kristay

There are many important and intrusive aspects of the IP chapter for ordinary citizens. One of the first ones that springs to my mind, perhaps because of the recent controversy in the United States, concerns cell phone unlocking. If the United States proposal is accepted, there would be no way to make a permanent exception to the circumvention of a technological protection measure (a "digital lock") to unlock your cell phone and allow you to take your phone from one carrier to another, even when your service contract has expired. To do so would violate what the United States has proposed in the TPP. There are many examples of how digital locks have been used inappropriately and resulted in unintended consequences for the everyday citizen. EFF has a great paper called the "Unintended Consequences: 15 Years Under the DMCA" on this issue.

With respect to providing feedback, it's difficult to do without knowing what's in the TPP so we're fortunate to have had a leak of the text. However, it is important to push for greater transparency because we have not had many leaks and there are many chapters that could affect ordinary citizens that we have not seen yet. The secrecy is an undemocratic process and citizens should fight back against it.

On the current ITAC-15, there are zero consumer groups or academics. All of the groups on ITAC-15 represent private, corporate interests. Some of these advisors represent pharmaceutical companies like Gilead, Johnson and Johnson, PhRMA (the pharmaceutical association) and BIO, or are pro-copyright right holders like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Are you asking what in the TPP would protect pharma companies or how they have this influence?

If it's the former, if the United States proposals are accepted additional protections beyond what is required by international law would be given to these companies that would lengthen/strengthen their monopolies (allowing more patents, extending the term of the patents, and creating additional monopolies, among other things).

If it's the latter, the "cleared advisor" process allows for some right holders to see the text and comment on it, while the general public is left in the dark unless we obtain any leaks. This means that when USTR is deliberating and drafting its proposals, the only ones able to see and influence the text are the right holders, including pharmaceutical companies, that are on the "cleared advisors" list.

Actually, I think that to become binding it may require less than the assent of all 12 participating countries. Although I don't know if it would happen this way, a couple countries could decide not to be a part of the TPP anymore and in that sense, less than the current 12 countries would be needed. In the United States, once it is passed through Congress (regardless of the final number of countries and regardless of the track under which Congress approves it), it will be legally binding on the United States and enforceable.

1) The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement's design is to include parties in that region. It is intended to eventually cover the entire Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) region, so it would (I imagine) first be limited to those APEC member countries. There is another trade agreement currently being negotiated called the "Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership" or TTIP (also known as the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, or TAFTA) between the United States and the European Union.

2) Possibly. Theoretically, Congress has to ratify treaties. However, there is a push by the Obama Administration to obtain what is known as "fast track" authority (also known as "trade promotion authority") which would mean that Congress would only be able to vote on the TPP in an up-down vote. At this point, it is likely too late to make substantive changes in the text, particularly when there are 11 other negotiating parties. This is one of the reasons why it is so important to push back against fast track authority.