from the which-way-tot-he-chicken-coop dept.
Jim Balsillie of BlackBerry fame has come out against the TPP.
From the CBC article:
Jim Balsillie warns that provisions tucked into the Trans-Pacific Partnership could cost Canada hundreds of billions of dollars — and eventually make signing it the worst public policy decision in the country's history.
After poring over the treaty's final text, the businessman who helped build Research In Motion into a $20-billion global player said the deal contains "troubling" rules on intellectual property that threaten to make Canada a "permanent underclass" in the economy of selling ideas.
...
And unlike legislation passed in Parliament, he noted treaties like this one set rules that must be followed forever. This deal, he added, also features "iron-clad" dispute mechanisms.
"I'm worried and I don't know how we can get out of this," said Balsillie, who's also helping guide the creation of a lobby group that would press for the needs of Canada's innovation sector.
"I think our trade negotiators have profoundly failed Canadians and our future innovators. I really lament it."
(Score: 2, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday November 10 2015, @02:56PM
Anyone defending hypothetical "innovators" in this way is usually pushing excessive IP protections. Especially if they're also lobbying for an "Innovation sector."
Unless there's specifically some asymmetric policy here. The complete lack of specifics in his argument only lend credence to that suspicion. I'm not a fan of TPP, exactly, but I'm not sure I'd believe this guy just because I'm looking for an excuse to hate it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:02PM
Worst yet this will probably kill innovation by making it impossible for startups to get off the ground before some obscure patent kills them. Claiming it's for "innovation" just flies in the face of sanity.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:27PM
"this" is pretty ambiguous in that sentence. Can you clarify?
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Tuesday November 10 2015, @04:47PM
Pretty sure "this" = the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Tuesday November 10 2015, @04:53PM
You are right. I misread your comment and responded with one that is very ambiguous even thou you didn't share my sentiment :)
I agree with Jim Balsillie in that TPP will be a major blow to innovation overall. And I meant to say that often things like TPP, strong treaties for intellectual property that go far and beyond what I would consider reasonable, have a negative effect on innovation because what they end up doing is protecting entrenched companies. Patents that should have been expired instead become ways for older companies through legalese to steal, legally, new inventions from startups, or keep startups from coming to markets.
However when I read the article I noted that Balsillie is not concerned about the little guy, but rather himself and others like him losing out to US companies. It does read like an incoherent tirade with no specifics. Which is amusing because I guess the only thing corporations really fear is not law, people, or ethics, but competition. I think he can roast in his own manure.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday November 10 2015, @06:37PM
However when I read the article I noted that Balsillie is not concerned about the little guy, but rather himself and others like him losing out to US companies. It does read like an incoherent tirade with no specifics. Which is amusing because I guess the only thing corporations really fear is not law, people, or ethics, but competition. I think he can roast in his own manure.
We wouldn't want allies with common ground.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 11 2015, @02:25AM
It does read like an incoherent tirade with no specifics.
Exactly. He never mentioned a single thing that could be traced back to the text of the agreement. Now that the whole document is available on line to everyone, it seems odd he can't quote chapter and verse. Certainly in is quick read through it he could have jotted down the sections that unfairly give US companies the advantage. He should be able to point out language that penalizes people just because they are Canadians.
Baisillie says:
"It's a treaty that structures everything forever — and we can't get out of it."
Also from the same article:
"A country can withdraw any time, on six months' notice."
Maybe he thinks withdrawal would trigger trade wars or boycotts or something. But he should be able to point this out as well.
From the limited articles I've seen on the TPP its not as bad we all feared, and contains no new blockbuster items.
http://www.managedcaremag.com/focus/final-text-tpp-has-no-biosimilar-surprises [managedcaremag.com]
http://www.ajpark.com/ip-central/news-articles/2015/10/further-information-about-the-tpp-reveals-a-few-ip-surprises-for-new-zealand/ [ajpark.com]
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/72762771/TPPAs-big-surprise-is-the-lack-of-surprise [stuff.co.nz]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2015, @12:00AM
No, the people who support aren't actual innovators, they are monopolists who want to restrict the flow of innovation for the purpose of attaining maximum profits.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:00PM
As far as I can tell, TPP is the opening ritual of 3rd impact [evageeks.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by moondoctor on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:04PM
People all over were making a lot of noise about how bad the TPP was going to be. He could have listened and done something about it. Instead he stuck his fingers in his ears and *endorsed* it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by srobert on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:12PM
Yeah, but most of that noise are just working class and middle class people whining about their jobs getting outsourced. Nobody important saw any reason to oppose it before.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:20PM
But he's not opposed to it because he's against IP protections, patents, etc. Don't be fooled for a second that this guy wouldn't support the TPP were it not for some alleged asymmetry in the agreement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @06:01PM
It is the ruling elite of the more powerful country forcing their rules down the others' throats. Because they can.
Whatever concessions they did make in return, are not from their own pocket. Whatever collateral damage that does do to their subjects, the rulers do not care in the slightest.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:34PM
All of the leaders of these countries are running into the same basic problem: The majority of people in their countries don't want it, but since the countries are ostensibly democracies they feel a need to appear to oppose it while actually supporting it.
An example of the flip-flopping going on: Hillary Clinton. From 2010 through 2014, she was for the TPP, and her State Department was taking the lead in negotiating it. This last year, on the campaign trail, she started having doubts about it, then declared her opposition to it just before her first primary debate, but in such a way that she could easily change her mind again right after Election Day 2016.
And of course, the other tactic has been to keep the whole thing as secret as possible. Even now, after the actual text has been released to the public, there's been minimal US media coverage of what's actually in it. Since at least some of the provisions in it seem to be written primarily for the benefit of the US media conglomerates, I don't consider that an accident.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:42PM
Of course there's minimum covarage about it in states. The whole idea was to give corporations of USA an upperhand with unfair business practises. It makes it better for the USA corporations. Everyone else suffers. So the idea is to be quiet about that as much as possible. Since the american public does not need to know about that and you don't want the other countries to know how deep in shit they are, you don't gloat about it in the press.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @06:30PM
If the administration wanted it, when Clinton was Secretary of State, it was her job to work towards the administration's goals. You talk as if she had the freedom to act independently of the administration she worked for. She, or anyone else in the administration for that matter, can advise, cajole, disagree, whatever with what the President wants, but push comes to shove it is their job to support the President. If they feel they can't, then they leave.
If you're the technical sales guy for an IT shop that sets up Microsoft enterprise services, you can't be faulted for not pushing linux/BSD-based solutions. You can criticize Clinton on this issue if she personally supported it, but you'd need to separate that from supporting the administration's position.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 11 2015, @12:21AM
An example of the flip-flopping going on: Hillary Clinton...
I modded you +1 Insightful for a good overall post, but I do think Hillary Clinton is never a good example to use, as she doesn't have any real positions on anything except "Hillary should be in charge".
She has spent her political career turning the money of her corporate backers into power for Hillary, and she will say or do whatever it takes to gain more power.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:26PM
"Outfoxed" implies we were surprised, taken advantage of. There was enough noise made about the obvious problems, from conspiring in secret to inviting in corporate interests and freezing out public interests that what happened was anything but a surprise. We weren't "outfoxed", we were "sold down the river".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:41PM
We were outfuxed!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 10 2015, @04:00PM
Malcolm X said it best: "Oh, I say and I say it again, ya been had! Ya been took! Ya been hoodwinked! Bamboozled! Led astray! Run amok!"
And yes, it was basically national governments lining up to sell out themselves and their citizens to the megacorps. With wide support from across the political party spectrum in countries with "free" elections.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @09:09PM
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:40PM
This treaty will enslave us to international corporate actors, and destroy the U.S. Constitution.
And I'm just a moderate. saying this.
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:42PM
When does this come up for a vote?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @04:06PM
It doesn't. Welcome to modern democracy.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2015, @01:30AM
I've seen|heard several things that say they won't get serious about this until Spring 2016.
We should also note here that this is actually a treaty.
The Constitution says that THE HOUSE of Representatives HAS NO ROLE in ratifying treaties.
The Constitution says that a 2/3 majority of the Senate is required to approve a treaty.
This a-simple-majority-of-both-houses to get this approved is unconstitutional bullshit.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @04:12PM
> destroy the U.S. Constitution
...and every other Constitution who says the people is sovereign.
Because being sovereign implies being able to change your mind, and the TPP, according to the summary, doesn't permit it.
Now, if you think constitutions were a stopgap measure till the last remains of aristocracy and other old systems were made irrelevant, you would have a point, because apparently the same system who pushed out kings now pushes out parliaments. "Revolution" as an astronomical term implies returning to the initial point, the joke is on us.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Tuesday November 10 2015, @05:26PM
the constitution has already been destroyed. if the constitution were still valid then the TPP would be no threat to it since SCOTUS ruled that the constitution supersedes international treaties in Reid v Covert. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:40PM
As long as a treaty hasn't been ratified (by the parliament), it is not applicable. If, at this stage, you don't want it, then make sure the parliament doesn't ratify it. Once it's ratified, well, international treaties count even higher than the constitution, and good luck getting out of it then.
Of course, not ratifying disavows that nation's negotiation team, but if I read this correctly, at least Canada's already got a new executive...
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:45PM
This should not be voted on until the next president is in office.
The people need to decide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @05:29PM
And there's a whole one candidate who doesn't support it, and he probably won't even win the primaries. No, the TPP is pretty much a done deal at this point because the neo-nobility will never allow Sanders to get elected.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday November 11 2015, @12:49AM
The only serious candidates iirc that oppose it are Sanders and Trump.
Trump is, well, Trump. Crazy. Unelectable. That being said, if Sanders isn't in the running either as a D or I, I don't hear word of a massive write-in campaign, and Trump has the R nomination, why the fsck not. He'll have my vote. It's not like we're electing a dictator. The other two branches of government will keep his crazy at bay.
Sanders might have a good run of it, but there are two things working against him. Firstly, there's the Coronation of Clinton. If she doesn't get the D nomination, I'll be flabbergasted. So then the second thing comes into play. If Sanders stays in the running as an I, that means he no longer gets the votes from the large number of people who just mark “straight ticket D” at the polls.
I think if Sanders got D, he'd win in a landslide. If Trump gets R and Sanders is running as I, Sanders might be the first president since Fillmore (Whig) not to be a D or R, first I since Washington. If Jeb has R and Sanders stays in as I, then Jeb is the next president. Other scenarios are more of a toss-up.
You are probably correct in the end, though. There will be some reason Sanders drops out entirely. If Trump gets R, the Coronation of Clinton will be complete. If Jeb gets R, it may be an actual contest, but an entirely meaningless one since in all probability our next president is from one of the two dynasties without Sanders running as I.
I haven't keep up with the Libertarians as much as I used to, but the only other scenario that can prevent a dynasty presidency next is if Gary Johnson runs as L. Even then, that's a million in one shot. I don't think I even know his position on TPP, but I have been throwing money at the L+G(reen) initiative (Johnson is the main L for that at least and I believe Jill Stein is the main G) to open up the debates to more than just Rs and Ds.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2015, @02:15AM
Jill Stein (a physician), when she debated Mitt Romney during the Massachusetts gubernatorial race, was called "the only adult in the room" by the Boston Globe.
So, how "serious" do you want?
Her previous stances against SOPA and PIPA [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [alternet.org] give an indication that she opposes the likes of TPP.
This guy uses the past tense to acknowledge that the Big 2 parties and Lamestream Media are doing everything they can to make sure no one is aware of her. [counterpunch.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @11:28PM
Canada just had an election, last month, and got a new prime minister out of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @05:34PM
Seems a treaty should need a referendum then.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Tuesday November 10 2015, @06:16PM
You would also think that a treaty like this shouldn't be "negotiated" in complete secrecy but.....
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Tuesday November 10 2015, @11:00PM
It has already been ratified (in the US), via the Trade Promotion Authority bill. There, it now has to be de-ratified.
The agreement was essentially approved before it was written. And you can bet your ass that it being approved prior to finalization is what allowed the criminals writing it to put even more absurd things that they knew they would get away with.