SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Ten Questions About Internet Governance

On April 23 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance,” also known as “NETmundial” in an allusion to the global football event that will occur later in that country, will be convened. Juan Alfonso Fernández González of the Cuban Communications Ministry and a veteran of the UN internet governance meetings, raises 10 questions that need to be answered at NETmundial.


Latest Comments
  • Justice Roberts seems to think that adjusting ones... »
  • These obscured negotiations appear to this reader ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    New Trans-Pacific Partnership Caucus In US Congress

    Published on 30 October 2013 @ 5:28 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    A new caucus of supporters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement under negotiation was launched yesterday in the US Congress.

    The Friends of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) caucus is headed by four co-chairman: Republican Reps. David Reichert of Washington and Charles Boustany of Louisiana, and Democratic Reps. Ron Kind of Wisconsin and Gregory Meeks of New York.

    The four members issued a press announcement with statements on why they are supporting the agreement, which they say is important for US jobs, exports and economic growth.

    “The Caucus will provide a forum to discuss the broader U.S. strategic goals and benefits of the TPP Agreement,” Meeks said.

    According to Open Secrets, among the four co-chairs, Reichert’s top donor last year was Microsoft, and Kind has numerous healthcare and pharmaceutical donors.

    The hyper-secret TPP negotiations have taken an upturn in intensity in recent weeks, though the goal of completion in 2013 seems to be ambitious, according to available information, in part due to the complexity of intellectual property negotiations.

    The talks continue to come under fire for a lack of transparency and for suspected provisions that public health advocates say could harm medicines access for the public. See a recent report here.

    Motion Picture Association of America Chairman Chris Dodd issued a statement today in support of the caucus, whose aim, he said, “is to ensure a meaningful TPP agreement.”

    “[W]e place the highest priority on working with our trading partners and the US government to achieve a comprehensive, high-standard and commercially-meaningful agreement,” Dodd said. “Yesterday’s announcement is an important step toward achieving a TPP agreement that will increase market access while providing the tools necessary to protect intellectual property in the digital age.”

    Countries negotiating the TPP include: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States and Vietnam.

     

     

    Comments

    1. N. Kennedy says:

      4 of the “5 eyes” intelligence-sharing union (U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand) are involved in these secretive and non transparent negotiations, with the priviledged information gleaned from their international dragnet surveillance of the world. A recent article from the Sidney Morning Herald asserts that many countries in E.and S.E. Asia were being spied on from the U.S. embassies in their large cities. “Australia is fully aware of the extent of United States’ electronic espionage against our neighbours and trading partners and has access to much of the data being collected. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/us-spying-on-our-neighbours-through-embassies-20131029-2wcvl.html#ixzz2jE0kJTKm

      Maybe the U.S. are in a hurry to sign this monstrous deal before any more of the Snowden revelations inform and advise their intended victims away from harm. Flush the TPP.
      http://www.flushthetpp.org/

    2. dino says:

      The position of this caucus is suspicious. It suggests that they’ve had access to the details of the top secret TPP negotiations. Why don’t they come clean and explain the details of why they think TPP is such a great deal? We mere citizens, small business owners and taxpayers don’t have a clue — and not because we haven’t tried to find out.

    3. dino says:

      So, making a comment about the secrecy of TPP negotiations get censored by this website. Nice example of the openness this group supposedly espouses.

      My question is this: if the Caucus thinks the TPP is such a great deal, then let us Americans (business owners, taxpayers) know what’s in the agreement.

    4. William New says:

      Dino – just a quick response to say we did not censor your comment, we just have a small staff and hadn’t had a chance to see it yet. Please feel free to comment about the secrecy of the TPP negotiations. We do. – William New, editor

    5. Rob says:

      Chris Dodd is easily the biggest sellout I know, and an embarrassment for the human race. I will never understand how my state continued to re-elect him, even amongst scandal after scandal; the most recent being telling Congress to accept his bribes and do what he tells them to.

      Unfortunately, I think this bill will pass. Quite frankly, I don’t see how it’s possible for our country to be going downhill so fast…I mean it’s literally becoming a 90 degree hill–yeah, a drop. I’m afraid for the many things this bill will introduce, and I’m betting that little to nothing was reformed in terms of privacy, or the pure silliness in it that we’ve known since the leaked draft. I’m only 20, and I’ve been saying for awhile I do not want to live in this country anymore–it’s not what it used to be, but the problem is there don’t seem to be many places in the world free from censorship, along with being a first-world country.

    6. The TPP, if Passed, Spells the End of Popular Sovereignty for The United States « naked capitalism says:

      […] not, that our political class — Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch,  a bipartisan caucus, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Editorial Board of The New York Times, to name a few of the usual […]

    7. The TPP, if Passed, Spells the End of Popular Sovereignty for The United States | Thought FTW says:

      […] or not, that our political class — Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch,  a bipartisan caucus, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Editorial Board of The New York Times, to name a few of the usual […]

    8. THE END OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY FOR THE UNITED STATES | Deadly Clear says:

      […] or not, that our political class — Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch,  a bipartisan caucus, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Editorial Board of The New York Times, to name a few of the […]

    9. Export-only Zombies Form Pro-Globalism Caucus | Trade ReformTrade Reform says:

      […] New Trans-Pacific Partnership Caucus In US Congress […]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.197.87.25