TPP protest at Washington, D.C, Chamber of Commerce by Vision Planet Media (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/Ayc5Qd

TPP protest at Washington, D.C, Chamber of Commerce by Vision Planet Media (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/Ayc5Qd

News

The Trouble with the TPP, Day 1: U.S. Blocks Balancing Objectives

The debate over the merits of the Trans Pacific Partnership is likely to play out in Canada and other TPP countries throughout 2016. While it seems likely that the treaty will be signed in early February (February 4th is the earliest possible date for the U.S. to sign), decisions on whether to ratify the agreement will extend into 2017 and beyond. I’ve already posted some thoughts on the TPP’s digital policy implications (and spoken about the issue in this speech and on this panel) but wanted to expand on the trouble with the TPP in more detail. With that goal in mind, I plan to post each weekday until February 4th on problems associated with the TPP. The series will include posts on copyright, privacy, Internet governance, and many other issues.

The Trouble with the TPP series starts with the slimmed down objectives of the intellectual property chapter. Leaked versions of earlier drafts shows that most TPP countries (including Canada) were supportive of expanded objectives that emphasized balance, the public domain, and timely access to affordable medicines. The full objectives provision, supported in full or in principle by New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, and Mexico stated:

The objectives of this Chapter are:

  • enhance the role of intellectual property in promoting economic and social development, particularly in relation to the new digital economy, technological innovation, the [PE: generation,] transfer and dissemination of technology and trade;


  • reduce impediments to trade and investment by promoting deeper economic integration through effective and adequate creation, utilization, protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, taking into account the different levels of economic development and capacity as well as differences in national legal systems; 


  • maintain a balance between the rights of intellectual property holders and the legitimate interests of users and the community in subject matter protected by intellectual property; 


  • protect the ability of Parties to identify, promote access to and preserve the public domain;


  • ensure that measures and procedures to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade;


  • promote operational efficiency of intellectual property systems, in particular through quality examination procedures during the granting of intellectual property rights.]
  • the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.
  • Support each Party’s right to protect public health, including by facilitating timely access to affordable medicines.]


This balanced list of objectives was opposed by the U.S. and Japan. The final text indicates that Canada and the rest of the TPP caved on the issue with only one objective surviving as Article 18.2:

The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.

The final objectives provision removes references to maintaining balance across all IP rights, the legitimate interests of users, promoting access to and preserving the public domain, ensuring that IP rights do not create barriers to legitimate trade, and facilitating access to affordable medicines (there are references to some of these issues elsewhere within the text but not in the objectives provision and often with more limited language than the original proposal).

The objectives provision may not carry the same weight as positive obligations in the treaty, but they are important, reflecting the goals of the negotiating parties and providing a lens through which all other provisions can be interpreted. Canada and many other countries wanted to ensure that the lens promoted maintaining a balance between rights holders and users on all IP provisions. The exclusion from the objectives provision sets the tone for the IP chapter and highlights how user interests and the priorities of countries such as Canada were given limited weight within the final text.

16 Comments

  1. Devil's Advocate says:

    I can’t see the incentive for Canada’s involvement in these obvious scams.

    Everything about these “trade deals” is designed to encourage wealth and jobs to be exported from the country, and strip away any remaining sovereignty that exists.

    We don’t need to be examining the “details” to these arrangements at this point. We already know it’s a corporate end-run around laws installed to protect and benefit the Public. We already know we’re not a consideration, while this is all done behind closed doors.

    We need to be looking at why every government we elect continues down this path, and start finding ways to put a stop to it.

    • Bethany Ann says:

      i ju$t can’t $ee why our elected official$ continue to $upport the$e clo$ed-door talk$!

    • Perhaps it’s time Canadians started electing good government. Working to ensure our promised electoral reform is some form of Proportional Representation would be an excellent start.

      • Devil's Advocate says:

        It’s become pretty hard to simply “elect good people” lately.

        Like our neighbours to the south, we’re also seeing corporate capture in the field of candidates, with no real “champion of the People” offered in the bunch.

        When elected, all of them continue to support the U.S. and its illegal War Machine, as well as continue to defend Israel’s treatment of Palestine.

        And nobody we put in power seems to see anything wrong with these “trade deals” or the obscene imbalance of power the corporate world has over everything. The wealth continues to migrate to the 1%, while more and more of us struggle to make a living.

        Without better people, supported by better people, there is no “good government” to actually elect.

  2. John Kennedy says:

    The issue is simple: do we want to give up our voting power and our money to make the top one-tenth of one percent of us richer? Or do we want to return to sensible political rules which will put reasonable limits on the power of the super-rich to empty our own pockets?
    Remember: people are worth more than dollar bills.

  3. From the title of this post: “U.S. Blocks Balancing Objectives”
    So, why does the U.S. get the deciding vote? Is that the way this so-called “partnership” is going to play out – with the U.S. always getting final say?
    On a not unrelated question, does anyone know what set of criteria, or decision making framework if you prefer, Minister Freeland’s Team Canada will employ in the ratification decision-making process? One hopes that, for an assessment of such a complex treaty, the process will go well beyond a simplistic, solely economic, “costs-benefits” analysis, to include, for example, implications for the “common good” – however that is defined.
    And could we please have a philosopher of language on the team. Judging from Michael’s recent panel discussion, we’ll need one or two, even if only as non-voting participant observers.

    • Fiona McMurran says:

      I couldn’t agree more, and your final comment is particularly apt. My fear is that our MPs are being fed totally inaccurate and erroneous information on what the TPP actually contains, so that they will be inclined to support it. I have no confidence that Freeland’s Team Canada will be much better educated on what the language of this treaty actually means in realistic terms.

  4. Pingback: The Trouble with the TPP, Day 5: Rights Holders “Shall” vs. Users “May”-IT大道

  5. Pingback: The Trouble with the TPP, Day 5: Rights Holders “Shall” vs. Users “May” | Tecnologia de mediosdemexico.com

  6. Pingback: Links for the Week of January 17, 2015

  7. Pingback: The TPP will cost Canada 58,000 jobs — and won’t grow the economy | Ecocide Alert

  8. Pingback: TPP Will Cost Canada 58,000 Jobs, Won’t Grow Economy | TJ Petrowski

  9. Pingback: Today in the TPP | bleedleaf

  10. Pingback: What happened to Canada’s #TPP Consultation? | Whoa!Canada

  11. Pingback: 10: TPP - Control de Cambios