Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter
#2Only YOU can prevent global legal catastrophes. Get involved.
https://act.eff.org/action/speak-out-against-the-trans-pacif...
Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter
#3A: General Provisions [seems boring]
B: Cooperation [seems boring]
C: Trademarks
D: Geographical Indications
E: Patents [including genetic stuff - probably controversial]
- Article QQ.E.2387: {Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources}
F: Industrial Designs
G: Copyright
- [basically Fair Use:] - Article QQ.G.Y: {Limitations and Exceptions} - "Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions... including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes..."
- [DRM stuff:] - Article QQ.G.10: {Technological Protection Measures}
H: Enforcement
Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter
#4Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter
#5As an IP lawyer, I'd like to say that reading this draft document is super boring. The parts that I skimmed (less than 10%) was all just harmless procedural rules. Can someone point out or quote the controversial parts? Here's the skeleton ToC and a few highlights: A: General Provisions [seems boring] B: Cooperation [seems boring] C: Trademarks D: Geographical Indications E: Patents [including genetic stuff - probabl…
[NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/MY/SG/CA4/MX5 propose; US/JP oppose: The objectives of this Chapter are:
Who are these parties and why are they negotiating this in secret, away from the public eye. If it is just mundane boilerplate (not finished reading yet) then I have to say that the most surprising thing of all is that we are being governed by copy/paste. I don't think that is the case here.Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter
#6As an IP lawyer, I'd like to say that reading this draft document is super boring. The parts that I skimmed (less than 10%) was all just harmless procedural rules. Can someone point out or quote the controversial parts? Here's the skeleton ToC and a few highlights: A: General Provisions [seems boring] B: Cooperation [seems boring] C: Trademarks D: Geographical Indications E: Patents [including genetic stuff - probabl…
Section E: Patents (including genetic stuff)
I don't think genetics should be patentable. The thinking behind patenting genes is repulsive to me.
Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter
#7As an IP lawyer, I'd like to say that reading this draft document is super boring. The parts that I skimmed (less than 10%) was all just harmless procedural rules. Can someone point out or quote the controversial parts? Here's the skeleton ToC and a few highlights: A: General Provisions [seems boring] B: Cooperation [seems boring] C: Trademarks D: Geographical Indications E: Patents [including genetic stuff - probabl…
The most controversial part of this for me is this: [NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/MY/SG/CA4/MX5 propose; US/JP oppose: The objectives of this Chapter are: Who are these parties and why are they negotiating this in secret, away from the public eye. If it is just mundane boilerplate (not finished reading yet) then I have to say that the most surprising thing of all is that we are being governed by copy/paste. I don't think that is t…
International agreements are always negotiated privately before being submitted to legislatures for public comment and ratification.
Domestic laws are done the same way. The terms of any major bill before the U.S. Congress, for instance, are first negotiated in private among a smaller group of legislators before being introduced for public debate and amendment.
Business deals are usually done the same way. Two companies considering a merger negotiate the terms in private first, then present the deal to their boards/shareholders for approval.
Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter
#8As an IP lawyer, I'd like to say that reading this draft document is super boring. The parts that I skimmed (less than 10%) was all just harmless procedural rules. Can someone point out or quote the controversial parts? Here's the skeleton ToC and a few highlights: A: General Provisions [seems boring] B: Cooperation [seems boring] C: Trademarks D: Geographical Indications E: Patents [including genetic stuff - probabl…
Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter
#9As an IP lawyer, I'd like to say that reading this draft document is super boring. The parts that I skimmed (less than 10%) was all just harmless procedural rules. Can someone point out or quote the controversial parts? Here's the skeleton ToC and a few highlights: A: General Provisions [seems boring] B: Cooperation [seems boring] C: Trademarks D: Geographical Indications E: Patents [including genetic stuff - probabl…
1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 and 3, each Party shall make patents available for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application.
which appears to mean software patents in the EU; and mathematical patents in the US (because MX specifically try to exclude that below)
Also this:
[CL/NZ/PE/MY/BN/VN/CA/MX oppose: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, including Article QQ.G.8 (Berne 18/TRIPS 14.6),] a Party shall not be required to restore protection to subject matter than on the date of entry into force of this Agreement has fallen into the public domain in its territory.
So the Govt's of CL/NZ/PE/MY/BN/VN/CA/MX appear to want to reprotect parts of the public domain?
Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter
#10As an IP lawyer, I'd like to say that reading this draft document is super boring. The parts that I skimmed (less than 10%) was all just harmless procedural rules. Can someone point out or quote the controversial parts? Here's the skeleton ToC and a few highlights: A: General Provisions [seems boring] B: Cooperation [seems boring] C: Trademarks D: Geographical Indications E: Patents [including genetic stuff - probabl…