Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

publicpolicy.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 260 posts

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#131

Post by proksoup »

tptacek wrote: post #114
_delirium wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One specific part I don't like is that it would require signatories to enforce a DMCA-like ban on circumvention of DRM mechanisms. The US already has such a ban, but putting it in a treaty makes it worse (harder to repeal), and it would create one in countries which don't already have one. In general the intellectual-property related provisions seem not good to me, almost exclusively in the direction of more restrict…

How exactly does putting a provision in a treaty make it harder to repeal? The same actions that ratify the treaty (for instance, passing an enabling domestic law) can be used to break it.

Because it's no longer as simple as repealing/passing a domestic law but in addition to that becomes an issue of reneging on an agreement with other nations. In practice maybe we don't respect treaties very much, but it does seem to be an additional barrier, at least in the public discourse about what laws to repeal/pass.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#132

Post by dragonwriter »

superobserver wrote: post #126
dragonwriter wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She said so after she said she supported it. She said she supported it while it was being negotiated, and later (as a candidate, when the final text was available) said she opposed the final form, and that it no longer had the specific features she expected the final form would have when she supported it.

We can debate the "he said she said" until the cows come home. It is no mystery that HRC supports and champions oligarchic policies. The TPP is being pushed by the Obama administration who have added their support to her presumptive nomination. There's no fooling anyone here about what may very well happen. The timing of this is peculiar, but if it has nothing to do with HRC, we'll simply have to wait and see if that…

> The timing of this is peculiar, but if it has nothing to do with HRC

If it had to do with HRC, they could wait; if anything connected to the election, it has to do with their actual support for TPP and concern that no successor to Obama will approve it, so their best chance is for it to get passed and signed this year (given the statements already made by Republican leaders that that isn't going to happen before the general election, probably in the lame duck session after the election.)

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#133

Post by izacus »

tptacek wrote: post #116
izacus wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we would certanly rather have nothing. Status Quo is infinitely better than forced data transfer of our data to another nation and infinitely better than selling out IP protection to US corporation under ridiculous copyright laws.

If that's true, why does your local legislature (I don't know where you are) enable the treaty in domestic law?

It doesn't. I'm not sure why that would affect this debate at all?

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#134

Post by cheald »

gavinpc wrote: post #107
sounds wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about anti-national-sovereignty? The secret drafts and the extra-legal processes weaken national sovereignty. I think a strong nation is good for consumers, and a weak nation destroys the consumer base.

Are you referring to the part about corporations being able to sue nations if they take any measures that they can claim hurts their business? [0] I assume that the "ISDS" that Warren refers to in the linked article (which was written before the draft went public), is chapter 28, "Dispute Settlement," in the draft at readthetpp.com. [1] This is already happening, at least with tobacco companies. "Last Week Tonight" d…

> if they take any measures that they can claim hurts their business?

This is just flat-out false. The second link you provided clearly lays out the criteria for resolution of a conflict via the ISDS:

> the dispute settlement provisions of this Chapter shall apply...wherever a Party considers that an actualor proposed measure of another Party is or would be inconsistent with the obligations of this Agreement or that another Party has otherwise failed to carry out its obligations under this Agreement; or wherever a Party considers thata benefit it could reasonably have expected to accrue to it under [this agreement] is being nullified or impaired as a result of the application of a measure of another Party that is not inconsistent with this Agreement.

That is, the ISDS is for resolution of conflicts which are alleged to be in violation the the treaty, not for "any measures that they can claim hurts their business". The Phillip-Morris case you cite is because PM alleges that the Australian government expropriated their intellectual property without due compensation. This post[0] has a very nice breakdown of ISDS cases, rationale, and outcomes.

Also give this thread[1] a read - SavannaJeff is a well-known professional trade economist, and has a lot of very valuable expert insight on the TPP that's worth reading.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/390p5l/over_2000000...

[1] https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/2srn0u/trade_sec...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#135

Post by pzone »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #30
notthegov wrote: post #17

If these benefits are legitimate, why can't they focus on 5 or 10 specific objectives, and write them in some concise form like the Bill of Rights? Why does it need to be 2,000 pages and full of complex, obsfucated concepts and details? Is the only way for progress to happen? And even if the TPP is completely beneficial, it is still part of the philosophy of economic integration. Which at its heart is promoting the c…

>Why does it need to be 2,000 pages and full of complex, obsfucated concepts and details? The cynic in me says thinks of the TPP as a gigantic pile of economic concessions to specific corporate interests. The more generous interpretation is that free trade creates winners and losers, but there's generally more winners than losers. The length of the agreement is then the result of multilateral negotiations. Each party…

Of course it's a gigantic pile of economic concessions. But mostly that's in the form of tariffs which aren't struck down as quickly as others. Some countries really really want to keep their little pet tariff, like Japan taxing automobile imports. They get to keep those taxes for 30+ years instead of reducing them to zero as quickly as we want. So no it's not perfect, but at least they agreed to move toward freer trade eventually.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#136

Post by pzone »

notthegov wrote: post #17

If these benefits are legitimate, why can't they focus on 5 or 10 specific objectives, and write them in some concise form like the Bill of Rights? Why does it need to be 2,000 pages and full of complex, obsfucated concepts and details? Is the only way for progress to happen? And even if the TPP is completely beneficial, it is still part of the philosophy of economic integration. Which at its heart is promoting the c…

Concise summary of the benefits: the signatory states will reduce tariffs on most trade toward zero over a period of several years.

This key point seems to get lost in the debate.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#137

Post by superobserver »

dragonwriter wrote: post #132
superobserver wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can debate the "he said she said" until the cows come home. It is no mystery that HRC supports and champions oligarchic policies. The TPP is being pushed by the Obama administration who have added their support to her presumptive nomination. There's no fooling anyone here about what may very well happen. The timing of this is peculiar, but if it has nothing to do with HRC, we'll simply have to wait and see if that…

> The timing of this is peculiar, but if it has nothing to do with HRC If it had to do with HRC, they could wait; if anything connected to the election, it has to do with their actual support for TPP and concern that no successor to Obama will approve it, so their best chance is for it to get passed and signed this year (given the statements already made by Republican leaders that that isn't going to happen before th…

>If it had to do with HRC, they could wait (Emphasis mine.)

But they won't, because they're doubling down.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#138

Post by grownseed »

The announcement starts by patronizing the reader ("most of us imagine container ships ..."), then proceeds to use a "for the children"-type argument ("small business"), directly followed by "for freedom!" argument with little to no substance.

  Trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are beginning to recognize the Internet’s transformative impact on trade.
Sure, in the sense that the TPP is designed by and for corporations, like Google, who don't want stuff like, say, the EU, getting in their way when trying to defend the users' rights (e.g. right to be forgotten). The paranoid in me also thinks this is in fact an agreement between organizations like Google and the US government to "legally" syphon foreign data directly from US soil, but there is of course absolutely not enough transparency to substantiate this either way.

I clearly don't support TPP in the first place, but I find this announcement from Google borderline insulting, TPP or not. The condescending tone alone makes me cringe, but the whole "we're fighting for freedom" cover story is just disgusting.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#139

Post by izacus »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #100
kinkdr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that was the spirit of the agreement, then I would expect to see some clauses forbidding geo-blocking, or offering different "app-store" based on your country of residence, etc.. Otherwise it is terribly one-sided. It is not fair to consider internet being global and borderless when it is in corps advantage, but segmented and controlled when it comes to consumers rights. Right?

If there were a widespread problem with governments mandating market segmentation, I'd certainly want to see that. But it seems rather unlikely that a trade agreement like this would restrict the ability to do business with a company that segments app stores by country. Consumers can make that choice for themselves, just like they can choose whether to do business with a company based on where they store their data o…

Which sounds like you're admitting that the treaty only benefits profits of large corporations and stops as soon as they'd have to give up a little bit to actualy help consumers across the world?

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#140

Post by sanderjd »

darklajid wrote: post #68
sremani wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I concur with Ian Bremmer's view on TPP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniOW9G9TQA At a fundamental level, US defining and guiding the world economic order as it has done with Bretton woods.

I couldn't listen to that video for long, it wasn't quite bearable. Stopped after 2 minutes. Can you explain it from your point of view? These first 2 minutes repeated 'strong United States' about five times already or so. Is that what you consider 'geopolitical reasons'?

This comment seems very holier-than-thou to me. Did you intend it that way? If not, it still seems a bit inconsiderate to ask someone to summarize a video a mere 8 minutes in length, which they were kind enough to link.
Post reply on HN