Earlier Trouble with the TPP posts focused on the health care implications of the agreement, focusing on patent term extensions, biologics protection, and limits on medical devices and pharma data collection. There is another health-related aspect of the TPP worthy of examination, but it is easy to miss. Chapter 26 of the TPP addresses transparency and anti-corruption, which is not the place you would expect to find provisions with a direct impact on health care. Yet Annex 26-A contains a full section on “transparency and procedural fairness for pharmaceutical products and medical devices.” What does this section do? The key aspect is to establish mandatory requirements for a national pharmacare program:
News
Yachts and Helicopters?: Why All Stakeholders Should Be Concerned By Blais’ Blast
CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais traveled to Toronto yesterday to deliver a speech to the Canadian Club on television news in an era of change. The talk laid out his vision for the future of communications policy in Canada and feistily defended recent CRTC decisions for broadcast and the Internet. While there is much to like about Blais’ vision – CRTC skeptics will be surprised by the forward-looking approach – it will be lost in the chair’s unnecessary attacks on the industry’s efforts to slow the pace of regulatory change and use of the appellate process.
Blais’ speech tackles many of the big communications of the moment. He notes the need for more aggressive broadband targets and the real-world impact of leaving even a few percent of Canadians without Internet access. He rightly identifies the benefits of the forthcoming broadcast changes, including pick-and-pay and small cheaper basic packages. He argues that the days of simultaneous substitution are coming to an end (and not just for the Super Bowl), noting “squeezing every last drop of profit out of simultaneous substitution and rented, made-in-America content is no longer sustainable.” He is sensitive to the concerns on local television news, but warns of the dangers of government interference in the industry if independence is lost through direct funding mechanisms.
The Trouble With the TPP, Day 32: Illusory Safeguards Against Encryption Backdoors
The news that the U.S. government has obtained a court order requiring Apple to assist law enforcement to break the encryption on an iPhone owned by one of the San Bernadino terrorists has sparked widespread concern. There is some debate over the scope of the judicial order – Techdirt points out that the order does not require Apple to break its encryption but rather allow the government to “brute force” the password without deleting the data – but it is clear that the goal is to limit the effectiveness of the encryption protections found on the popular device. Apple has issued a public letter stating its view that this is a dangerous precedent that could be repeated over and over again. Indeed, if a U.S. court can issue such an order, there is seemingly nothing to stop other governments from doing the same.
What does this have to do with the TPP?
The U.S. has suggested that the TPP would address these issues, claiming that the agreement:
The Trouble With the TPP, Day 31: Canadian Trademark Law Overhaul
The Trouble with the TPP continues with another area of intellectual property that is subject to an overhaul due to largely to the trade agreement: trademark law. The Canadian government’s summary on the issue once again understates the significance of the changes with assurances that the TPP is “in line with Canada’s existing regime” and “supports Canada’s progress to accede to the Madrid Protocol and Nice Agreement.”
The reality is that government recently passed a massive overhaul of trademark law with little consultation or debate in anticipation of the TPP requirements. In fact, government negotiators opposed some of the trademark requirements in the TPP until very late in the negotiations (including some of the Nice Agreement provisions) recognizing that it was not consistent with Canadian law at the time. The planned Canadian changes are not expected to come into force until 2018 at the earliest.
The Trouble With the TPP, Day 30: Losing Our Way on Geographical Indications
Geographical indications (GI) are signs used on goods – frequently food, wine, or spirits – that have a specific geographical origin and are said to possess qualities, reputation or characteristics that are essentially attributable to that place of origin. Given the quality associated with the product, proponents of GI protection argue that it is needed to avoid consumer confusion as well as to protect legitimate producers.
Europe has the most extensive geographical indication protections in the world. These include Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), which covers agricultural products produced, processed and prepared in a given geographical area using recognized know-how; Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), which covers agricultural products linked to the geographical area; and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG), which highlights traditional character, either in the composition or means of production. The net effect of the European system is that hundreds of items enjoy special legal protection.
What does this have to do with the TPP?
Recent Posts
Why the Verdict on Social Media Defective Design Harming Children Gets the Instinct Right But the Law Wrong 
Scoping in the Tech Giants: Bill C-22’s International Production Order and the Shift to a Less Privacy-Protective Cross-Border Disclosure System 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 263: The Lawful Access Act Roundtable With David Fraser and Robert Diab 
When Writing About Antisemitism Proves the Point: What the Replies Reveal 
Acting on Antisemitism: If This Was Always Possible, Why Didn’t It Happen Sooner?
