Asia Pacific Free Trade Agreement
The intellectual property section of a proposed TPP that has been disclosed establishes a minimum of protection that the parties to the agreement must afford for trademarks, copyrights and patents.  Copyright is granted to the author for a lifetime of more than 70 years and requires countries to impose criminal sanctions for copyright infringement, such as the management of digital rights.  The Office of the United States Trade Representative challenges the idea that ISDS “challenges the sovereign capacity of governments to impose any measures they wish to protect workers` rights, the environment or other public welfare issues.”  The International Bar Association (IBA) echoes this view and notes that “while investment contracts restrict the ability of states to impose arbitrary or discriminatory treatment, they do not restrict (and, in fact, expressly protect) a state`s sovereign right to regulate in the public interest in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner.”  The White House notes that investment protection is an integral part of more than 3,000 trade agreements, the vast majority of which have some form of neutral arbitration.  The United States participates in at least 50 such agreements, has experienced only 13 isDS cases and has never lost a case of ISDS.  The White House asserts that the components of the TPP ISDR are an improvement and improvement over ISDS in other trade agreements: the TPP makes it clear that governments can regulate in the public interest (including health, safety and the environment); The TPP provides for the ability to promptly dismiss reckless claims and to grant rights against the applicant in order to discourage such actions; Fictitious companies are prevented from accessing investment protection measures; and arbitration procedures under the TPP are publicly available and allow non-parties to lodge appeals.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized the leak of the proposed chapter on intellectual property, which covered copyright, trademarks and patents. In the United States, they believed that this would further strengthen controversial aspects of U.S. copyright (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and limit Congress` ability to participate in national law reform to meet the evolving intellectual property needs of U.S. citizens and the innovative technology sector. The standardization of copyright rules by other signatories would also require significant changes to copyright law in other countries.
These include, according to the EFF, the obligation for countries to extend copyright rules, to limit fair dealing, to impose criminal sanctions for copyright violations that are not commercially motivated (for example. B, sharing copyrighted digital media files), taking on greater responsibility for internet intermediaries, strengthening the protection of digital blockages and creating new threats to journalists and whistleblowers.  Some critics and even supporters of the TPP wanted the agreement to contain measures against nations acting on alleged monetary manipulation, particularly against China.  Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, argued, however, that the trade agreement would never involve restrictions on monetary manipulation because it would have limited U.S. monetary policy.  Harvard economist Jeffrey Frankel argued that the inclusion of the language of monetary manipulation in the TPP would be a mistake.  Frankel noted that monetary manipulation would be difficult to implement (in part because it cannot be said whether a currency is overvalued or undervalued); “monetary manipulation” can often be legitimate; China, often referred to as a major monetary manipulator, is not involved in the TPP; Accusations of monetary manipulation are often worthless; and because it would limit U.S. monetary policy.  ECIPE stated in 2014 that the TPP would be