[Linux-aus] Resurrected TPP

[Jack Burton]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:08:09 +1030
Jonathan Woithe via linux-aus <linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au> wrote:
> It appears our political masters have resurrected the TPP, modified
> the name and are getting ready to drop this on us in the next couple
> of months:
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-24/tpp-resurrected-as-nations-get-set-to-sign-trade-deal/9354502
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-24/what-is-the-new-tpp-and-what-does-it-mean-for-australia/9357020
> 
> They're calling it by the rather clumsy name of "Comprehensive and
> Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)".  What's
> not at all clear from the above articles is whether the contentious
> Intellectual Property provisions have been included in this new
> version.
> 
> The nuts and bolts of the agreement were hammered out in November
> 2017, as described here:
> 
> http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/tpp/news/Pages/trans-pacific-partnership-ministerial-statement.aspx
> 
> The text of the agreement documents are linked on this page.

Not the text, just a ridiculously vague summary of it. Annex I for
example contains only the *title* of each article...

The actual text we won't be able to see until it's already been signed
(which is usually a pretty good sign that there's plenty to be ashamed
of still in there...).

> While Annex II indicates that a small number of provisions in chapter
> 18 ("Intellectual Property") have been "suspended" (whatever that
> means in practice), it still seems to leave vast portions intact.  If
> this is the case it would appear that many of the problems for FOSS
> created by the original TPP text will still apply to the new CPTPP
> agreement.

On the basis of the Nov 2017 statement alone (since we have nothing
more concrete), I'd go as far as saying *most* of the problems still
remain although quite a few have been suspended (despite the way it
reads, that statement is not self-contradictory -- remember that almost
*everything* in the original IP Chapter was objectionable; and that
*nothing* has been suspended in the e-Commerce Chapter; and whilst some
provisions of the Investment Chapter have been suspended, its core
problem still remains).

And of course the confusion around whether / how any potential future US
accession to the new treaty might trigger some sort of
necromancy of those "suspended" provisions does rather make CPTPP a bit
of a time bomb...

> The above is the result of a cursory look at the relevant documents.
> Others with more familiarity of the subject may be able to provide
> more clarity and determine whether we ought to be concerned about
> this latest development.

Am spending some time on this today from an OSIA perpsective -- more
will be said at tonight's SGM -- feel free to come along.