Wednesday, June 17, 2015

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Part Four - Intellectual Property

Before I get into today's TPP topic, I need to address the anticipated vote on TAA/TPA. I have so many questions. As recently as Monday, the New York Times was reporting the same partisan voting lines on the Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation as I described in the Introduction:
What happened last Friday?! Democrats insisted the TAA be attached to the TPA (Trade Promotion Authority, AKA "Fast Track") bill, then they broke ranks with Obama and rejected it. Why? It is almost as if they set up the Republicans, but to what end? And why are Republicans overwhelmingly supporting legislation they would ordinarily reject?
Has something gone wrong with the original plan? Has Obama been set up? Is the reason WikiLieaks has been releasing this information because Russia is trying to stop the TPP? In that case, Putin is protecting China, but what of George Soros? Has Russia turned on its own?
For those who are reading my blog for the first time, I encourage you to read the first three parts of this series. I am not arguing in favor of the TAA, nor the TPA. Both are bad for America, and the TPA is flat-out unconstitutional. I am simply trying to understand this completely dysfunctional government. It is not making any sense to me. Reports are that Obama has never lobbied for anything as hard in his presidency as he has for the TPP, yet he does not have his own party lined up. Even Nancy Pelosi has turned on him. What is the story?
Yesterday, I mentioned intellectual property rights, and coincidentally something happened on Twitter that raised more questions. I believe everyone can agree that we are entitled to have our work protected by law. If I invent or create something, I am entitled to the fruits of my labor. But, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement appears to carry things a little too far. One major problem is the fact that individuals are elevated to nation status, which means if a country infringes on my copyright I can sue that government, and the lawsuit will not go to the World Court but rather to a tribunal. I seem to recall a ballyhoo over tribunals when it came to the War on Terror, but no one is screaming about this.
For legal purposes, a corporation is considered as an individual. So, if for example a company George Soros has based in Singapore decides America has infringed on a patent, he can sue America. That lawsuit will be tried in a tribunal made up of the twelve nations of the TPP:
Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, United States, Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, Canada, and Japan
In other words, a kangaroo court. Does anyone have chills going up and down his or her spine yet? Talk about being set up.
Last night, someone sent me a video on Twitter from "across the pond" for amusement. Instead of playing, I got a message saying it was blocked "for copyright protection". What if that video had been produced by Soros in a TPP-member nation and inadvertently the video had played? Instant lawsuit, only he would not sue me. He would sue the American government as well as the originating country for failing to protect his copyright, and since he has holdings around the world he pretty much owns that kangaroo court.
The length of time being proposed for the protection of property rights is also bothersome: Seventy years post-mortem. So, Alex can carry on his father's legacy until his own death and pass it along to his children for a total of seven decades after George passes on. That is quite a dynasty. And wait until you see just how far the Soros tentacles reach.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Slum Lords in Las Vegas, Nevada

I apologize for the long absence, but I have not felt compelled to write anything until now. My readers will recall that I finally secured ...