[cali]

47. yes. I read it, but I too had to go to other sources for more info and clarification

EFF has extensive info on this

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/tpp-leak-confirms-worst-us-negotiators-still-trying-trade-away-internet-freedoms

[rucky]

52. Thanks!

[Cleita]

48. Considering that all the crafters of the ACA were all insurance insiders and other

for profit medical interests and all the other experts locked out, I'm not surprised that this is the case for this anti-populist legislation. By anti-populist I mean legislation that favors special interests and at least does nothing for the population at large, and at most is detrimental to it.

[fadedrose]

54. Which unions are in favor?

[cali]

56. I don't think any unions have come out in support. Many have come out in opposition

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=Politics&oq=Politics&gs_l=news-cc.12..43j0l4j0i5l6j43i53.2555.5799.0.7354.12.10.1.1.1.0.239.931.8j1j1.10.0...0.0...1ac.1.5IxtGQS9g6k#authuser=0&gl=us&hl=en&q=Labor+Union+support+TPP

[fadedrose]

74. Good ole Yahoo

Yahoo always does best for me. Found many links there, two links on it with wonderful informatin (excerpts below). I am learning a lot that I don't like knowing. If anyone wants to brush up on it who knows as little as I do, I recommend:

http://www.cwa-union.org/issues/entry/c/trans-pacific_free_trade_agreement

The TPP is much more than a “free-trade” agreement. It is part of the overall corporate and Wall Street agenda to make the world safe for corporate investment and profits by reducing labor costs and undercutting workers’ rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health and financial laws and regulations that could impact profits; and setting up a process to resolve any disputes by going through special international tribunals rather than our own court system.(*)

http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP

The AFL-CIO has provided the administration with ideas about how to improve the U.S. trade positions so they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle; the global corporate agenda has infused trade policy with its demands for deregulation, privatization, tax breaks and other financial advantages for Big Business while shrinking the social safety net in the name of “labor flexibility.”

[pa28]

58. K&R Nice work staying on this story. n/t

[cali]

60. thanks. Clearly some here don't appreciate it, but it's nice to hear from those who do-

like you!

[MisterP]

65. 2018: "the only people I know against ObamaTrades are the 'Baggers who want NAFTA back"

[Progressive dog]

68. One key question about the article.

The article claims "be using the non-transparent Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations as a deliberate end run around Congress on intellectual property, to achieve a presumably unpopular set of policy goals."
I would like to know how it can be an end run around Congress if Congress has to pass it into law, presumably after it is no longer a draft (they might even want a bill first). They can hold hearings and are supposed to debate bills before voting on them. The problem is this, there is no TPP to debate in Congress.

[cali]

75. because there is no debate. you said it.

[WinkyDink]

69. Thank goodness the Admin has the ACA SNAFU to grab public attention, no?

[ctsnowman]

70. K & R

[Lodestar]

73. Corporations write the policies and also play the role of executive editors within our

government. There IS NO REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT anymore unless you include the caveat that they represent
the elite and corporate Americans to the exclusion of everyone else.

[reACTIONary]

77. So what is the problem with...

... stopping on-line piracy, protecting intellectual property and impeding the counterfeiting of trade marked goods?

[cali]

81. read all the links and you'll understand

http://www.citizen.org/tpp

[reACTIONary]

95. This is a very tendentious site...

... that expresses a lot of summary negative judgment without any explanation or analysis... and nothing about what the positive affects might be.

For instance, there is the provision listed that would require countries to provide patent protection for new surgical techniques, and to respect such patents issued in other countries. This is just stated as if it were a self evident truth that this would be bad and against the public interest. American physicians, however, already can patent their procedures under American law, so this is nothing new. Being able to extend that protection to other countries seems like a win for American doctors.

Being able to patent such procedures is in the public interest. If a physician does come up with an innovative procedure, and there is no patent protection, keeping it as a trade secrete is in her best interest. Patent protection, however, requires public disclosure - it becomes public knowledge. Its also possible for her to license use of the procedure, which then can become wide spread - something that doesn't happen with trade secretes. Then, when the patent expires, everyone already knows the procedure, and there are already experienced practitioners who have been making regular use of it.

[eridani]

96. Bullshit. Jonas Salk gave away his vaccine

Academic researchers essentially give away their results. Why would anyone with technical gifts be more interested in speinding time blocking access to his or her results than in going on to the next groundbreaking project?

[reACTIONary]

100. Salk didn't patten his vacine...

... but many others, my guess is most others, do. And the reason they are working away developing new vaccines is, to a great extent, the fact that it is profitable to do so. That is how they earn their living.

It is true that academics who are involved in basic, fundamental research don't patent their results, and, actually, they can't, because fundamental facts can't be patented. They do, however, copyright their research reports (if allowed by law, and it generally is) and particularly their text books.

I work for a university research department (a university well known for medical advances) and we have patent lawyers on staff and intellectual disclosure policies to protect and develop our intellectual property. And a department that focuses on commercial development and technical transfer.

Why would anyone be interested in doing all that? Because we stand to profit by it - it's part of our motivation - and it is only fair that those who spend their time and creative energy advancing our knowledge and capabilities be rewarded for their efforts.

[eridani]

103. Solid government funding for continued research was all scientists needed in the 50s and 60s

This patent bullshit is an inadequate attempt to compensate for not treating scientific research as a public good.

[reACTIONary]

126. We certainly do need solid government funding of research. And I support it. But...

... there is a distinction between fundamental scientific research, that is pure science, and "applied research and development" which tends more towards economic development and applies, rather than originates, much of the research.

Fundamental scientific research, while having very important economic consequences, is not driven by immediate economic concerns, needs or potential. It has never been possible to paten fundamental research, so there has never been a direct economic motivation of that sort to engage in it, either now or in the past. Fundamental research has always been a government supported activity, since the early origins of science (e.g., the Royal Society). The nature of fundamental research makes it unlikely to be funded through market mechanisms and makes it feasible to fund through non-market mechanisms. Since it has great, but non-specific, potential, it makes sense to treat it as a public good and fund it as part of the general welfare.

Applied R&D and engineering, however, is a different game with different motivations. The purpose is to apply scientific research in order to solve more or less immediate economic concerns and to improve the quality of life in the hear-and-now, not in the distant and unforeseeable future. Like any economic activity a large part of the motivation is the profit motive. And this helps to direct and shape R&D towards the actual concerns and problems that people are facing in real life - because addressing those concerns in an effective manner is how you earn a profit. The application of research and economic development have, since the beginning of our country, been motivated and protected by patent law - even in the 50's and 60's.

Especially in the 50's and 60's - take the invention of the transistor, patented in 1948, as an example.

Patents and the profit motive is very important to the activity of translating fundamental scientific research and principles into useful and practical applications that enhance the quality of life. I support both funding of fundamental research as a public good and support for scientists, engineers and inventors through patent protection. I support patent protection because:

* It's simply fair. People who spend time, effort and creative energy finding new ways to improve the quality of life deserve to be rewarded for their accomplishments and giving them a (limited) property right in their creations is an appropriate way to ensure they are.

* As an economic activity, applied research, development and engineering benefits from an economic motive. The profit motive, enhanced by patent protection, helps to direct this activity towards real world problems, solutions and improvements that make a difference in people's lives.

* Patents encourage, in fact require, public disclosure of new and useful inventions and improvement. Without patents the only way to differentially profit by a new discovery is to keep it a secret and prevent others from finding out about it. Patents require public disclosure in exchange for time-limited protection, which quickly and efficiently moves new discoveries and inventions into the public realm. It discourages secrecy and encourages wide-spread adoption through licensing before expiration and makes the discovery public property after expiration.

[eridani]

141. Google "Bell Labs" and read the sad story of their downsizing since their glory days--

--which just happened to coincide with maximum funding from the government. Can we get back to TPP? Patenting surgical techniques? Patent life extending 100 fucking YEARS beyond the death of the inventor? (Fuck grandchildren--being a member of the lucky sperm/ovum club adds nothing to the public good.)

You are arguing that patent protection is a public good, which is not a matter of dispute at all. TPP takes the notion and perverts it to establishing a corporate dictatorship over all innovation. Even now, engineers working for a company sign over all their patent rights to their employers as a condition of employment. If TPP had been in effect during WW II, the entire programming industry would have been shut down before it started. Even now programmers can be sued for writing subroutines similar to those in patented software. This is hard to avoid because programming protocol dictates few options for best practices. If two programmers think of the same subroutine for this reason, they should be able to sue each other? Bullshit sez I.

[reACTIONary]

142. You are arguing that patent protection is a public good...

.... which is not a matter of dispute at all.

I'm glad we agree. Unfortunately, there is a growing movement that is hostile to intellectual property rights in principle and wants to do away with them altogether and I'm on the defensive about it.

I think your post contains some good points - for instance, the limited duration of a patent is essential for the privilege to serve the public good, and 100 years way too long. I would be glad to continue discussing this with you if you would be open to hearing my opinion about some of the topics you raise... but right now I've got to get to bed! G'nite!

[eridani]

144. The hostility is to the unnecessary EXPANSION of intellectual property rights--

--and tightening of corporate control. If employees have to sign over any patent rights to their employers before they even make practical application discoveries, how then do the people who actually do the work of discovery benefit?

[Conium]

90. American Corporations vs. Foreign Corporations

Why should foreign corporations be allowed to steal from American corporations, then undercut them?

It is true that many life-saving drugs are overpriced because of the the existing patent system. Changes are overdue.

I support and trust President Obama. He is much smarter than many people want to believe. Save the pitchforks, tar, and feathers for the ones who deserve it (i.e. Boehner's boys).

[Enthusiast]

111. Why, I believe I will adopt your viewpoint right now.

You have shown me the light. The true path!

[fasttense]

113. Obama is smart but NOT infallible.

And he needed lost of money to become president so he took it from the only people who have lots of money - the corporate rulers.

So, he has made a very bad decision with the TPP.

The TPP clearly states (and their are no plans to change this portion of it) that it does NOT address American corporations any differently than Chinese corporations. But it does Make corporations kings and slave masters over our entire economic system. And if you control a person's means of obtaining necessities, you control the person.

[Laelth]

120. My hope remains that Obama has not yet made a decision on the TPP.

He's a politician. He keeps his options open ... I hope.



-Laelth

[cali]

121. He has not kept his options open. He has stated over and over that

it's one of his top priorities.

Why hope for something when all the evidence is against something being a possibility?

[Laelth]

124. You're right. I should probably take him at his word.

I admit that I am finding it difficult to do so in this case, however, because I don't see the kind of energy and determination that I saw when he was pushing to get the ACA passed quickly. That leads me to suspect that he secretly opposes the TPP. Perhaps.

I certainly appreciate your agitating on this subject and keeping it open as a subject for discussion, but I also note that, even if he has made up his mind about the TPP, Obama can change his mind and change course, as he did with Syria. Perhaps with enough pressure, he can be encouraged to back down from the TPP.



-Laelth

[cali]

125. he's pushing it hard but not so much publicly- for obvious reasons

I just think you're being unrealistic in this case.

Obama has and always has had close corporate ties. If he didn't want the TPP, he could have shelved it. He could have appointed people to the USTR who weren't total corporate creatures. He could have appointed advisors who weren't ALL corporate ones.

And on and on.

[Laelth]

134. Fair enough and entirely possible.

But it's just hard to read this President. I took him at his word when he implied that the individual mandate was an idea he did not support.



Yet, as we all know, that's exactly what he pushed for with the ACA. It's quite frustrating, but I find myself second-guessing his motives and intentions regularly, and I am just not sure what he's thinking regarding the TPP.

Still, I greatly appreciate your keeping the TPP front-and-center on DU.



-Laelth

[Armstead]

132. He may be smart but that doesnt mean he alaways does the right thing

Intelligence can also be used to bammboozle people

[blkmusclmachine]

99. TROJAN Horse

[YOHABLO]

105. Heard about this site and wanted to pass it on. If it hasn't already

http://www.exposethetpp.org/TPPImpactsYou.html

[Laelth]

118. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[HereSince1628]

123. Well it -is- a constitutional convention for the new corporatist world order,

It only deals with the rights of the corporations...why should people have a say in it?

Letting the little voices into this would be like letting pedestrians have a say in traffic laws for gawd sake

[fasttense]

140. I think of the TPP as the Enabling Act for Corporate rule. n/t

[marmar]

127. k/r