TTIP Talks Should Be Transparent, IPR Chapter May Not be Required, Advocates Tell Negotiators

Advocates repeatedly urged transparency in the process, citing previous trade negotiations that had successfully been transparent. James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, called for published trade documents to "put us all on an equal" level. "I wish you didn't have two classes of citizens in the U.S." -- those that are on companies' advisory boards and can see the drafts and proposals and those that aren't -- he said. Individuals and nonprofit groups like Love's should be able to see the documents without signing a nondisclosure agreement, he said. Seeing the texts after signing an NDA "would have no value to us" since members of the group "couldn't talk to the general public" or media about what they had read, he continued. Love contrasted the closed TTIP process with the open process that led to the World Intellectual Property Organization's Treaty for the Visually Impaired. Drafts were being released to stakeholders and the public daily during that process, which "improved the agreement," he said.

There is "absolutely no reason to classify the documents," said Susan Grant, director-consumer protection at Consumer Federation of America, in a prepared statement. USTR "should provide regular updates on its website, including timely posting of all documents," she said, pointing to the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the Multilateral Agreement on Investments and other as examples of trade negotiations with publicly available texts. "Classifying them as secret only serves to fuel distrust about whether our government is acting for the benefit of all of just for certain business interests," she said.

"It's far from clear" that TTIP should include an intellectual property chapter, said technology lawyer Jonathan Band, on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Including a chapter where it's not needed could harm the process, as having a controversial intellectual property chapter could "really impede other areas where agreement could be reached," he said. Erickson said he expects many stakeholders will lobby for the inclusion of an intellectual property rights chapter in TTIP. While the Internet Association doesn't think such a chapter is necessary, if one is included, "we want to be careful that we're promoting a fair, balanced approach," he said.

TTIP shouldn't be used to weaken intellectual property rights, said Mark Schultz, co-director of academic programs at George Mason University's Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property. TTIP is a chance for the U.S. and EU to engage in "progressive improvement and harmonization" of their separately strong intellectual property right regimes, and negotiators should ignore the argument that an intellectual property chapter isn't needed because both parties have such strong regimes, he said. "Just because the rights are strong, doesn't mean they're necessarily effective," especially across borders, he said.

TTIP should allow cross-border flow of data, which can often be limited by laws that "come in the guise of substantive law," Erickson said. Protectionist policies to prevent foreign competitors from having access to a country's market are often written as cybersecurity or privacy legislation, he continued. "We want to be careful about not using these as an excuse" to keep foreign competitors out, he said. The CCIA is also opposed to "forced localization" for software and hardware, Band said. -- Kate Tummarello