[x-pubpol] TPP Chiefs Raise Doubts about USTR’s Corporate IP Wish List

Wed May 30 12:37:05 PDT 2012

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2012/05/tpp-chiefs-raise-doubts.html

At the May 13th stakeholder briefing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP)<http://www.citizen.org/tppa>trade
talks outside Dallas, at least six countries' Chief Negotiators began to
openly distance themselves from the Office of the United States Trade
Representative (USTR), particularly from USTR’s radical intellectual
property (IP) proposals, which would expand the scope and duration of
pharmaceutical
monopolies <http://www.citizen.org/more-about-TPPA> and challenge internet
freedom <http://tppinfo.org/>.

In the past, these stakeholder briefings have felt like exercises in the
art of saying little. USTR has sought to keep all nine countries on a
common, limited message. But perhaps USTR can only push other
countries<http://www.citizenvox.org/2012/05/25/heavy-handed-tpp-tactics/>
and
the public so far.

Early in the session, I asked the Chiefs:

*The past year has witnessed the rise of an internet freedom social
movement, with more than 3 million people petitioning the US Congress to
block SOPA [the Stop Online Piracy Act] and tens of thousands protesting in
the streets across Europe to shut down ACTA [the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement]. I think in Poland, these may have been the largest
demonstrations since the Solidarity movement. Even Germany’s ministry of
economic development is recommending against developing countries signing
ACTA. Given that you are not releasing the TPP text, how will you assure
people that the TPP will not pose similar problems?*

Chile kicked things off, answering:

*We are nine countries with many different positions—we are not all the
same.*

This may sound tame, but for those listening to the evolution of TPP sound
bites, it was a surprisingly public distancing from USTR and its copyright
and enforcement demands. And it set the pace for the day.

Peru’s Chief followed by noting his country’s wish to maintain its
“delicate balance” on IP – a reference to the deal Peru struck with USTR
only a few years ago in another free trade agreement. USTR would love to
throw out and replace that deal now. But Peru, rightly, is not budging. A
later question from Derechos
Digitales<http://www.derechosdigitales.org/en/about-us/> asked
how Chile and Peru would preserve their rules on copyright. Chile’s Chief
replied that some proposals on the table go far beyond the national
standards, and an ultimate answer could not yet be provided.

Burcu Kilic of Public Citizen asked Chief Negotiators:

*It seems that the IP chapter is one of the toughest to negotiate. This
week while we were here in Dallas, we kept hearing from PhRMA
[Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America] and BIO
[Biotechnology Industry Organization] that “strong IP rules” encourage
foreign direct investment [FDI] and promote innovation. However, there is a
lack of empirical evidence
thatTRIPS-plus<http://www.msfaccess.org/content/trips-trips-plus-and-doha>
provisions,
such as those USTR proposes, lead to increased
FDI<http://www.citizen.org/TPP-round-in-Dallas#!prettyPhoto[iframe]/5/>
or
local innovation. What I would like to ask is whether countries are
consulting economists and development orinnovation
specialists<http://www.citizen.org/TPP-round-in-Dallas> while
negotiating IP rules?*

Several of the Chiefs exchanged knowing smiles, suggesting that the
question hit a hot topic.

After a period of silence, the New Zealand Chief spoke up, noting the
complexity of IP and the need for a system that promotes innovation. The US
Chief spoke next, stating that “obviously, all trade policy is based on
evidence that we have.” The US Chief cited the US-Singapore free trade
agreement as a positive example, and asked the Singaporean Chief if she
would like to speak to the question.

That's when things got really interesting.

Singapore’s Chief softly replied, “Do you think I have a choice?” She
proceeded to note the interest of investors in the country’s “strong IPR
protection,” but then stressed:

*We are mindful that there would not be evergreening because that would
stifle future innovation.*

Patent evergreening is one of USTR’s key (and most pernicious) IP demands
in the TPP. It is the process by which companies extend pharmaceutical
monopolies, for example by patenting minor variations on old medicines and
other inventions (see e.g. Articles 8.1, 8.2, 8.12 of the US proposal,
andanalysis
here <http://www.citizen.org/peru-Trans-Pacific-FTA-chart>). It does limit
innovation. Singapore’s statement is a strong rejection of USTR’s position,
from one of the countries most likely to support most reasonable IP
proposals.

Next, Malaysia, Brunei, Chile and Vietnam's Chiefs each spoke up to
describe IP as a sensitive issue in their countries and in the
negotiations. Malaysia emphasized the need for a balanced system between
the “rights of investors” and access to medicines and knowledge. Vietnam
described a need to maintain two balances: first, a balance between right
owners and the public interest. Second, making “commitments that we know we
can implement.” He made the point that decisions to invest in a given
country are not solely dependent on IP:

*We all know who the largest recipient of FDI is, and it’s not Singapore. *

Woah. In diplo-speak, this is strong stuff. (It’s a reference to China
BTW.) USTR did not look happy.

Round after TPP round, Asia-Pacific region civil society groups have
articulated concerns that USTR's TPP demands would compromise access to
lifesaving medicines. But USTR's arguments that its proposals will spur
innovation and investment aren't holding up, either. After all, what is
"strong IP"? It's not as though the economic literature defends patent
evergreening and the rest of USTR's Big Pharma wish list. "Strong IP," to
the limited extent we can identify its correlations or contributions to
international investment, may relate more to effective implementation of
common standards such as the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). And that is
actually an argument that supports the position of several other countries
in the negotiation – but not that of USTR.

Several countries in the negotiations have focused their proposals on
increasing cooperation and making TRIPS work. USTR, by contrast, wants to
change the regional standards to further favor multinational corporations.
USTR’s proposals would limit regional pharmaceutical production and
follow-on innovation capacity through increased monopoly privileges for Big
Pharma. This cuts against USTR’s express stated TPP goal of promoting
regional economic integration.

USTR has argued for the corporate interests of PhRMA, BIO, the RIAA
(Recording Industry Association of America), etc., straight through the
past two years of Asia-Pacific trade talks. USTR has often argued without
evidence, sometimes against the evidence, and not made many friends in the
process. Most of the TPP country Chief Negotiators noticeably distanced
themselves from USTR on IP during the Dallas briefing. It was a tough day
to represent USTR, and the folks over there have our empathy – but not our
sympathy.

It was a tough day to represent USTR, and the folks over there have our
empathy - but not our sympathy.

Read more about USTR’s “Heavy-handed” tactics in the TPP negotiations here:
http://www.citizenvox.org/2012/05/25/heavy-handed-tpp-tactics/

Read presentations from innovation policy experts to TPP IP negotiators
here:http://www.citizen.org/TPP-round-in-Dallas

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.isoc-ny.org/pipermail/x-pubpol-isoc-ny.org/attachments/20120530/758cff7e/attachment-0001.htm>