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

Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter

wikileaks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter

#11

Post by repsilat »

wavefunction wrote: post #6
teachingaway wrote: post #3

As 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…

Personally? You just listed one: Section E: Patents (including genetic stuff) I don't think genetics should be patentable. The thinking behind patenting genes is repulsive to me.

Patenting any genes, or just natural ones? What about novel applications of existing genes?

I probably don't have a big problem with someone creating an artificial gene and then patenting its use, and I'm not sure I have a problem with someone patenting a random jellyfish gene for fluorescence for use in making glow-in-the-dark corn, or for patenting the use of an apparently useless gene for some discovered utility in another species.

I would have a problem with someone patenting a gene with an existing "use" for that specific use. That is, I don't think someone should be able to patent the use of a "blue eyes gene" for the purpose of giving someone blue eyes. There's no invention there.

On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, why not incentivise the discovery of genes that confer some benefit? The long-run benefit of those discoveries would no doubt outweigh any short-term monopoly costs, and research (both statistically and into applications) would definitely result.

Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter

#12

Post by beagle3 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #7
ibisum wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

New Zealand / Chile / Peru / Vietnam / Brunei / Malaysia / Singapore / Canada / Mexico propose; United States / Japan oppose. 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…

While that is true, it does not mean that this is right.

Do note that domestic laws are actually brought up for discussion, and (at least in democratic countries), often have non trivial changes applied, some items dropped altogether, etc.

Similarly, a merger is brought to a vote/discussion, and the terms often change during this discussion - e.g., shareholders want more cash / more equity, and stuff like that.

Agreements like the TPP are take-it-or-leave-it, meaning there's basically no discussion except by the unelected negotiators - which, especially in WIPO related issues, seem to have their past and future employers' interest in mind more than they represent their public.

Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter

#13

Post by mihok »

ccvannorman wrote: post #2

I've seen TPP come up in the news before, and it infuriates me. Only YOU can prevent global legal catastrophes. Get involved. https://act.eff.org/action/speak-out-against-the-trans-pacif...

Is eff only for US? Seems the form from the link you provided is only for sending messages to US politicians.. would be nice if all countries involved had a form like this.

Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter

#14

Post by rayiner »

repsilat wrote: post #11
wavefunction wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally? You just listed one: Section E: Patents (including genetic stuff) I don't think genetics should be patentable. The thinking behind patenting genes is repulsive to me.

Patenting any genes, or just natural ones? What about novel applications of existing genes? I probably don't have a big problem with someone creating an artificial gene and then patenting its use, and I'm not sure I have a problem with someone patenting a random jellyfish gene for fluorescence for use in making glow-in-the-dark corn, or for patenting the use of an apparently useless gene for some discovered utility i…

You can't patent natural genes for their natural uses. The controversial thing is patenting the process of using particular gene sequences in order to diagnose particular conditions.

Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter

#15

Post by wavefunction »

repsilat wrote: post #11
wavefunction wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally? You just listed one: Section E: Patents (including genetic stuff) I don't think genetics should be patentable. The thinking behind patenting genes is repulsive to me.

Patenting any genes, or just natural ones? What about novel applications of existing genes? I probably don't have a big problem with someone creating an artificial gene and then patenting its use, and I'm not sure I have a problem with someone patenting a random jellyfish gene for fluorescence for use in making glow-in-the-dark corn, or for patenting the use of an apparently useless gene for some discovered utility i…

Any, to be honest. I understand that this might greatly reduce the interest in gene discovery but I think putting a legal constraint on something that is then released into the wild and self-propagated can only lead to problems.

It's a somewhat unreasonable stance I admit but I feel the problems caused would outweigh the supposed benefits.

I'm also starting to be against patents in general so it may be a more general shift in my attitude.

Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter

#16

Post by wavefunction »

mihok wrote: post #13
ccvannorman wrote: post #2

I've seen TPP come up in the news before, and it infuriates me. Only YOU can prevent global legal catastrophes. Get involved. https://act.eff.org/action/speak-out-against-the-trans-pacif...

Is eff only for US? Seems the form from the link you provided is only for sending messages to US politicians.. would be nice if all countries involved had a form like this.

When you find a problem, you're really just found a new project.

Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter

#17

Post by _delirium »

mihok wrote: post #13
ccvannorman wrote: post #2

I've seen TPP come up in the news before, and it infuriates me. Only YOU can prevent global legal catastrophes. Get involved. https://act.eff.org/action/speak-out-against-the-trans-pacif...

Is eff only for US? Seems the form from the link you provided is only for sending messages to US politicians.. would be nice if all countries involved had a form like this.

For direct political lobbying yes. Some of their issues are transnational (like when they put pressure on companies), and they criticize governments worldwide. But when they directly lobby politicians it's typically only the American ones. It can get legally tricky to do otherwise, because many countries have laws restricting foreign organizations from becoming directly involved in elections/campaigning.

In some European countries, one of the members of EDRi might be worth looking into (some are more politically active than others): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Digital_Rights#Member...

Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter

#18

Post by AnthonyMouse »

teachingaway wrote: post #3

As 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…

> - [DRM stuff:] - Article QQ.G.10: {Technological Protection Measures}

This should be extremely controversial. The anti-circumvention language in existing treaties have been a monumental failure, being used more to cement monopolies than prevent copyright infringement (for which it has been wholly ineffective). New treaties should have the goal of removing the existing requirements for such legislation rather than applying them to more countries.

Re: Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – IP Chapter

#20

Post by tomp »

rayiner wrote: post #14
repsilat wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patenting any genes, or just natural ones? What about novel applications of existing genes? I probably don't have a big problem with someone creating an artificial gene and then patenting its use, and I'm not sure I have a problem with someone patenting a random jellyfish gene for fluorescence for use in making glow-in-the-dark corn, or for patenting the use of an apparently useless gene for some discovered utility i…

You can't patent natural genes for their natural uses. The controversial thing is patenting the process of using particular gene sequences in order to diagnose particular conditions.

Are you sure about that? I might be wrong, but IIRC, Monsanto's RoundUp-Ready Corn was said to be only transgenetically modified (i.e. the Genetically Modified part of the corn came from another organism's genes), but was patent-protected.
Post reply on HN