About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Konami Gaming, Inc. v. High 5 Games, LLC (D. Nev.) »

April 15, 2018


Kevin, when I read your words:

"..suspending agreement for provisions supported by the U.S."

My eyebrows went up. My own take, from outside the USA, was that the withdrawal of the USA freed the way swiftly to get rid of a large number of unwanted provisions, 22 you tell us, that were only in the draft TPP at the insistence of the USA, alone.

Is that what you meant by "supported by the U.S"?

Similar events are being acted out here in Europe, with the BREXIT from the EU. The UK thinks it can do it cost-free.

Soft power is a funny thing. See how it slowly bleeds away, if you don't nurture it.

Focusing on the 11 IP-related suspended provisions (I am loathe to publicly opine on the financial services ones outside my bailiwick), I think that it may be imprecise to say that they were supported by the US alone but, in view of the US percentage of GDP amongst the group and the necessity in the TPP (modified in the CPTPP) for the treaty to come into force only when the number of signatories who had ratified the treaty represented greater than 40% of group GDP (i.e., requiring US participation), Americans were in a position to have certain provisions included that were priorities for US industries.

BREXIT is another matter. Good luck with that.

And I agree with the "soft power" sentiment. We are learning that here in the US almost daily.

Thanks for the comment.

I hadn't appreciated the ">40% GDP" point. I'm impressed. What a strong measure that is, to assist the bigger Member States of the Group, to get what they want.

I didn't say that support was found only in the USA delegation. For as long as the USA is in the room, lots of minnows will "support" what the big fish wants. Big fish eat for breakfast any little fish that displease them. Soft power, nature red in tooth and claw, call it what you like.

As the UK will discover, after it exits the EU.

The comments to this entry are closed.

March 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31