And I just remembered that it is a private part of that forum, sorry:
first post:
A few days ago wikileaks released the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter. The treaty which is currently being negotiated behind closed doors would affect most aspects of economic life, including intellectual property law (a major concern for many members here), macroeconomic policy, trade policy, and several matters that probably should not be in an economic treaty.
Among the highlights of the proposal:
* Pharmaceutical manufacturers could extend and widen their patents on drugs and medicines - lessening the ability to market generic products.
* New patents could be issued for 'new uses' of a drug. So, for example, if a medicine was about to have its patent expire (and thus generic drugs could then be allowed) the manufacturer could 'find' a new use for the drug and get an entirely new patent.
* There are provisions for data-exclusivity, so a generic drug maker who is looking for data to back up the usefulness of a preexisting drug will be unable to use the original manufacturers data - they will have to perform its own research which will incur huge costs and take years.
* There are provisions allowing the outright patenting of plants and animals.
* There are provisions allowing the patenting of medical and surgical procedures. This is something that medical societies have opposed for a long time.
* Oh, and guess where some of CISPA's anti-piracy provisions have found a new home? That is right, this proposed treaty.
Now obviously this is just a proposal at this point and there is no guarantee that the resulting treaty will have all of these provisions. But that fact that the negotiations are happening in secret, with even the Australian Parliament being kept in the dark on the details, is very worrying. If this is the sort of thing they are negotiating on the intellectual property side of things, then what are they negotiating in terms of trade policy? No one except for the negotiators knows the answer to that question.
Links:
http://wikileaks.org/tpp/,
Second Post:
I have been skimming through the text, which is rather difficult as it is 96 pages long, and I just found this rather disturbing provision in the proposal. This provision would require internet service providers to track and report Internationally the personal details of suspected violators. Not confirmed violators. Suspected violators.
If this is just the extent of the provisions in the intellectual property chapter, then how massive are the other 38 chapters to the proposed treaty? The administration in the United States is attempting to have this bill passed via 'fast-track' treaty ratification (where there are no filibusters and the treaty is brought to a vote without debate) how then are these hundreds of pages of provisions to be analyzed and scrutinized?
To give you an example of the legalize found in this proposal, I have included the provision that I mentioned earlier, which would require the storage of personal information upon any suspected violator of copyrighted material:
...
In meeting the obligations of Article QQ.I.1.3(b)(ix), each Party shall adopt or maintain requirements for: (a) effective written notice to service providers with respect to materials that are claimed to be infringing, and (b) effective written counter-notification by those whose material is removed or disabled and who claim that it was disabled through mistake or misidentification, as set forth in this letter. Effective written notice means notice that substantially complies with the elements listed in section (a) of this letter, and effective written counter-notification means counter-notification that substantially complies with the elements listed in section (b) of this letter.
(a) Effective Written Notice, by a Copyright289 Owner or Person Authorized to Act
on Behalf of an Owner of an Exclusive Right, to a Service Provider's Publicly Designated Representative
In order for a notice to a service provider to comply with the relevant requirements set out in Article QQ.I.1.3(b)(ix), that notice must be a written communication, which may be provided electronically, that includes substantially the following:
the identity, address, telephone number, and electronic mail address of the complaining party (or its authorized agent);
information reasonably sufficient to enable the service provider to identify the copyrighted work(s) claimed to have been infringed;
3. information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to identify and locate the material residing on a system or network controlled or operated by it or for it that is claimed to be infringing, or to be the subject of infringing activity, and that is to be removed, or access to which is to be disabled;
a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
a statement that the information in the notice is accurate;
a statement with sufficient indicia of reliability (such as a statement under penalty of perjury or equivalent legal sanctions) that the complaining party is the holder of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed, or is authorized to act on the owner's behalf; and
the signature of the person giving notice.
(b) Effective Written Counter-Notification by a Subscriber Whose Material Was Removed or Disabled as a Result of Mistake or Misidentification of Material
In order for a counter-notification to a service provider to comply with the relevant requirements set out in Article QQ.I.1.3.(b)(ix), that counter-notification must be a written communication, which may be provided electronically, that includes substantially the following:
the identity, address, and telephone number of the subscriber;
the identity of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled;
the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled;
a statement with sufficient indicia of reliability (such as a statement under penalty of perjury or equivalent legal sanctions) that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material;
a statement that the subscriber agrees to be subject to orders of any court that has jurisdiction over the place where the subscriber's address is located, or, if that address is located outside the Party's territory, any other court with jurisdiction over any place in the Party's territory where the service provider may be found, and in which a copyright infringement suit could be brought with respect to the alleged infringement;
a statement that the subscriber will accept service of process in any such suit; and
the signature of the subscriber.
The latest:
Talks between the twelve nations are going on in Singapore.
Latest post:
There has been a rather significant leak from the Salt Lake City talks from a few weeks ago. Details can be found here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/0 ... 09211.html. Basically, the leaked document confirms that significant disagreements remain between the negotiating parties, with the United States being rather inflexible in its demands. Two major points that the US negotiators are unwilling to budge on is on intellectual property (which has already been mentioned in this topic) and the foreign trade court (where a foreign court of corporate jurists would be able to impose sanctions on countries for violating this trade agreement - a shocking abrogation of national sovereignty.) The US negotiators have also reintroduced a proposal that was universally rejected and dropped earlier - that would hamper government health services from negotiating lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. It seems less like the US is negotiating and more like it is dictating terms to the other countries. A summation of the major points of agreement and disagreement between the countries can be found on the Huffington Post.