dirty old men

Fascinating Greek parallel euro payment network nearly activated in crisis, after hacking into EU-controlled systems to clone tax IDs

It can't be emphasized enough that the global debt complex we are all trapped in is reproduced daily by sophisticated (and in many cases quite old & deteriorated) computers. There is no magic man behind the curtain, just a bunch of nasty computer systems whose authority is enforced by central banking authorities like the Troika, IMF, World Bank, Bank for International Settlements and the Federal Reserve System.

This is one of the biggest stories at this level I have seen in ages, perhaps ever. Fascinating story very worth reading: A secret lolcat team in Greece's finance ministry hacked into their own EU-controlled systems and had a parallel financial network ready to go, but it all got wound down. Apparently FM Varoufakis resigned as a result of the plan being halted - and overall it was a pretty cool plan under dire national circumstances of emergency survival vs austerity.

Varoufakis reveals cloak and dagger 'Plan B' for Greece, awaits treason charges - Telegraph;

VFakDrak_0.png

A secret cell at the Greek finance ministry hacked into the government computers and drew up elaborate plans for a system of parallel payments that could be switched from euros to the drachma at the "flick of a button" .

The revelations have caused a political storm in Greece and confirm just how close the country came to drastic measures before premier Alexis Tsipras gave in to demands from Europe's creditor powers, acknowledging that his own cabinet would not support such a dangerous confrontation.

Yanis Varoufakis, the former finance minister, told a group of investors in London that a five-man team under his control had been working for months on a contingency plan to create euro liquidity if the European Central Bank cut off emergency funding to the Greek financial system, as it in fact did after talks broke down and Syriza called a referendum.

People really need to pay more attention to the crappy computers running the whole financial system, see also very important here: Bank IT, Grexit, and Systemic Risk | naked capitalism - lots of gory details:

On the IT front, the challenge is vastly larger due to the state of financial firm IT systems. We intend to return to this topic, because we see bank IT systems as an unrecognized source of systemic risk. They are required to run to mission critical standards: enormous transaction volumes, extremely high demands for accuracy of end output, high uptimes. Yet the code base is an agglomeration, with many important operations relying in meaningful ways on legacy systems. Thus, as our expert with relevant experience stressed, changes that seem simple are anything but.

VaroufakisStare_0.pngThis is precisely why it is so important to understand these systems and come up with intermediate replacements, as your local version of the ECB is always waiting to make its next move for artificial austerity & assorted lethal games all taking place inside these computers…

More: Reports Of Secret Drachma Plots Leave Tsipras Facing Fresh Crisis | Zero Hedge, Syriza "Rebels" Planned To Ransack Greek Mint, Seize Cash Reserves, Arrest Central Bank Governor | Zero Hedge.

Varoufakis claims had approval to plan parallel banking system | News | ekathimerini.com

Former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis has claimed that he was authorized by Alexis Tsipras last December to look into a parallel payment system that would operate using wiretapped tax registration numbers (AFMs) and could eventually work as a parallel banking system, Kathimerini has learned.

In a teleconference call with members of international hedge funds that was allegedly coordinated by former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont, Varoufakis claimed to have been given the okay by Tsipras last December – a month before general elections that brought SYRIZA to power – to plan a payment system that could operate in euros but which could be changed into drachmas "overnight" if necessary, Kathimerini understands.

Varoufakis worked with a small team to prepare the plan, which would have required a staff of 1,000 to implement but did not get the final go-ahead from Tsipras to proceed, he said.

The call took place on July 16, more than a week after Varoufakis left his post as finance minister.

The plan would involve hijacking the AFMs of taxpayers and corporations by hacking into General Secretariat of Public Revenues website, Varoufakis told his interlocutors.This would allow the creation of a parallel system that could operate if banks were forced to close and which would allow payments to be made between third parties and the state and could eventually lead to the creation of a parallel banking system, he said.

As the general secretariat is a system that is monitored by Greece’s creditors and is therefore difficult to access, Varoufakis said he assigned a childhood friend of his, an information technology expert who became a professor at Columbia University, to hack into the system. A week after Varouakis took over the ministry, he said the friend telephoned him and said he had “control” of the hardware but not the software "which belongs to the troika."

….

"The prime minister before he became PM, before we won the election in January, had given me the green light to come up with a Plan B. And I assembled a very able team, a small team as it had to be because that had to be kept completely under wraps for obvious reasons. And we had been working since the end of December or beginning of January on creating one.

"What we planned to do was the following. There is the website of the tax office like there is in Britain and everywhere else, where citizens, taxpayers go into the website they use their tax file number and they transfer through web banking monies from the bank account to their tax file number so as to make payments on VAT, income tax and so on and so forth.

“We were planning to create, surreptitiously, reserve accounts attached to every tax file number, without telling anyone, just to have this system in a function under wraps. And, at the touch of a button, to allow us to give PIN numbers to tax file number holders, to taxpayers.

"That would have created a parallel banking system while the banks were shut as a result of the ECBs aggressive action to deny us some breathing space.

"This was very well developed and I think it would have made a very big difference because very soon we could have extended it, using apps on smartphones and it could become a functioning parallel system and of course this would be euro denominated but at the drop of a hat it could be converted to a new drachma.

"But let me tell you - and this is quite a fascinating story - what difficulties I faced. The General Secretary of Public Revenues within my ministry is controlled fully and directly by the troika. It was not under control of my ministry, of me as minister, it was controlled by Brussels.

Ok, so problem number one: The general secretary of information systems on the other hand was controlled by me, as minister. I appointed a good friend of mine, a childhood friend of mine who had become professor of IT at Columbia University in the States and so on. I put him in because I trusted him to develop this……


a week or so after we moved into the ministry, he calls me up and says to me: 'You know what? I control the machines, I control the hardware but I do not control the software. The software belongs to the troika controlled General Secretary of Public Revenues. What do I do?'

…..

"So we decided to hack into my ministry’s own software program in order to be able break it up to just copy just to copy the code of the tax systems website onto a large computer in his office so that he can work out how to design and implement this parallel payment system.

"And we were ready to get the green light from the PM when the banks closed in order to move into the General Secretariat of Public Revenues, which is not controlled by us but is controlled by Brussels, and to plug this laptop in and to energize the system.


Obviously it was a disappointment to many sane people that Syriza seems to have mostly folded to the Troika but perhaps the Secret Team tactic could be used when the next big one hits the fan and an entrapped debtor nation decides to quickly assert technical sovereignty.

But how to pull this again without tipping the hand? And could it be used again by Greece, now that the word is out? What will happen to Varoufakis' rather exposed techie friend, assuming it's accurate? A fascinating and very pertinent story, I can only hope gets dramatized in some fashion.

Get these computers because one way or another, they are definitely gonna getcha, getcha, getcha…


Update: worth pointing out the Federal Reserve drama over banks wanting their electronically created money kicked back from the Fed. Interesting because it unravels a 100-year-old pact between Congress and banks, as well as highlighting the bizarre secretive and lucrative bank membership in Fed regional entities. Great source of electronic "money" to put into the roads, Ace work whoever managed to slide this policy under the nose of the bank lobbyist fleet.

The Hill, 7/25/2015 - Banks revolt over plan to kill $17B Fed payout by Peter Schroeder

Industry lobbyists say they were blindsided by the inclusion of the provision, which would help policymakers cover the bill’s cost by cutting the regular dividend the Federal Reserve pays to its member banks.

One lobbyist went so far as to reread the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 after getting wind of the proposal to determine what was at stake.
“I think it took everyone by surprise,” said Paul Merski with the Independent Community Bankers of America. “There was no study of the issue, no hearings, no consultation with the Federal Reserve itself.”

“It came on very quickly,” said James Ballentine of the American Bankers Association, who said he first caught wind of the idea a little over a week ago. “It’s certainly a scramble.”

In a Congress where lawmakers are always hunting for politically palatable ways to raise revenue or cut costs to cover the expenses of additional legislation, the Fed provision was a novel, and rich, one. The proposal is estimated to raise $17 billion over the next decade, and is by far the richest “pay for” included in the bill.

Lobbyists said they were not aware of any previous time when lawmakers had attached the language to a piece of legislation, which would scrap a perk banks have come to expect for over a century.

When banks join the Federal Reserve system, they are required to buy stock in the central bank equal to 6 percent of their assets. However, that stock does not gain value and cannot be traded or sold, so to entice banks to participate, the Fed pays out a 6 percent dividend payment.

The Senate proposal says it would slash that “overly generous” payout to 1.5 percent for all banks with more than $1 billion in assets. While the summary language outlining the proposal said that change would only impact “large banks,” industry advocates argued that banks most would identify as small community shops could easily have assets in excess of that amount.

Banks are working to mobilize against the provision, even as lawmakers are pushing to pass a highway bill before program funding expires at the end of the month.

Merski said ICBA had launched a “nationwide grassroots effort,” enlisting its numerous member banks and bankers and told them to call Senate offices to oppose the provision.

And Ballentine said his group was engaged in a concerted education effort for members, outlining why the industry believes the policy change would be disruptive and has no place in highway legislation.

Five major industry groups also sent a letter to lawmakers blasting the provision, saying it “undermines a key agreement that has underpinned the United States banking system for 100 years.”

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) opposes the provision, and invited Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen to opine on it when she appeared before his panel earlier this month.

She told lawmakers that if the dividend payment is reduced, some banks may not want to buy into the Fed.

“This is a change that likely would be a significant concern to the many small banks that receive the dividend,” she said.

Donald Kohn, the former vice chair of the Fed, told House lawmakers Wednesday that the proposal would be one directly felt by banks.

“Let’s recognize that by lowering it to, say, 1.5 percent on the proposal, in effect you are placing a tax on banks,” he told the House Financial Services Committee.

A review of previous policy proposals suggests that the idea may have first been thought up by House liberals. The 2014 budget proposal from the Congressional Progressive Caucus put forward the idea to raise revenue, and a CPC aide said he believed it was the first time someone in Congress proposed the idea. But the Senate highway bill apparently marks the first time members have actually placed it in actual legislation.

This all reminds me that the Federal Reserve Bank [Atlanta] branch in Miami would have some fascinating figures benefiting its busy member banks from the 1980s in the Iran Contra cocaine salad days, but that's another story... [Jeb Bush's angle in the Miami Dade Republican Party/Cartel days is treated in this hilarious Daily Beast limited hangout, spurring hope of awesome JebCokeCIA campaign stories (or videos?) yet to come.]

Tragic Gray State fallout: "Sandy Hook Hoaxer" stalker troll squad turns against Minnesota Truthers & late filmmaker David Crowley's family & friends in bizarre twist

If you want to help stop acting crazy so we can tell our loved ones that there is nothing to worry about. All the conspiracy buzz is freaking them out. They are afraid some of you lunatics are gonna come for them thinking we are covering stuff up.
One of late director David Crowley's friends begging the hoaxers to lay off before the funeral

One of the more disgusting displays I've ever seen on the Internet has gone down in the last week or so, with a bunch of creepy cats and sockpuppets emerging seemingly from nowhere to disparage the friends and family of the late David Crowley, a Minnesota alternative filmmaker who investigators currently believe shot himself as well as his wife and daughter. Unfortunately today this has escalated into veiled threats against at least one of Crowley's friends as well, a horrible display.

To cut a long and stupid story short, the core of this network of people are best known as the "Sandy Hook Hoaxers" who have now latched onto a new tragedy to wrap themselves in and give their lives meaning. Until now, I've never seen gangstalking instigated against Truthers after a tragedy, even before the funerals. These are the very same key people who have been harassing various families in Newtown Connecticut, generally creeping and making fools of themselves. They are the operators of Sandy Hook Hoax facebook group and friends.

While both the Sandy Hook shooting and the unfortunate demise of David Crowley & his family are both tragic and weird, these tragedies are seized upon by really unbalanced people who go crusading around after whoever they can find, in an effort to draw attention to themselves.

This mob of sick troll behavior also quite effectively wrecks the efforts of more principled "citizen investigators" or Truthers that attempt to discern the truth in these matters, not continuously verbally abuse the townspeople so to speak. This could be termed "poisoning the well" or "muddying the waters". Nowadays even people Obama cites in speeches get this treatment.

//// UPDATE 1/29: Brandan Hunt reiterates some points (w credits to this post) on a Youtube video which seems an accurate summary. Thanks! ////

A "poisoning the well" example in Sandy Hook: many of these hoaxers latched onto the memes and frame of "dallasgoldbug" who is notorious for claiming political figures are actually actors, like Steve Buscemi is actually Terrence McKenna for example. This delusion got thrown at seemingly everyone in Newtown CT, which also effectively helps poison research on the issue should covert operators actually use 'crisis actors' in some shady event.

Naturally this same delusion got directed at Crowley's friends and acquaintances - for some reason these people with the yellow 9/11 USA avatars are seemingly devoid of discernment and decency:

same-person.png

So-called "Justice for David Crowley & family" group run by full fruitbats: The Sandy Hook Hoaxer trolls are flocking to this new tragedy. Here, for example, the sole group administrator, Daniel Michael Hennen of Chaska, says that Crowley's friends, on Instagram sharing a laugh together on the same day they did media interviews on two local networks, are "the four guys who have the 'most to gain' from David Crowley NOT being alive. Let that sink in." and "...They have the most to gain with david six feet under, that's all." [Not run by the same person as this other page, which is not attacking the family or friends]

Hennen is essentially unknown to Crowley's friends, but has started a whole bunch of "Justice for X" groups of which he is always the sole administrator. This group is by far the most popular with 700+ people. Here he's attempting to demonize Crowley's friends using a favorite old Sandy Hook theory that bereaved people apparently never smile again. ("it takes me back to the Sandy Hook days…" as he tries to live within that tragedy's fallout.)

blame-friends.png blame-friends2.png

The day before, Hennen posited that Crowley's brother was "jealous" and therefore had a major motive to murder his own brother and his family. And earlier today he said that one of Crowley's close friends "certainly needs his ass kicked." Hennen's kept the innuendoes against David's brother rolling today:

blame-brother.png

Here is today's veiled threat against Crowley's friend Sean - I'm posting the both the folded and unfolded versions:


assault-sean-threat.png assault-sean-threat2.png

On this thread first it's worth noting that Minnesotan Michael Okishoff has some criminal convictions for domestic issues (and not surprisingly tried to order around female group members in private chats). Okishoff is also attempting to raise money in a GoFundMe he claims will ultimately be turned over for family medical bills, as a clone of a legitimate fundraising campaign Crowley's brother started.

Here we have the Sandy Hook Hoaxer rabbit hole of madness: As noted last May by CW Wade, Thomas Lapp has been cited as involved in cyberstalking Newtown parents and children, as well as his friend Tony Mead, also highly active on this group. Dan Hennen wrote a piece defending flagship hoaxer Wolfgang Halbig in March 2014. Wolfgang apparently briefly checked into this new group and then bounced.

Another Sandy Hook alt media writer, Brandan Hunt, traced Wolfgang Halbig's operations and circle of troll friends: SANDY HOOK: Wolfgang Halbig is a LIAR (Video Presentation, Transcript + Downloads) - Brendan Hunt.com. Halbig has adeptly scammed people who hope that some light can be shed on Sandy Hook.

Unfortunately apparently Jim Fetzer has been all over this bad behavior with Sandy Hook as well, embarrassing more respectful alternative researchers. Apparently he started promoting dallasgoldbug ages ago.

If anything the accusations and paranoia leveled by Hennen, Lapp and Mead resemble when another horrible middle aged hoaxer, Rick Santilli, accused Jim Fetzer of a role in murdering a Truther in Uptown Minneapolis several years ago, which I found appalling (and almost finished writing a post about shortly after it happened).

These kind of crazy accusations against other researchers and their friends is part of how this bitter conspiracy troll class seems to bond, and the more people call them out, the more they bunker up into their own worldview. More Sandy Hook links below...

////

Sean messaged me the same block message and suggests that we not engage Hennen or his hoaxer friends anymore, and instead go with the copypasta. I am including Sean's message here so it's not lost in the shuffle - linebreaks added for clarity:

dan michael hennen you coward... you take a few sentences of our conversation and share that why would you not share the whole thing... Like I said on the phone respect and rights are 2 completely different things, and when it comes to this you have neither. I will not let you get me angry, you do not have that power nor the respect to even let you cloud my thoughts through all of this. What I am happy to see is the true friends of mine, family and gray state team who have put countless hours to try and reason with your delusional false empathetic gestures.

But obviously you are a sociopath and unable to decipher with rational reason or emotion. I most feel sorry for your children. a message to all who are trying to rationalize with this psychotic please do not waste your time he is in this only to fulfill his sick needs of torment and has lacked the ability to deal with his inner demons im sure that he is sick and needs help. even through his hatred and disrespect for this situation I still have hope for him that he will one day learn respect and honor, for the only reason is that you have children. You are so lucky I am where I am mentally and have only strived to improve myself daily that I will never be the reason you look over your shoulder.

I cannot speak for others but all you have done is put yourself as the target for misguided anger, I pray that no one would ever harm you as that would be against the crowleys wishes and disappoint me. as far as any and all of my friends please do as I and the family and friends are doing and ignore these trolls. Dan is the one who has to look at himself and tho he might not see any of his actions as wrong that is just an apparent red flag is his sickness. Sean Wright, family friend of David Komel and Raniya

/// I sean Wright Give Dan Feidt full permission to troll Dan hennen with my comment and think this will be enough to get him to stop but we do not need to waste any of our time on him other than clicking "control v" that is all the respect he deserves, he does not deserve any actualy intellectual responses from any of us please keep our anger harnessed as it will only fulfill his sick mind. Thank you respectfully Sean Wright 1/25/2014

Before I realized that this was the Sandy Hook Hoaxer troll squad I posted the following to the group, a few days ago:

The statement from the group admin "In some circles, HE committed the crimes." referring to someone in Crowley's immediate family is a dangerous and defamatory statement to peg on the internet especially when David's actual real-world friends have warned plenty of times that they and the family are worried about unbalanced people coming after them. This followed an ad hominem attack saying anyone who doesn't believe it wasn't a murder/suicide is missing something obvious to a 5th grade education.

Detaching from reality and asserting an alternate one "In some circles, HE committed the crimes" as opposed to stating "some circles believe that" is defamatory and makes the situation more dangerous. There are mentally ill people sucked into this thing now and if you don't put some boundaries, especially defamation of family members, things are going to get worse, not better, and that is shameful.

Making ad hominem attacks about people who don't buy these speculative storylines peddled around all week is also the shortcut to failing to achieve any "truth" or justice and the lack of class shown in this moment is appalling.

Sean posted this back on the 22nd, before things got even crazier (check the thread from hell):

Please stop with the accusations of an inside job, and its our right to upload video thats not your work. Trolling is pointless. Us friends and fam have issued statements, met w press, and have been very accomodating due to the suspiciousness of the tragic events which took place. To settle the trolls:

Not a conspiracy of murder.

David did not receive 30 mil.

Not going to confirm any facts of the investigation until its complete and delivered to family.

The rise was only rough cut for a reason it was never meant to be publicly viewed. He put that up 2 years so we could help him with stuff he needed input on.

The 2nd cut and 3 are way different than the rough cut.

The finsl cut is what david wanted released and that will come out in time, first we must bury our friends and let the investigation take place there is a ton of information to go thru and so much more piling in daily. I have faith in the detectives working this case as does the family and rest of close friends.

We are not covering anything up.

We are carefully sharing what we can. We need to get access to all the pages to insure accurate information is released.

Too many people are trying to get their name out in vein of this event. david was on bring of many projects (cant disclose publicly and cuz of all that is going on from speculation you see why)

Only facts out is they went out painlessly and not a conspiracy. Please stop with the nonsense its scaring our loved ones and we have been so busy we have not even been able to begin to grieve. Its not fair to us.

If you want to help stop acting crazy so we can tell our loved ones that there is nothing to worry about. All the conspiracy buzz is freaking them out. They are afraid some of you lunatics are gonna come for them thinking we are covering stuff up.

Please have class and respect for the dead if not for me then please for the families of the deceased.

I had to tell my daughter her friend and whole family died. She was only able to smile when i told her paleo is ok. Stop scaring my loved ones. Put urself in our shoes how could you handle this better than we are i would love to know (not).

Danny August Mason Adam Shambour Mason Norsk Hest and have not had a second to grieve. Please give us the same respect the families deserve. Please respect david komel and rani and their families.

today we did 2 interviews w msm, that was shadowed by the release of the rough cut. Tomorrow ben swann interview. Family set up fund raiser and taking care of funerals wakes and everything else that has to be done.

///

Earlier vultures perch: I thought it was contemptible that Kevin Barrett immediately blamed the Mossad for this tragedy via Iranian state media PressTV site, without a particle of evidence. The ever-trashy Southern Poverty Law Center of course has a field day with all the fruitbattery and re-posting Crowley's videos under "hatewatch". Of course SPLC cites the stalker/hoaxer Thomas Lapp to prove their overall persistent point, that generally alt-media people are dangerous and prone to inducing violence.

///

Other Sandy Hook related material: For example this enters into the topic of the Sandy Hook Hoaxers and their military intelligence links: Sandy Hook Stalkers | Tracking the Vultures and Predators of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre - a number of specific hoaxes they've run in the Sandy Hook context. Hoaxers Put Sandy Hook Parents in Their Crosshairs | Sandy Hook Stalkers

Wolfgang’s Bad Company « Memory Hole: A prominent researcher on Sandy Hook James F Tracy explained that shadowy people tried to get him to peddle the crisis actors meme, and when he turned them down, then they started putting Wolfgang at the head of the hoaxer troll pack. Unfortunately he gave stalker Tony Mead space on his site in July as well, but this is probably the first thing worth reading about this mess:

"Those in the 9/11 Truth movement are well aware of the “cognitive infiltrators” who are only too happy to harness a loose cannon or two that will sabotage or otherwise hinder the genuine remedy of collective intelligence. I am aware that at least one of the parties who misinformed me is now operating as Wolfgang Halbig’s handler."

Via Brandan Hunt (xrayultra): EXPOSED - The Secret Troll Network Preying on the Truth Movement: Montagraph, October Reignz, CaliberHitter… "Try your best not to internalize their bullshit. Instead, speak out, but don’t spend any more of your precious time exposing these freaks than is absolutely necessary. It will distract you from the good work you do, and indeed, that is the goal." Great advice. Also: Sandy Hook Truth Movement takeover by Disinfo Agents & Morons - YouTube

Sandy Hook Hoax admins are LIARS [Videos + Transcript] - Brendan Hunt:

"folks who are posing as truth-seekers and online researchers, but are actually injecting disinformation into the communities that are looking into 9/11, the JFK assassination, and things like Sandy Hook…. Lenny Pozner’s recent editorial on Sandy Hook truthers which singled out Tony Mead and Wolfgang Halbig as some of the more toxic individuals in the community. I’m not saying I trust Pozner at all, but since the truther community hasn’t really taken a hard-line stance against these frauds, as I’ve tried to encourage, the media can hold them up as examples of the research community and say “See! We told you these truthers were bad!” These crazed individuals, such as Tony Mead and Erik Pearson, ReviewManify aka TeamWakeEmUp, Thomas Lapp, FreeRadioRevolution and his idiot pal RedPillRevolution, Odinrok, Jim Fetzer and the Veteran’s Today crew, and George Mason are all pissed at me for calling them out on the lies they've tried to perpetrate upon the truth movement."

Much of the same crew now turned against the MN Truthers via this group. Also: SANDY HOOK: Wolfgang Halbig is a LIAR (Video Presentation, Transcript + Downloads) - Brendan Hunt.com

Tracker blog: Sandy Hook Hoax Hall Of Shame

Satirizing hoaxers: Sandy Hook Hoax Hoaxers and Sandy Hook Hoaxers Are Not Bright

CW Wade's debunking site (also here) including on Wolfgang trying to demand identities of children. Sandy Hook- Facts & Research: Sandy Hook Hoax Erik Pearson and Tony Mead Continue Stalking of Victims

This is one of the hoaxer pages: Sandy Hook Hoax mainly promoting Wolfgang Halbig.

WillyLoman: Rainmaker Wolfgang Halbig – A Pure Fraud in the Classic Sense | American Everyman - March 2014

Unfortunately Tony Mead has been posting at ActivistPost (Aug 2014). Typical stuff. Another hoaxer site. They defend themselves from stalking charges in a convoluted post here.

Identity hijacking from Tony Mead's friends at InsaneMedia: Insanemedia Caught Stealing Woman’s Identity To Promote Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theory | Newtown Post-Examiner, see also “We Need To Talk About Sandy Hook” Stalker Craven S Moorehead aka Swansong aka Swan | Newtown Post-Examiner: "In a previous post on the Sandy Hook Stalkers blog, Craven S Moorehead was shown to be partnered with Katja Bush, the wife of Captain Lashon Bush of the U.S. Army Cyber Command– all three of whom our team found linked to the IP-phishing Insanemedia website. For those unfamiliar, Tony Mead’s Sandy Hook Hoax Facebook page is where Hoaxers (those who believe that the SHES massacre was a government “false flag” operation) gather to spew libelous accusations and plot strategies to harass and intimidate those personally affected by the SHES tragedy. Their stalking and predations occur on a daily basis and have been well documented by those of us who have been monitoring their activities." Seems legit.

Delusional Internet postings saying Sandy Hook was a hoax deny the pain and anguish of parents, relatives and Newtown residents - Hartford Courant by Lenny Pozner, parent of one of the dead kids. July 25 2014:

Unfortunately, there still exists a small but obsessive faction of hoaxers who are either unable or unwilling to objectively discern the hard facts from among the fleeting hunches and groundless accusations. Others are well aware of the truth but exploit the tragedy for their own aggrandizement. Regardless of their motivation, all have one thing in common: They persist in stalking and harassing the Sandy Hook parents and others intimately connected to the tragedy.

Among their most active leaders is Tony Mead, apparently a resident of Florida. For several months, this serial cyber stalker has hosted a Facebook page where he has amassed a cult following of like-minded hoaxers who ravenously feed off each other's paranoia and hatred for anyone who was affected by the Sandy Hook tragedy.

This is not a place where meaningful discussions are held or investigative inquiries are made. This is a place where strategies are plotted against grieving relatives and children's identities are stolen and exploited to fulfill a twisted fantasy.

This is exactly the network that has now turned against the Minnesota Truthers and Crowley's friends and family.

HAL-BIG IS WOLF’S GANG? | THE CONSPIRACY CRITIC (March 2014)

The persistent Glenn Canady shills for VT, Wolfgang & Fetzer etc: The Sandy Hook "Smoking Gun": Game Set Match! | Alternative

Conspiracy cats more likely to conspire? Seems like this type all right: Does it take one to know one? New research reveals conspiring conspiracy theorists — ScienceDaily

There is even a counter-harassment org set up now: HONR Network: Report Harassment, Sandy Hook Hoaxers, Conspiracy Theories

Rather than focusing their delusional grievances and accusations on authorities, the ‘hoaxers’ take the path of least resistance, harassing and emotionally abusing the victims’ family members online, on the telephone, and even in person. This practice allows them to feel as though they are doing something productive to have their voices heard, while staying safely away from the clutches of the authorities. This is a cowardly approach to having their grievances heard, and we need to ensure that they find some other method of doing so which doesn’t directly affect victims’ family members, or anyone else involved in the management of the tragedies, such as emergency service workers or those who were in any way involved. Even these individuals have found themselves the target of hoaxer hostility and harassment.

///

Unfortunately until such disgusting tactics are railed out of the Truther world, we will continue to see investigations around tragedies like Sandy Hook and the Crowley family backfire horribly. To paraphrase what one of Crowley's Truther friends told me, he was damn near ready to switch into believing the official 9/11 story simply because of these appalling people. My condolences to all.

On a final note, I was able to exchange email with the late Crowley about the Oct 2013 draft cut of his film Gray State: The Rise, but I will hold those comments over for another time. There are other relevant statements, social media items and images that clearly show Crowley was going into a dark place. But this post is focused on the ugly troll crowd that wants to find another tragedy to cling to, with Sandy Hook now becoming a messy, opaque memory.

[Full research credit to Scott Wilson who originally flagged the Sandy Hook Hoaxer squad's existence on the fruitbat group, thank you.]

How a billionaire gets away with it: FULL TEXT Jeffrey Epstein's federal sex abuse non-prosecution agreement; #OpDeathEaters gets traction

epstein-mug.jpgHere's another new piece of hard evidence showing how billionaire sex abusers get their own special treatment in America. One of the most dire problems facing the United States is the double-standard justice system.

If you're a greasy billionaire like Jeffrey Epstein, federal prosecutors (who ultimately report to your chums) will eventually bend over backwards to let you get away with running an international sex abuse ring, and even protect your co-conspirators from prosecution.

Epstein pled guilty to limited charges and was forced to spend at least a few hours a day in a Florida jail for several months (he could wander during the day), and then on "house arrest" to cruise around to his various international pads. The deal specifically protects his unnamed co-conspirators from prosecution.

For apparently the first time on the open interwebs, here is the full text of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, republished on HongPong.com with permission of alt journalist Wayne Madsen at WayneMadsenReport.com:

epstein1.jpg

epstein2.jpg

epstein3.jpg

epstein4.jpg

epstein5.jpg

Epstein6.jpg

epstein7.jpg

epstein8.jpg

epstein9.jpg

epstein10.jpg

epstein11.jpg

epstein12.jpg

An additional issue that Wayne cites in his paywalled article is that the timeline here casts shadows on both the Clinton and the Bush families, since both noxious dynasties had roles overseeing the federal prosecutors and accepting this chummy deal published above at different points in the timeline.

//////

Epstein wants to keep all the correspondence leading up the deal above secret, as reported by New York Daily News which has been relatively aggressive on the story:

Freaky financier Jeffrey Epstein wants to keep negotiations for his shady nonprosecution deal with the feds under wraps.

In papers filed in Florida federal court, Epstein, 61, has asked for a protective order keeping all correspondence about his controversial deal with the feds under seal.

The feds agreed not to pursue charges against Epstein and four alleged co-conspirators in dozens of cases involving under-aged girls if he pleaded guilty to a single state felony case back in 2007 — but the deal was kept hidden from the victims at Epstein’s request, court papers say.

The billionaire perv pal of Prince Andrew pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from a minor in mid-2008. Four of Epstein’s alleged victims are challenging the nonprosecution agreement in court.

In a ruling Thursday, Judge Kenneth Marra said, “Public policy favors judicial records being open to the public,” and that Epstein has to submit additional filings “setting forth the extraordinary circumstances or particularized needs necessitating a seal in this case.” Dareh Gregorian

//////

#OpDeathEaters & a history of political blackmail: I would like to call attention to the project spearheaded by Anonymous type cats called #OpDeathEaters (a reference to Voldemort's buddies in Harry Potter), which is a pretty quick-moving research project to expose multiple levels and nodes of what they describe as the global paedosadist network.

They are trying to get away from the term 'pedophile' which is actually preferred by child sex abusers because 'phile' means love, when in fact it's really child abuse. It started around November 2014.

An important dimension stressed by some of the articles below is that the power and depth of the pedosadist and child abuse networks has grown so deep that it has overrun the ability of honest elements of law enforcement to deal with, so to some extent Internet activists are trying to expose the networks and render difficult investigations into open-and-shut cases if possible, with the hopes of obtaining justice for victims and their families as well as preventing future abuse.

Recommend following the #opdeatheaters hashtag, Heather Marsh @georgieBC and @der_bluthund as well as @opDeathEatersUS and @opdeatheaters. ExaroNews.com has been leading the way on systematically advancing the British wing of the exposure of high level sex abuse among members of Parliament and key intelligence figures, as well as the giant coverups of decades past.

SEE recent coverage in last 2 weeks: Heard of #OpDeathEaters? Anonymous Movement Seeks End To Child Sex Trafficking; Justice For Victims Inquisitr.com Jan 24 2015

Telegraph pretty good story: Video: Anonymous hackers release video to target global paedophile menace - Telegraph

UK Mirror: Anonymous 'hacktivists' target paedophile networks with Harry Potter-inspired #OpDeathEaters campaign - Mirror Online Jan 23 2015

DailyMail: Hacking group Anonymous to target paedophiles | Daily Mail Online

VICE: Behind Anonymous’s Operation to Reveal Britain’s Elite Child-Rape Syndicate | VICE | United States Jan 15 2015

Plenty more news floating around. Give it a search and see what you find.

This systematic abuse and trafficking has gone on for decades. Homophobic closet case attorney Roy Cohn, Sen. Joe McCarthy's sidekick, was even said to have been one of the original sleazebuckets who got this tactic rolling for the CIA to get control of members of Congress, but that is a difficult case to prove of course.

//////

More background on the case:

Papantonio: The Plot Thickens in the Dershowitz-Epstein Story - YouTube

//////

epstein-island1.png epstein-island2.png

What scandal involving Prince Andrew says about Britain’s elites | Al Jazeera America (Jan 17 2015)

U.S. Lawyers Seek to Interview Prince Andrew About Sex-Crime Claims | TIME (Jan 21 2015)

Exclusive: Epstein’s First Accuser Tells Her Story - The Daily Beast (Jan 25 2015). Legal docs at link

Gawker on the case, seems like Nick Bryant is doing a good job: Here Is Pedophile Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein's Little Black Book (Jan 23 2015)

ejvwbrrrxf258l50anna.jpg

Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaire’s Sex Jet - Gawker (Jan 22 2015)

Dershowitz addresses appearing on Epstein flight logs - CNN Video (Jan 24 2015). Dersh is wiggin pretty hard and the new claim he kept his undies on during massages is truly the "did not have sexual relations with that woman" escape phrase of the day.

Dersh: "I kept my underwear on during the massage," he said. "I don't like massages particularly." Alan Dershowitz: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute | News - Home - worth reading in full to sense the anger and panic here.

/////

maxwells.jpg

Intelligence Rabbit Hole Begins: Additionally Epstein's close confidante for many years, Ghislaine Maxwell (L), has also been tagged as a major player in the abuse ring. Adding an intelligence twist to the matter, Ghislaine's late father Robert Maxwell ( R ) is pretty widely known to have supported the Israeli Mossad secret intelligence service. With Epstein's island home apparently stuffed with hidden cameras, this suggests he was generating sexual blackmail material which could certainly prove handy to manipulate political figures.

This leads to a bunch of speculation such as JEFFREY EPSTEIN, MOSSAD AND 9 11 etc etc, with Florida airfields that were used by Mohammed Atta perhaps intersecting with this sordid tale prior to 2001. [I am not claiming that I support such a line of inquiry as the evidence isn't really there yet, but there are some overlapping data points]

That particular rabbit hole would take a long time to sort out, but shady rich people, aviation and weird covert ops certainly are a Florida tradition. The only thing missing is yet another Gulfstream owned by CIA shell company packed with cocaine or heroin.

JFK 51 years later: Keep the Flame Burning

A little over 51 years ago Albert Thomas, chair of congressional subcommittee for defense appropriations, winked at Lyndon Baines Johnson aboard Air Force One immediately after Pres. Kennedy was murdered in Dallas. [Thomas' underling Jack Valenti went on to run MPAA for many years.] Thomas went on to hand out billions for the Vietnam War.

the_wink_congressman_albert_thomas_a.jpg

51 years later the American public is still as infantilized by the national security state as ever. Tons of documents around the assassination are still classified for decades, setting the pattern for managing perceptions of 'deep state events' clearly intersecting with intelligence players like Iran-Contra & 9/11.

E._Howard_Hunt-One_of_the_Three_Tramps_Arrested_after_JFK_Assassination.jpg
The surest sign that Watergate majordomo Howard Hunt's deathbed confession recording is accurate is how thoroughly mainstream media ignored it, while instead promoting discredited plagiarist shills like Gerald Posner. Hunt said that LBJ was at the "head of a long line of people waiting for some change in the executive branch" and had "an almost maniacal urge to become president," with Rolling Stone, Coast to Coast and the alt media among the very few to take this seriously.

Hunt said CIA's Cord Meyer led the task for LBJ, embittered because Cord's wife had been one of JFK's mistresses. He also ID'd David Atlee Phillips, "in Miami and elsewhere" referencing JM/WAVE CIA station, Watergate alumnus Frank Sturgis, "Operation 40" mercenary David Morales, all players within the nucleus related of intelligence operations diligently identified by researchers since 1963. "In short it was a very mobile experience" said the Watergate chieftain, "I was a benchwarmer on it."

Kennedy was no saint, but Dallas was a display intended to traumatize the American public into accepting that a brutal machine behind the scenes would now more openly, literally, call the shots, and as our country continues to spin along an ugly trajectory, achieving some kind of tangible political freedom from these forces of intelligence intrigue and social control has never been more necessary.

Keep the flame burning, champs.

(listen to Hunt's audio confession here > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bknUDgKdEJQ - and remember so much about Dallas is *still* classified)


Also: Credit to Abby Martin for covering the classified document issue:

Aha: Carbon Market digital currency "Ven" by Hub Culture = evil Illuminati knockoff of Bitcoin, backed with REDD "CO2lonialism of Forests" suddenly now approved!

Lolz just stumbled on this - had to write a quick post with a lurid headline. Ven is like the Sharper Image / corporate greenwashing version of Bitcoins and it's all tied into a big ball of classic shady stuff. There is a really nice blob of greenwashing social constructions underpinning the Ven 'value' here, see if you can spot it:

ven-global-currency.png

The value of Ven is determined by the financial markets in a weighted basket of currencies, commodities and carbon futures trading against other major currencies at floating exchange rates. Ven is the first digital currency to float, and the first to include carbon in its pricing, making it the only environmentally linked currency in existence. Since Ven is 100% backed by reserve assets equivalent to the total Ven in circulation, the inclusion of these assets in the reserve basket provide a demand source for carbon, with material benefits to the environment at large. Over 25,000 acres of Amazon rainforest and other environmental investments have been made as a result of Ven.

Currently over 20 million units of Ven have circulated, and it can be used to purchase anything from commoditiesto fashion to cars to a coffee. Watch a Ven video. Read what Forbes, CNN, WSJ, Harvard Business Review, Techcrunch, Fortune and others say about Ven

REDD IS A DONE DEAL: I bumped into the big news, REDD is now a done deal, after wondering if there would be some more weird knockoffs of Bitcoin-like digital currency systems. There are other open source P2P systems like Litecoin which are basically mostly Bitcoin code, with some logical enough replacements. This is a welcome development. Anything with non-commercialized overall code & network structure should probably help us in the long run.

Then there are the the more suspiciously organized schemes -- rather, they are centralized, which undermines the whole point. Ven and Ripple are two of the biggest.

REDD, as you will see below, is literally a Walmart scheme.

The extra juicy bonus level with Ven is its cornerstone rests on the commodification of atmospheric carbon, spun not as a final act of capitalism but one that redeems it.

Even better this is all linked to REDD, "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation". REDD is one of the nastiest byproducts of the COP climate failsauce agreement negotiating rounds... Oh crap - apparently REDD, or REDD+ has just been approved by "Conference of the Parties" aka COP.

The "Carbon Market" and REDD+ forest commodification schemes are the root of the Ven Tree. [More Ven REDD plumbing below]

REDD2.jpg

Specially designed for the greenwashing junkie in all of us, a new scheme long opposed by the Indigenous to unleash yet another round of deforestation and reproduce extra capitalisms.

Please check out the TONS of material about REDD: REDD - Reaping Profits from Evictions, land grabs Deforestation and Destruction of biodiversity Lots of info here. :[

The Key: "Carbon Trading and Origination- Carbon Planet & REDD -What are REDD Carbon Credits?

REDD stands for 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation'. A REDD carbon credit is a carbon market mechanism created to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries.

Official UN-REDD page: UN-REDD Programme -- About REDD+

Moar goodies: Carbon Credits | redd-monitor.org. // Why you should not buy voluntary carbon credits as an investment: A carbon trader explains | redd-monitor.org // Carbon credits « naked capitalism // McLaren F1 & Jenson Button One Minute, Boiler Room Scams the Next: the Remarkable Double Life of Carbon Neutral Investments, Limited, (CNI) « naked capitalism // Carbonscam firms aggressively knock stuff off of Google: Why is Google Censoring Search Results to Nix Warnings Just Like Ones Issued by a UK Regulator? « naked capitalism // The Lotus Formula 1 Team, Its Embarrassing Partner, Advanced Global Trading of Dubai, and Carbon Neutral Investments « naked capitalism // Newcastle United FC, Bloodhound SSC, Glitz, Glam and Police Raids: a Last Look at the Remarkable Double Life of Carbon Neutral Investments Limited (CNI) « naked capitalism // The UK Insolvency Service’s Oddly-Timed Carbon Scams Press Release Highlights Its Own Slow Response « naked capitalism

Even in recent weeks, more work on carbon credit scams is coming out: Week two of Naked Capitalism's series on Carbon Neutral Investments and other carbon credit scams | redd-monitor.org. Look at all these sketchy British corporate shells trading carbon goodies: List of Clearing Members » Carbon Neutral Investments < Apr 2013 archive page of a website that is now down. Nov 6 2013: Insolvency Service - Press Releases - Carbon credit scams targeted as 19 companies shut down

Nineteen carbon credit companies that ripped off nearly £24m from over 1,500 investors, including a 94-year-old man, have been wound up in the last 15 months by the Insolvency Service, Consumer Minister Jo Swinson announced today.

The companies, including Eco Global Markets Limited ('Eco Global'), which alone took at least £8.5m from over 230 investors – targeted mainly older people and sold them Certified Emission Reduction Units (CERs) – or carbon credits - using high pressure sales techniques. Most of the victims ranged in age between 50 and 85 years.

Eco Global was wound up by the Insolvency Service in July 2013.Two other companies, Anglo-Capital Partners Ltd and Cavendish Jacobs Ltd which between them took over £1.2m, were wound up in October 2013.

Salesmen played on people’s keenness to ‘do their bit’ to save the environment while making an investment at the same time. Investors were promised huge returns by selling these credits to corporate giants such as Marks and Spencer and British Airways. But instead most found there was no market for the relatively small amounts they held as companies that trade CERs only trade in high volumes.

Plus This: Carbon credit trading - Financial Conduct Authority

Find out how carbon credit trading works, why we think you should avoid investing in carbon credits and related markets, and how to protect yourself from what is most likely a scam......

However, many investors have told us they are not able to sell or trade the carbon credits they have bought. None of these investors reported making a profit.

This supports our view that there is not a viable secondary market for ordinary investors to sell or trade carbon credits, despite claims and promises made by many firms, advisers and brokers promoting and selling them as an investment.

More critical info: REDD - carbon trade watch. Academic: Demand for REDD Carbon Credits: A Primer on Buyers, Markets, and Factors Impacting Prices | The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Wiki: Carbon offset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Matt Taibbi had this nailed down in 2009: The Great American Bubble Machine | Politics News | Rolling Stone - Goldman Sachs planned to blow up a huge carbon bubble but when cap-and-trade fell apart in the US, so did the plan to make insane money off trades based on derivatives of air quality. Now the plan is coming back fast.

/////

REDD IS HERE:

Ecosystem Marketplace - UPDATE: COP Makes It Official<br />Complete REDD Package Adopted [What a sketchy website! Sponsored by Bloomberg, World Bank & USAID ]
UPDATE: 20:33 CET, 19:33 GMT
: Complete REDD package sails through the COP. It's now a done deal. Congratulations to all those who made this possible.



UPDATE: 19:30 CET, 18:30 GMT: The Conference of the Parties (COP) has now officially approved the REDD text that REDD negotiators had signed off on this morning.



22 November 2013 | WARSAW | Seven long years after it was placed on the agenda of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), REDD+ is about to become a functioning, formal mechanism with agreed-on rules for establishing reference levels, recognizing mitigation activities, creating institutions, ensuring safeguards, and – above all – creating performance-based financing mechanisms.



The finance section had been the sticking point all week, with the Coalition of Rainforest Nations, led by Papua New Guinea (PNG), pushing for all finance to be placed under a new REDD+ Committee. That provision was finally removed by the REDD chair yesterday afternoon, and PNG did not object. The final text was released this morning and approved by all REDD negotiators.



Participants highlighted several passages as being significant. For one, the document calls not only for results-based financing, but for financing of all phases of REDD implementation – from readiness and capacity-building, through piloting, and to payments for performance.



The final document also makes results-based finance contingent on safeguards being met, lays out clear rules for transparency, and sets minimum reporting requirements before countries can qualify for results-based finance.



Moving forward, the document calls for further research into non-carbon benefits and requires the incorporation of lessons learned.



Meetings are ongoing, and we will expand our coverage with a complete wrap-up of events here in Warsaw early next week.

/////

Ok that's a pretty big deal. I learned about REDD / REDD+ from COP16 videos mainly shot by my indefatigable colleague FluxRostrum (mobilebroadcastnews.com ):: SEE COP 16 March for Life & Climate Justice | Mobile Broadcast News. VIDEO COLLECTION HERE: COP16 Coverage MBN/GBC - YouTube.

This video with the dubious Soham Baba about how indigenous people need to be ordered around via a REDD regime: ▶ Soham Baba, Lessons in Manipulating the Indigenous - COP16 - YouTube - great question at the end from Flux to the CHAIRMAN OF WALMART about why all the Indigenous people are opposed to REDD+:

Jane Goodall speaking at REDD+ thing Dec 2010: ▶ Jane Goodall Speaks at the COP 16 - YouTube

Robert Zoellick President of World Bank speaks at COP16 hawking REDD+ ▶ Robert Zoellick President of the World Bank Speaks at COP16 - YouTube

AND: Advancing REDD+: New Pathways and Partnerships

//////

Anyway so naturally the Ven digital currency is a way of taking the value of the 'carbon offsets' and turning them into Bitcoin-like digital exchange tokens. I found this guy because he wrote an article about China and Bitcoin on CNN.com: Why China wants to dominate Bitcoin - Nov. 18, 2013

Main site: Ven - global digital currency by Hub Culture A few other items...

Hub / Store / MaxMiner Digital Asset Miner - 1.25Ghash is not a worthy investment at this time certainly not at 100 watts. developed by Maxeler Technologies and these Hub Culture people.

Hub / Store / Bitcoin Ven Combined Virtual Currency Fund

Hub / Store / Finance and Funds

Hub / Store / Individual Carbon Offset

This carbon offset offer is a one tonne reduction of carbon dioxide emissions (or other greenhouse gases) to compensate for an emission made elsewhere. Use of offsets can help individuals to offset their own emissions, whether for travel, industry or other activities. There are two types of carbon offests, the compliance market and the voluntary market. The compliance market is related to the Kyoto Protocol and includes fixed market purchases related to the Kyoto Protocol. The voluntary market, which is much smaller, allows individuals, companies and governments to purchase carbon offsets to mitigate their own emissions. The price of carbon offsets vary depending on the quality, duration, scale and scope of a particular project.

Hub Culture carbon offset purchases are aggregated by individual purchases to pool resources for offset purchases at a slightly larger scale. Hub Culture offset purchases are linked specifically to REDD forest protection with Wildlife Works and to the Nike Mata no Peito project, which is actively protecting Amazon rain forest through the development of carbon protection purchases to save this important natural resource.

Pricing is on a 'per ton' basis. For guidance on calculating your own offsets, here are some approximate calculations on carbon tonnage to help you decide how much carbon to offset with this great carbon calculator from the Nature Conservancy.

Examples:

Driving a midsize car 10 miles a day: 2.7 tonnes per year
One long haul flight: 2.2 tonnes per flight
One short haul flight: .4 tonnes per flight
A one bedroom New York City apartment with some efficiency upgrades: 15 tonnes per year
Eating meat as part of your normal diet: 5.8 tonnes per year
Eating meat and also eating organic as part of your normal diet: 4.1 tonnes per year
Eating vegeteraian and organic as part of your normla diet: .6 tonnes per year
Waste production, not recycling or composting very much: 1.2 tonnes per year

///////////

Possibly from related people - the link was in there somewhere: Kraken Digital Asset Trading Platform

Hub / Hub Culture News / News

Hub Culture

Hub / Ven - Global Digital Currency / Projects / About Ven / Notes

Hub / Ven - Global Digital Currency / News

Hub / Selected news, from Hub Culture

Hub / Ven - Global Digital Currency / News

HERE IS THE MAIN ATTRACTION:
28 April, 2011 (Hong Kong) - In a landmark transaction for the Ven economy, Hub Culture and a group of partners have successfully completed the first carbon offset trade to be priced in a virtual currency, Ven.
Article Image

The contract, negotiated by Hub Culture Knowledge Brokerage Services, is for carbon offsets registered on Winrock International’s American Carbon Registry(ACR), which were sold and retired as part of Nike's Mata no Peito initiative.

Mata no Peito is Nike’s long-term commitment to work with local organizations and communities to protect and replant forests throughout Brazil. Through the sale and retirement of carbon offsets to corporations and individuals seeking to reduce their carbon footprints, Nike will generate funds which it will donate as seed investments to innovative Brazil forestry projects.
With this Hub Culture transaction, the London Carbon Market becomes the first partner in the Mata no Peito initiative, seeding the Nike forestry fund and setting the stage for continuing growth in global Ven trading volumes.
“Nike is pleased to work with Hub Culture to list offsets for sale and retirement that will benefit the Mata no Peito initiative” said Hannah Jones, Nike VP, Sustainable Business and Innovation. “The transparent platform and virtual currency make it easy for partners around the world to become involved in protecting forests throughout Brazil.”
The transaction is the first carbon offset deal to use the Ven currency platform and represents a step forward in the evolution of the Ven global currency for international markets.
“ACR is thrilled to be a part of this revolutionary transaction,” stated Mary Grady, American Carbon Registry director of business development. “Hub Culture’s facilitation of the first carbon offset sale in Ven together with the fact that proceeds are being donated by Nike to the Mata no Peito Brazil forest fund demonstrate that ACR is working with the right partners to fulfill our mission of harnessing the power of markets to improve the environment.”
Article Image

Advantages to both parties created by the Ven as the means of exchange for the transaction include greater international pricing stability and an implied carbon offset resulting from the basket of carbon futures, commodities and leading currency components which determine ongoing Ven values. The very use of Ven implies greater demand for future carbon projects, by helping to stimulate demand for carbon futures at large.

“London Carbon Market is proud to donate to the Mata no Peito Brazil forest fund by retiring credits registered by Nike on Winrock’s ACR. As Nike’s first partner in this initiative, we look forward to further involvement with Nike and other partners committed to making sustainable projects a success. Partnering with Hub Culture for the transaction using the Ven currency makes history as the first carbon trade to be priced in the Ven digital currency, a statement of leadership we are proud to be a part of” said Dr. Constantine Pagonis of London Carbon Market.
"This Ven transaction highlights the potential of Ven in the carbon markets, and delivers tangible benefits to Brazil through forest related initiatives. As part of our commitment to the creation of a more efficient economy that better tracks externalities, the Ven has particular advantages for everyone, including an embedded carbon signal and forward price stability. We are delighted to be working as a catalyst to connect the London Carbon Market with Nike and Winrock's groundbreaking work for Brazil." said Stan Stalnaker, Founding Director at Hub Culture.

About Hub Culture

Hub Culture is a global network that operates the digital currency Ven, a network of Pavilions to drive community collaboration, and Knowledge Brokerage, a suite of services building value for the community. Established in 2002, Hub Culture is focused on worth creation and deal generation for over 25,000 global-influencers, and is at the forefront of innovation in work and collaboration.

About the American Carbon Registry

The nonprofit American Carbon Registry (ACR), an enterprise of Winrock International, is a leading carbon offset program recognized for its strong standards for environmental integrity. Founded in 1996 as the GHG Registry by Environmental Resources Trust, ACR has 15 years of experience in the development of rigorous, science-based carbon offset standards and methodologies as well as in carbon offset issuance, serialization and transparent online transaction and retirement reporting. As the first voluntary GHG registry in the world, ACR has set the bar in the global voluntary carbon market for offset quality and operational transparency.

About the London Carbon Market

London Carbon Market (LCM) champions the wisdom of green investment and social responsibility. LCM has at its foundation a board of directors which has over one hundred years of collective city experience in a spectrum of industries ranging from physical commodities trading, financial futures, and foreign exchange to financial investments. Coupled with socially conscientious blue chip partners, LCM is now at the forefront of the carbon market.

Official short links: http://hub.vg/VCCT    http://hub.vg/Mata

Contacts:

Stan Stalnaker, Hub Culture   Tel: +44 7974156 458
Email: stan.stalnaker@hubculture.com
Gurps Singh   Tel. +44 7403515315
Email: gurps.singh@londoncarbonmarket.com
Mary Grady, American Carbon Registry   Tel: +1 805 884 1961
Email: mgrady@winrock.org

//////

Also: The proprietors of "EcosystemMarketplace": Search "the Katoomba Group REDD" for only the finest in technocratic Africa-oriented greenwashing ruminations. Welcome to the Katoomba Group::

"The Katoomba Group is an international network of individuals working to promote, and improve capacity related to, markets and payments for ecosystem services (PES). The Group serves as a forum for the exchange of ideas and strategic information about ecosystem service transactions and markets, as well as site for collaboration between practitioners on PES projects and programs."

Katoomba Group: About Us

In 1999, Forest Trends launched the Katoomba Group – an international working group dedicated to advancing markets and payments for ecosystem services – including watershed protection, biodiversity habitat, and carbon sequestration. The Group is comprised of leading experts from forest and energy industries, research institutions, the financial world, environmental NGOs, and communities. It serves as a source of ideas for and strategic information about ecosystem service markets and transactions. The Group has been known for its international convenings, which have provided a forum for exchanging ideas, influencing policy-makers, and catalyzing new initiatives.

It has held 10 major global conferences, published and contributed to a number of publications and supported the development of a range of new PES schemes including the BioCarbon Fund, and the Mexican PES Fund. The Katoomba Group has also advised national policy discussions on financial incentives for conservation in numerous countries including China, Brazil, India, and Colombia. In 2005, The Katoomba Group launched The Ecosystem Marketplace (www.ecosystemmarketplace.com)—the world’s first global market information service for ecosystem services.

/////

Moar: Forest Trends - Publication Details - The REDD Opportunities Scoping Exercise

www.katoombagroup.org/events/pro-poor_redd.pdf

Anyway that should be a nice research pile to get you going. Bitcoins were of course a prank project of several retired NSA cryptographers known as the "Justice League" as well as VALIS, the orbiting alien intelligence. Later all :)

Terrible Trans Pacific Partnership intellectual property proposed scheme leaks out yay

UPDATE: Join us Dec 11th 6PM for Trans-Pacific Partnership organizing with Occupy Minneapolis - https://www.facebook.com/events/591468507567584/

Finally got some clue into WTF is going on. They have been trying to keep this secret as hell because a planet of 6+ billion people might rebel at another horrible technocratic scheme to control everyone's brains :(

VIA https://wikileaks.org/tpp/ - way to go wikileaks.

Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)

Today, 13 November 2013, WikiLeaks released the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter. The TPP is the largest-ever economic treaty, encompassing nations representing more than 40 per cent of the world’s GDP. The WikiLeaks release of the text comes ahead of the decisive TPP Chief Negotiators summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 19-24 November 2013. The chapter published by WikiLeaks is perhaps the most controversial chapter of the TPP due to its wide-ranging effects on medicines, publishers, internet services, civil liberties and biological patents. Significantly, the released text includes the negotiation positions and disagreements between all 12 prospective member states.

The TPP is the forerunner to the equally secret US-EU pact TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), for which President Obama initiated US-EU negotiations in January 2013. Together, the TPP and TTIP will cover more than 60 per cent of global GDP. Read full press release here



Download the full secret TPP treaty IP chapter as a PDF here

WikiLeaks Release of Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)

Advanced Intellectual Property Chapter for All 12 Nations with Negotiating Positions (August 30 2013 consolidated bracketed negotiating text)




This Document Contains TPP CONFIDENTIAL Information

TPP Negotiations, R18

MODIFIED HANDLING AUTHORIZED

IP Group

Intellectual Property [Rights] Chapter

30 August
2013

COVER PAGE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY [RIGHTS] CHAPTER

CONSOLIDATED TEXT


CHAPTER QQ1

{INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS / INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY}

{GENERAL PROVISIONS}

{Section A: General Provisions}

Article QQ.A.1: {Definitions}

For the purposes of this Chapter:

Intellectual property2 refers to all categories of intellectual property that are the subject of Sections 1 through 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement [3].

Article QQ.A.2: {Objectives}4

[NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/MY/SG/CA5/MX6 propose; US/JP oppose: The objectives of this Chapter are:

  1. Enhance the role of intellectual property in promoting economic and social development, particularly in relation to the new digital economy, technological innovation, the [PE: generation,] transfer and dissemination of technology and trade;

  2. reduce impediments to trade and investment by promoting deeper economic integration through effective and adequate creation, utilization, protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, taking into account the different levels of economic development and capacity as well as differences in national legal systems;

  3. maintain a balance between the rights of intellectual property holders and the legitimate interests of users and the community in subject matter protected by intellectual property.

  4. protect the ability of Parties to identify, promote access to and preserve the public domain;

  5. Ensure that measures and procedures to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade;

  6. Promote operational efficiency of intellectual property systems, in particular through quality examination procedures during the granting of intellectual property rights.]

    [NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY/VN propose. g. The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.

  1. Support each Party's right to protect public health, including by facilitating timely access to affordable medicines.]

[Article QQ.A.2bis: {Principles}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose : 1. Each Party may, in formulating or amending its laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to its socio-economic and technological development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter.

2. Each Party may adopt or maintain appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter, to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology.

3. Each Party may adopt or maintain, consistently with the other provisions of this Chapter, appropriate measures to prevent or control practices or conditions that may in particular cases constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights having an adverse effect on competition in the relevant market.]]

Article QQ.A.3: {General Provisions}

Each Party shall give effect to the provisions of this Chapter. A Party may, but shall not be obliged to, provide more extensive protection for, and enforcement of, intellectual property rights under its law than is required by this Chapter, provided that such protection and enforcement does not contravene the provisions of this Chapter. Each Party shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Chapter within its own legal system and practice.

Article QQ.A.4: {Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health}

The Parties affirm their commitment to the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2).

Article QQ.A.5: {Understandings Regarding Certain Public Health Measures7}

The Parties have reached the following understandings regarding this Chapter:

(a) The obligations of this Chapter do not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health by promoting access to medicines for all, in particular concerning cases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, [US oppose: chagas] and other epidemics as well as circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency. Accordingly, while reiterating their commitment to this Chapter, the Parties affirm that this Chapter can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of each Party's right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.8

(b) In recognition of the commitment to access to medicines that are supplied in accordance with the Decision of the General Council of 30 August 2003 on the Implementation of Paragraph Six of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/L/540) and the WTO General Council Chairman's statement accompanying the Decision (JOB(03)/177, WT/GC/M/82) [SG/BN/VN/PE/CL/CA/MY/NZ/US/AU9/MX/JP: , as well as the Decision on the Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement, adopted by the General Council, 6 December 2005 US/MY propose: and the WTO General Council Chairperson's statement accompanying the Decision (WT/GC/M/100)] (collectively, the "TRIPS/health solution"), this Chapter does not and should not prevent the effective utilization of the TRIPS/health solution.

(c) With respect to the aforementioned matters, if [US oppose: any waiver of any provision of the TRIPS Agreement, or any] [US propose: an] amendment of the TRIPS Agreement, enters into force with respect to the Parties, and a Party's application of a measure in conformity with that [US oppose: waiver or] amendment [US oppose: is contrary to the obligations of] [US propose: violates] this Chapter, the Parties shall immediately consult in order to adapt this Chapter as appropriate in the light of the [US oppose: waiver or] amendment.

Article QQ.A.6: {Existing Rights and Obligations / International Agreements}

1. [US: Further to Article -AA.2,] the Parties affirm their existing rights and obligations with respect to each other under the TRIPS Agreement [CL/PE: and any other multilateral agreements relating to intellectual property to which they are party] [MX propose: The TRIPS Agreement is incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis.][CA Propose: 1. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as a limitation to the flexibilities, exceptions and limitations set out on the TRIPS Agreement and any other multilateral agreement relating to intellectual property to which they are party.]

[CL/NZ propose; US/AU/JP/MX oppose: 2. Nothing in this Chapter shall derogate from existing rights and obligations that Parties have to each other under the TRIPS Agreement or other multilateral agreements, such as those concluded or administered under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).]10

[CA propose; MX/US oppose: 2. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the Parties shall interpret this Chapter in such a way as to be [complementary to / compatible with] their rights and obligations under multilateral treaties concluded or administered under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to which they are party, especially with regards to measures aimed at protecting public health and protecting equal access to knowledge and food.]

[CL/NZ/VN/BN/MY/PE:11 3. [Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter,] Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as a limitation to the flexibilities, exceptions and limitations set out on the TRIPS Agreement and any other multilateral agreement relating to intellectual property to which they are party, especially with regards to measures aimed at protecting equal access to knowledge, food and public health.]]

[US/AU propose; CL/NZ/MY/PE/BN/VN/CA/JP/MX12 oppose:13 4. Each Party shall ratify or accede to the following agreements by the date of entry into force of this Agreement:

  1. Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970), as amended in 1979;

  2. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1967);

  3. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1971);

  4. Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (1974);

  5. Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (1989);

  6. Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure(1977), as amended in 1980;

  7. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants [MX propose: (1961) as revised in 1972, 1978 or] (1991) (UPOV Convention);

  8. Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks (2006);

  9. WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996); and

  10. WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (1996).]

[US/AU/NZ/PE/CA/JP/SG/MX14 propose : 5. Each Party shall notify the WTO of its acceptance of the Protocol amending the TRIPS Agreement done at Geneva on December 6, 2005.]

[US/SG propose; CL/MY/NZ/PE//VN/BN/CA/JP/MX 15 oppose: 6. Each Party shall make all reasonable efforts to ratify or accede to the following agreements by the date of entry into force of the Agreement:

[SG oppose: (a) Patent Law Treaty (2000); and]

(b) Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (1999).]

Article QQ.A.7: {National Treatment}

116. In respect of all categories of intellectual property covered in this Chapter, each Party shall accord to nationals [17] of the other Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection [18] [NZ/BN/MY/CA/JP/SG/VN oppose: and enjoyment of such intellectual property rights, and any benefits derived from such rights.][NZ/VN/BN/MY/CL/PE/JP/SG19propose20; US/AU21 oppose: of intellectual property, subject to the exceptions provided in the TRIPS Agreement and in those multilateral agreements concluded under the auspices of WIPO.] [CL/AU/NZ/BN/PE22 propose: With respect to secondary uses of phonograms by means of analog communications and free over-the-air radio broadcasting, however, a Party may limit the rights of the performers and producers of the other Party to the rights its persons are accorded within the jurisdiction of the other Party.]23

[VN: Articles 3 and 5 of the TRIPS shall apply with necessary modifications to the protection of intellectual property in this Chapter.]

  1. A Party may derogate from paragraph 1 [national treatment] in relation to its judicial and administrative procedures, including requiring a national of the other Party to designate an address for service of process in its territory, or to appoint an agent in its territory, provided that such derogation is:

  1. necessary to secure compliance with laws and regulations that are not inconsistent with this Chapter; and

  2. not applied in a manner that would constitute a disguised restriction on trade.

[CL:3 Paragraphs 1 and 2 do] [US: Paragraph [X national treatment/judicial and administrative procedures] does] not apply to procedures in multilateral agreements concluded under the auspices of WIPO relating to the acquisition or maintenance of intellectual property rights.

Article QQ.A.8: {Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment}

[PE/CL: With regards to the protection and defence of intellectual property referred to in this chapter, any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by a Party to the nationals of any other country will be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the nationals of the other Parties. The exceptions to this obligation shall be in conformity with the pertinent dispositions referred to in articles 4 and 5 of the TRIPS Agreement.]

[VN: Articles 4 and 5 of the TRIPS shall apply with necessary modifications to the protection of intellectual property in this Chapter.]

Article QQ.A.9: {Implementation of this Chapter}

[CL/NZ/VN/AU/BN/SG/PE/MY/MX/CA24 propose; US/JP oppose: 1. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent a Party from adopting appropriate measures to prevent: (a) the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices that unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology; and (b) anticompetitive practices that may result from the abuse of intellectual property rights;, provided that such measures are consistent with this Agreement. [PE propose; CL/AU oppose: Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to reduce the protection that the Parties agree on or have agreed on in benefit of the conservation or sustainable use of biodiversity.]]

Article QQ.A.10: {Transparency}

[NZ/AU25/US/SG26/MY/PE/VN/JP/MX propose: 1. [US: Further to Article ___ (Publication), and with the object of making the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights transparent,] Each Party shall ensure that its laws, regulations and procedures [VN: or administrative rulings of general application] concerning the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights [US: are in writing and are] [US oppose: shall be] published[27], or where such publication is not [US/PE oppose: practical] [US/PE: practicable], are made publicly available [US/AU/NZ: in a national language in such a manner as to enable [AU oppose: governments and right holders] [AU: interested persons and Parties] to become acquainted with them.] [US/AU/NZ oppose: in at least the national language of that Party or in the English language.]]28

[NZ/AU/SG/MY/CA29/MX/CL propose; VN/PE oppose: 2. Each Party shall endeavour to make available on the Internet [AU/NZ:

  1. its laws, regulations, procedures, and administrative rulings of general application concerning the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights; and]

  2. [JP oppose: those details of patent, trademark, design, plant variety protection and geographical indication applications that are open to public inspection under national law.]]

[US/MX propose; BN oppose: 430. Nothing in this Chapter shall require a Party to disclose confidential information the disclosure of which would impede law enforcement or otherwise be contrary to the public interest [PE oppose: or would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular enterprises, public or private].]31

Article QQ.A.11: {Application of Agreement to Existing Subject Matter and Prior Acts}

[US propose: 1. Except as it otherwise provides, including in Article QQ.G.8__ (Berne 18/TRIPS 14.6), this Chapter gives rise to obligations in respect of all subject matter existing at the date of entry into force of this Agreement that is protected on that date in the territory of the Party where protection is claimed, or that meets or comes subsequently to meet the criteria for protection under this Chapter.32]

2. 33 [CL/NZ/PE/MY/BN/VN/CA/MX oppose: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, including Article QQ.G.8____ (Berne 18/TRIPS 14.6),] a Party shall not be required to restore protection to subject matter that on the date of entry into force of this Agreement has fallen into the public domain in its territory.

3. This Chapter does not give rise to obligations in respect of acts that occurred before the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

Article QQ.A.12: {International Exhaustion of Rights}

[CL/MY/NZ/VN/SG/BN/PE propose; US/AU/JP/MX oppose: The Parties are encouraged to establish international exhaustion of rights.]

Article QQ.A.13 {Public Domain}

[CL/VN/PE propose: Each Party shall endeavour to provide relevant information to disseminate public domain, including appropriate tools that help to identify the [CL: extension] [VN: expiration] of the terms of protection of intellectual property rights.]

[CL/VN propose: 1. The Parties recognize the importance of a rich and accessible public domain for their societies and the need that public domain material shall be free for its use by all persons.

2. For purposes of paragraph 1, each Party shall endeavor to:

  1. identify subject matter that has fallen into the public domain within their respective jurisdictions;

  2. promote access to the public domain; and

  3. preserve the public domain.

3. Actions to achieve the purposes referred to in paragraph 2, may include the development of publicly accessible data bases of registered rights, guidelines and other tools to enhance access to material in the public domain.

4. Each Party shall make its best efforts to promote cooperation among the Parties to identify and facilitate access to subject matter that has fallen into the public domain and share updated information related to right holders and terms of protection.]

[CL/VN Alternative Proposal:

1. The Parties recognize the importance of a rich and accessible public domain for their societies and the need that public domain material shall be free for its use by all persons.

2. For this purpose, Parties may include the development of publicly accessible data bases of registered rights, guidelines and other tools to enhance access to material in the public domain.

3. Each Party shall make its best efforts to promote cooperation among the Parties to identify and faciliate access to subject matter that has fallen into the public domain and share updated information related to right holders and terms of protection.]

COOPERATION

Note: We have not introduced braces into this section because party attributions are not clear based on the text.

Section B: Cooperation

Article QQ.B.1: {Contact Points}

Each Party shall designate at least one contact point for the purpose of cooperation under this section.

Article QQ.B.2: [NZ/CL/SG/VN/MY/BN/MX propose: Cooperation in the implementation of international agreements

[NZ/CL/SG/BN/AU/MY/PE/VN/MX propose: 1. [AU/US oppose: Where a Party is a member of any of the following agreements, that Party shall, where appropriate and upon request by another Party, support that Party in implementing any of the following agreements] [AU/CA/JP/SG: A Party may seek to cooperate with other Parties to support its accession to, and implementation of, the agreements X-X ]:

(a) Patent Cooperation Treaty;

[PE/CA oppose: (b) Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks;

(c) Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks;] and

(d) Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks.]

[JP/SG/PE propose: (e) International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (1991) (UPOV Convention)]

[AU: 2. Each Party shall endeavor to provide such cooperation as appropriate and upon request.]

Article QQ.B.3 {Cooperation Activities}

[AU/CL/NZ/PE/SG/BN/MX/VN/MY/US/CA propose: The Parties shall endeavour to cooperate on the subject matter covered by this Chapter through appropriate cooordination, training and exchange of information between the intellectual property offices, [or other relevant institutions]34, of the Parties. Cooperation may cover such areas as:

  1. developments in domestic and international intellectual property policy

  2. intellectual property administration and registration systems

  1. education and awareness relating to intellectual property

  2. intellectual property issues relevant to:

    1. small and medium-sized enterprises

    2. science, technology & innovation activities[PE propose: , which may include generation, transfer and dissemination of technology.]

  3. policies involving the use of intellectual property for research, innovation and economic growth

  4. such other areas as may be agreed among [AU/NZ oppose: the] Parties.]

Article QQ.B.4: {Patent Cooperation}

[[AU/CL/MY/NZ/SG/PE/VN/CA/MX/BN/JP propose: In order to improve quality and efficiency in the Parties' patent systems,] The Parties shall endeavour to [US/SG propose: cooperate] [US oppose: establish a framework for cooperation] among their respective patent offices to facilitate the [AU/CL/MY/NZ/SG/PE/VN/CA/MX/BN/JP oppose: exploitation] [AU/CL/MY/NZ/SG/PE/VN/CA/MX/BN/JP propose: sharing and use] of search and examination work of other Parties. This may include:

  1. making search and examination results available to the patent offices of other Parties, and

  2. exchanges of information on quality assurance systems and quality standards relating to patent searching and examination;

[JP propose; CL/PE oppose: (c) implementing and promoting the Patent Prosecution Highway;]

[CL/AU/MY/NZ/SG/PE/VN/CA/MX/BN oppose: which may, among other things, facilitate work sharing.]35]36

[JP proposal: 2. In the course of the cooperation referred to Paragraph 1, the Parties are encouraged not to require the applicants to submit search and examination results, including cited documents, made available by the patent offices of other Parties, with a view to reducing the procedural costs of the applicants.]

Article QQ.B.5:

Cooperation activities and initiatives undertaken under this Chapter shall be subject to the availability of resources, and on request and on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon between the Parties involved.[VN propose: , including the technical assistance for developing countries.]

{TRADEMARKS}

{Section C: Trademarks}

Article QQ.C.1: {Types of Signs Registrable as Trademarks}

[NZ/US/AU/CL/PE/SG/CA/JP/MY37 propose: 1. [VN/BN/MX oppose: No] Party may require, as a condition of registration, that a sign be visually perceptible, [VN/BN/MX oppose: nor may a Party] [VN/BN/MX propose: and] deny registration of a trademark solely on the ground that the sign of which it is composed is a sound [CL/CA/JP/MY oppose: or a scent] [CL/CA/MX/MY propose: Each Party may provide trademark protection for scents].] A Party may require a concise and accurate description, or graphical representation, or both, as applicable, of the trademark.

Article QQ.C.2: {Collective and Certification Marks}

1. Each Party shall provide that trademarks shall include collective marks and certification marks. A Party is not obligated to treat certification marks as a separate category in its domestic law, provided that such marks are protected.

Each Party [JP/MX propose: may][ JP oppose: shall] also provide that signs that may serve as geographical indications are eligible for protection under its trademark system [38]39[PE/NZ/MX/CL/BN/AU/US/JP/SG oppose; VN propose40: A Party may provide that Signs descriptive of geographical origin of goods or services, including geographical indication as defined in Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement, may not be protected as trademarks other than collective and certification marks, unless they have acquired distinctiveness through use.]

[US/PE/MX41/SG propose; AU/NZ/ VN/BN/MY/CL/CA oppose: 2. Pursuant to Article 20 of the TRIPS Agreement, each Party shall ensure that its measures mandating the use of the term customary in common language as the common name for a good or service ("common name") including, inter alia, requirements concerning the relative size, placement or style of use of the trademark in relation to the common name, do not impair the use or effectiveness of trademarks used in relation to such good or service. [42]]43[44]

Article QQ.C.3: {Use of Identical or Similar Signs}

Each Party shall provide that the owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent third parties not having the owner's consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs, [PE/MY/VN/CA/MX oppose45: including subsequent geographical indications,] for goods or services that are related to those goods or services in respect of which the owner's trademark is registered, where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion.

In the case of the use of an identical sign, [PE/MY/SG/CL/CA/MX/VN oppose46: including a geographical indication,] for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed.

Article QQ.C.4:

Each Party may provide limited exceptions to the rights conferred by a trademark, such as fair use of descriptive terms, provided that such exceptions take account of the legitimate interest of the owner of the trademark and of third parties.

[VN propose; AU/US/NZ/SG/MY/CL/PE/CA/JP/BN oppose: The owner of a registered trademark shall not have the right to prevent third parties from using geographical indications or other signs descriptive of goods and services even though they are identical or similar to the trademark unless such use would result in confusion.]47

Article QQ.C.5: {Well Known Trademarks}

1. No Party may require as a condition for determining that a trademark is well-known that the trademark has been registered in the Party or in another jurisdiction, included on a list of well-known trademarks, or given prior recognition as a well-known trademark.

2. Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1967) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to goods or services that are not identical or similar to those identified by a well-known trademark,[48] [BN oppose: whether registered or not49,] provided that use of that trademark in relation to those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the owner of the trademark, and provided that the interests of the owner of the trademark are likely to be damaged by such use.

3. Each Party recognizes the importance of the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks (1999) as adopted by the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the General Assembly of WIPO.

[US/BN/CL/PE/MX/CA/JP/NZ/SG/VN propose; AU/MY oppose: 450. Each Party shall [PE/BN/MX/CA51 propose: according to domestic laws] provide for appropriate measures to refuse or cancel the registration and prohibit the use of a trademark that is identical or similar to a well-known trademark, [SG/VN propose: as being already well-known before the registration or use of the first-mentioned trademark,] for related goods or services, if the use of that trademark is likely to cause confusion [CA/SG/VN oppose:52 or to deceive or risk associating the trademark with the owner of the well-known trademark, or constitutes unfair exploitation of the reputation of the well-known trademark.]]

Article QQ.C.6: {Examination, Opposition and Cancellation / Procedural Aspects}

Each Party shall provide a system for the examination and registration of trademarks which shall include, inter alia:

  1. providing to the applicant a communication in writing, which may be electronic, of the reasons for any refusal to register a trademark;

  2. providing the opportunity for the applicant to respond to communications from the competent authorities, to contest an initial refusal, and to appeal judicially any final refusal to register a trademark;

  3. providing an opportunity to oppose the registration of a trademark or to seek cancellation53 of a trademark; and

  1. requiring that administrative decisions in oppositions and cancellation proceedings be reasoned and in writing. Written decisions may be provided electronically.

Article QQ.C.7: {Electronic Trademarks System}

Each Party shall provide:

  1. a system for the electronic application for, and maintenance of, trademarks; and

  2. a publicly available electronic information system, including an online database, of trademark applications and of registered trademarks.

Article QQ.C.8: {Classification of Goods and Services}

Each Party shall adopt or maintain a trademark classification system that is consistent with the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification) of [June 15, 1957], as revised and amended. Each Party shall provide that:

[CA oppose: (a) registrations and the publications of applications indicate the goods and services by their names, grouped according to the classes established by the Nice Classification 54; and]

  1. goods or services may not be considered as being similar to each other on the ground that, in any registration or publication, they are classfied in the same class of the Nice Classification. Conversely, each Party shall provide that goods or services may not be considered as being dissimilar from each other on the ground that, in any registration or publication, they are classified in different classes of the Nice Classification.

Article QQ.C.9: {Term of Protection for Trademarks}

Each Party shall provide that initial registration and each renewal of registration of a trademark shall be for a term of no less than 10 years.

Article QQ.C.1055:

No Party may require recordal of trademark licenses:

a. to establish the validity of the license;

[US/CA/NZ/SG/JP/AU propose; VN/MX/BN/PE/CL/MY oppose: b. as a condition for the right of a licensee to join infringement proceedings initiated by the holder, or to obtain by way of such proceedings damages resulting from an infringement of the trademark which is subject to the license; or

c. as a condition for use of a trademark by a licensee, to be deemed to constitute use by the holder in proceedings relating to the acquisition, maintenance and enforcement of trademarks.]

Article QQ.C.11: {International Exhaustion of Rights}

[CL/NZ/SG/VN/PE/MY/BN/AU/CA/MX propose; US/JP oppose: The Parties are encouraged to establish international exhaustion of trademark rights. For this purpose, the registration of a trademark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in any country under that trademark by the proprietor or with his consent.]

Article QQ.C.12: {Domain Names on the Internet}

1.56 In order to address the problem of trademark [VN/MX propose: geographical indication and trade name] cyber-piracy, each Party shall adopt or maintain a system for the management of its country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) that provides:

(a) an appropriate procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on, or modelled along the same lines as, the principles established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, or that is: (i) designed to resolve disputes expeditiously and at low cost, (ii) fair and equitable, (iii) not overly burdensome, and (iv) does not preclude resort to court litigation;

(b) online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants57;

in accordance with each Party's laws regarding protection of privacy58 and personal data. 59

2. [PE/SG/CL/AU/NZ/MY/BN/CA oppose; US/VN/JP/MX propose: Each party shall provide [VN: oppose adequate and effective] [VN propose: appropriate] remedies against the registration trafficking60, or use in any ccTLD, with a bad faith intent to profit, of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark [VN/MX propose: , geographical indication or trade name].]

{GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS}

{Section D: Geographical Indications}

Article QQ.D.1: {Recognition of Geographical Indications}

The Parties recognize that [US propose; CL/PE/CA/MX/SG/MY/BN/VN/JP oppose: , subject to Article QQ.C.2(1),61 (Gls eligible for protection as trademarks)] geographical indications may be protected through a trademark or sui generis system or other legal means.

Article QQ.D.2:

Where a Party provides administrative procedures for the protection or recognition of geographical indications, through a system of trademarks or a sui generis system, the Party shall with respect to applications for such protection or petitions for such recognition:

  1. accept those applications or petitions without requiring intercession by a Party on behalf of its nationals62;

  2. process those applications or petitions without imposition of overly burdensome formalities;

  3. ensure that its regulations governing the filing of those applications or petitions are readily available to the public and clearly set out the procedures for these actions;

  4. make available information sufficient to allow the general public to obtain guidance concerning the procedures for filing applications or petitions and the processing of those applications or petitions in general; and allow applicants, petitioners, or their representatives to ascertain the status of specific applications and petitions;

  5. ensure that those applications or petitions are published for opposition and provide procedures for opposing geographical indications that are the subject of applications or petitions; and

  6. provide for cancellation, annulment, or revocation of the protection or recognition afforded to a geographical indication63

Article QQ.D.3:

Each Party shall, whether protection or recognition is provided to a geographical indication through [SG/CA/MY oppose: its domestic measures] [SG/CA/MY propose: the system referred to in article QQ.D.2] [CL/PE/MY/SG/VN/BN/CA/MX oppose64: or pursuant to an agreement with another government or government entity], provide a process that allows interested persons to object to the protection or recognition of a geographical indication, [CA oppose: and for protection or recognition to be65 refused annulled66 or, [AU propose: where appropriate,] cancelled] [MY/VN/SG/MX oppose67: , at least on the following grounds:

  1. the geographical indication is likely to cause confusion with a trademark or geographical indication that is the subject of a pre-existing good faith pending application or registration in the territory of such Party[68];

  2. [BN oppose: the geographical indication is likely to cause confusion with a pre-existing trademark or geographical indication, the rights to which have been acquired in accordance with the Party's law[69];] and

  3. the geographical indication is a term customary in common language as the common name for such goods or services in that Party's territory.]]

Article QQ.D.4:

[US propose;70 CL/PE/NZ/AU/SG/MY/MX/CA/BN/VN oppose: No Party shall, whether pursuant to an agreement with a government or a governmental entity or otherwise:

(a) in the case of geographical indications for goods other than wines or spirits, prohibit third parties from using or registering translated versions of the geographical indication;[71] or

(b) prohibit third parties from using a term that is evoked by the geographical indication.]

Article QQ.D.5:

[NZ/AU/BN/US propose;72 VN/PE/SG/CL/MY/CA/MX oppose: A Party may provide the means to protect a geographical indication against use in translation by third parties only if such use would, with respect to a geographical indication for goods other than wines and spirits:

(a) give rise to a likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark or geographical indication in the territory of that Party;

(b) mislead the public as to the geographical origin of the good; or

(c) constitute an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967).

Article QQ.D.6:

[US/NZ/AU/CL/SG propose;73 MX/VN/PE/MY oppose: If a Party grants protection or recognition to a geographical indication through the systems described in Article QQ.D.2 or through an agreement with another government or government entity, such protection or recognition shall commence no earlier than [CL oppose: (i) the filing date in the Party[74],] (ii) the date on which such agreement enters into force, or (iii) if a Party implements such protection or recognition on a date after entry into force of the agreement, on that later date75.]

Article QQ.D.7:

[NZ/AU/US propose;76 PE/CL/VN/SG/MY/BN/CA/MX oppose: No Party shall preclude the possibility that a term that it recognized as a trademark or geographical indication may become a term customary in the common language as the common name for the associated goods or services.]

Article QQ.D.8:

[CL/PE/AU/US/NZ/MX/CA/VN/JP propose 77 ; BN oppose: In determining whether a term is the term customary in the common language as the common name for the relevant goods or services in a Party's territory, a Party's authorities shall have the authority to take into account how consumers understand the term in that Party's territory. Factors relevant to such consumer understanding may include [SG/CL/PE/MX/VN propose: if appropriate]:

  1. whether the term is used to refer to the type of product in question, as indicated by competent sources such as dictionaries, newspapers, and relevant websites;

  2. how the product referenced by the term is marketed and used in trade in the territory of that Party; and

  3. [CL/PE/MX/CA oppose78: whether the term is used in relevant international standards to refer to a class or type of product].]

Article QQ.D.9:

[NZ/AU/US/VN/BN/CL propose79; PE/MY/MX oppose: An individual component of a multi-component term that is protected as a geographical indication in a Party shall remain available for the public to use in that Party if the individual component is a term customary in the common language as the common name for the associated goods.]

[SG propose80: For greater certainty, nothing in this section shall require a Party to apply its provisions in respect of any individual component contained in a GI for which that individual component is identical with the term customary in common language as the common name of such goods in the territory of that Party.]

Article QQ.D.10:

[US propose;81 AU/CL/SG/PE/MY/NZ/BN/VN/MX/CA oppose: The existence of a geographical indication shall not be a ground upon which a Party may:

  1. refuse a trademark owner's otherwise permissible request to renew the registration of its trademark; or

  2. refuse a trademark owner's request to register an otherwise permissible modification of its registered trademark.]

Article QQ.D.11: [CL/SG/BN/VN/MX propose82; AU/PE/US/NZ/CA/JP oppose: List of Geographical Indications

The terms listed in Annex […] are recognized as geographical indications of the respective Party, within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement. Subject to domestic laws [83], in a manner that is consistent with the TRIPS Agreement, such terms will be protected as geographical indications in the territories of the other Parties.]

Article QQ.D.12: {Homonymous Geographical Indications}

[NZ/CL/VN/MY/BN/SG/MX propose84; PE/US/AU oppose: 1. Each Party may provide protection to homonymous geographical indications. Where a Party provides protection to homonymous geographical indications, that Party may, where necessary, lay down the practical conditions of use to make a distinction between the homonymous geographical indications, taking into account the need to ensure equitable treatment of the producers concerned and that consumers are not misled.]

[CL propose; AU/US/PE/NZ/VN/SG/MY/BN/MX/CA/JP oppose: 2. The Parties recognize the geographical indication Pisco for the exclusive use for products from Chile and Peru.]

[CL/SG/BN/MX propose; AU/PE/US/NZ/CA/JP oppose: Annex […] Lists of Geographical Indications]

Article QQ.D.13: {Country Names}

[CL/AU/NZ/SG/BN/VN/MY/PE/CA/MX/JP propose85 : The Parties shall provide the legal means for interested parties to prevent commercial use of country names of the Parties in relation to goods in a manner which misleads consumers as to the origin of such goods.]

Article QQ.D.14:

[US propose86; CL/PE/VN/MY/CA oppose: Each Party shall permit the use, and as appropriate, allow the registration, of signs orindications that identify goods other than wines or spirits, and that reference a geographical area that is not the place of origin of the goods, unless such use is misleading, would constitute an act of unfair competition, or would cause a likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark or geographical indication that identifies the same or similar goods. The foregoing shall not be understood to prevent a Party from denying registration of such a sign or indication on other grounds, provided such denial does not derogate from the provisions of the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement.]

{PATENTS/ UNDISCLOSED TEST OR OTHER DATA/ TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE}

{Section E: Patents / Undisclosed Test or Other Data / Traditional Knowledge}

Article QQ.E.1: {Patents / Patentable Subject matter}

1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 and 3, each Party shall make patents available for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application. 87 [US/AU propose; 88 CL/MY/PE/SG/VN/BN/NZ/CA/MX oppose: The Parties confirm that:

  1. patents shall be available for any new uses or methods of using a known product],

[US/JP propose; CL/MY/PE/SG/VN/BN/AU/NZ/CA/MX oppose: (b) a Party may not deny a patent solely on the basis that the product did not result in enhanced efficacy of the known product when the applicant has set forth distinguishing features establishing that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application.]

2. Each Party may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to nature or the environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by their law.

3. [US: Consistent with paragraph 1] each Party [US propose; AU/NZ/VN/BN/CL/PE/MY/SG/CA/MX oppose: shall make patents available for inventions for the following] [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: may also exclude from patentability]:

(a) plants and animals, [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: other than microorganisms];

[JP oppose: (b)diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals [US propose; AU/SG/MY/NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/CA/MX oppose: if they cover a method of using a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter]; [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose:] and

(c) essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals, other than non-biological and microbiological processes for such production.]

[MX propose: (d) and the diagrams, plans, rules and methods for carrying out mental processes, playing games or doing business, and mathematical methods as such; software as such; methods to present information as such; and aesthetic creations and artistic or literary works.]

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose: ALT 3. Each Party may also exclude from patentability:

  1. diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals; and

  2. plants and animals other than microorganisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, Parties shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof.]

Article QQ.E.2: {Patentable Subject Matter}

Each Party shall89 disregard at least information contained in public disclosures used to determine if an invention is novel or has an inventive step if the public disclosure[90 [91]92:

  1. was made by the patent applicant or by a person who obtained the information directly or indirectly from the patent applicant,

and

  1. occurred within 12 months prior to the date of filing of the application in the territory of the Party.

Article QQ.E.3:

[US: Without prejudice to Article 5A(3) of the Paris Convention,] Each Party shall provide that a patent may be cancelled, revoked or nullified only on grounds that would have justified a refusal to grant the patent. A Party may also provide that fraud, misrepresentation, or inequitable conduct may be the basis for cancelling, revoking, or nullifying a patent or holding a patent unenforceable. [AU/CL/MY/NZ/BN/CA/MX/VN propose93; US/JP oppose: A Party may also provide that a patent may be cancelled, revoked or nullified on the basis that the patent is used in a manner determined to be anti-competitive in a judicial [VZ/CA/MX propose: or administrative] proceeding] [AU/CL/CA/MX propose: US oppose; consistent with Article 5A(3) of the Paris Convention.]

Article QQ.E.4: 94

Article QQ.E.4: {Opposition to Grant of Patent}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose: Each Party shall provide a procedure for third persons to oppose the grant of a patent, either before or after the grant of a patent, or both.]

Article QQ.E.5: {Exceptions}

Each Party may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking into account the legitimate interests of third parties.

Article QQ.E.5bis: {Regulatory Review Exception}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose: Consistent with [Article QQ.E.5 (Exceptions)], each Party may provide that a third person may do an act that would otherwise infringe a patent if the act is done for purposes connected with the collection and submission of data in order to comply with the regulatory requirements of that Party or another country, including for purposes connected with marketing or sanitary approval.]

Article QQ.E.5ter: {Experimental Use of a Patent}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose: 1. Consistent with [Article QQ.E.5 (Exceptions)], each Party may provide that a third person may do an act that would otherwise infringe a patent if the act is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of a patented invention.

2. For the purposes of this Article, experimental purposes may include, but need not be limited to, determining how the invention works, determining the scope of the invention, determining the validity of the claims, or seeking an improvement of the invention (for example, determining new properties, or new uses, of the invention).]

Article QQ.E.5quater: {Other Use Without Authorisation of the Right Holder}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose: Nothing in this Chapter shall limit a Party's rights and obligations under Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement or any amendment thereto.]

Article QQ.E.6: {Patent filing}

1 Each Party shall provide that where an invention is made independently by more than one inventor, and separate applications claiming that invention are filed with or for the relevant authority of the Party, any patent granted for the claimed invention shall be granted on the application [US/VN/MX propose; AU/NZ/CL/MY/CA/PE oppose: which has been found to be patentable and] which has the earliest filing or, if applicable, priority date [AU/NZ/PE/BN/CL/CA95 propose;96 US/VN/MY/MX/SG oppose: and which is published].[US: 97]

Article QQ.E.7:

Each Party shall provide patent applicants with at least one opportunity to make amendments, corrections, and observations in connection with their applications98.

Article QQ.E.8:

[US/AU/PE/VN propose;99 CL/MY/BN/NZ/CA/SG/MX100 oppose: Each Party shall provide that a disclosure of a claimed invention shall be considered to be sufficiently clear and complete if it provides information that allows the invention to be made and used by a person skilled in the art, without undue experimentation, as of the filing date.]

Article QQ.E.9:

[US/PE/AU propose; 101 CL/VN/MY/BN/NZ/CA/SG/MX oppose: Each Party shall provide that a claimed invention [AU oppose: is] [AU propose: shall be] sufficiently supported by its disclosure [AU oppose: if the disclosure reasonably conveys to a person skilled in the art that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention] as of the filing date.]

Article QQ.E.10:

[US/AU/MX propose;102 SG/CL/MY/VN/PE/BN/NZ/CA oppose: Each Party shall provide that a claimed invention is [US/AU propose: useful] [MX propose: industrially applicable] if it has a specific [MX propose: and], substantial, [MX oppose: and credible] utility.]

Article QQ.E.11: {Publication of Patent Applications}

[AU/PE/NZ/MY/CL/VN/US/CA/MX/JP: 1. Each Party shall publish [US/MX oppose: or make available for public inspection] any patent application promptly after the expiry of 18 months from its filing date or, if priority is claimed, from its priority date, unless the application has been published earlier or has been withdrawn, abandoned or refused [CA propose: , without leaving any rights outstanding].]103

[AU/PE/NZ/CL/VN/CA/MX propose; MY oppose: 2. Each Party shall provide that an applicant may request the early publication of an application prior to the expiry of the period mentioned above.]

Article QQ.E.12:

[US/AU104/CA/SG/PE/CL/NZ/JP propose; MY/BN/VN/MX oppose: For published105 patent applications and issued patents, each Party shall make available to the public [US/PE/CA propose: at least] the following information : submitted [US/SG/PE propose: to that Party's competent authorities] in accordance with [US/SG/PE propose: their] requirements [US/SG/PE oppose: of the Party's competent authorities] [AU/CA/CL propose: in their possession] [US/SG/PE propose: and] in connection with the prosecution of such patent applications and patents:

(a) search and examination results, [JP oppose: including any relevant prior art search histories];

(b) [SG/PE/CL/US/NZ/AU/JP propose: non confidential]106 communications from applicants; and

(c) patent and non-patent related literature citations submitted by applicants, and relevant third parties.]

Article QQ.E.X: {Exhaustion of Rights}

[CL propose: The Parties are encouraged to establish international exhaustion of patent rights. For this purpose, the registration of a patent shall not entitle its holder to prevent third parties from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing a product protected by that patent, which has been put in the market in any country by the patent holder or with his consent.]

Article QQ.E.XX

[US propose; CA/NZ/JP oppose: Each Party, at the request of the patent owner, shall adjust the term of a patent to compensate for unreasonable delays that occur in the granting of the patent. For purposes of this subparagraph, an unreasonable delay at least shall include a delay in the issuance of the patent of more than four years from the date of filing of the application in the territory of the Party, or two years after a request for examination of the application has been made, whichever is later. Periods attributable to actions of the patent applicant need not be included in the determination of such delays. Any patent term adjustment under this article shall confer all of the exclusive rights of a patent subject to the same limitations and exceptions that would otherwise apply to the patent absent any adjustment of the patent term.]

Article QQ.E.13107 108: {Exceptions / Regulatory Review Exception}

[US/NZ/PE/CA/MX/JP propose: Consistent with paragraph [QQ.E.5] (patent exceptions and limitations), each Party shall permit] [CL/SG/MY/AU/VN/BN propose: Where a Party permits] a third person to use the subject matter of a subsisting patent to [US/NZ/PE/AU/MX/VN/BN/JP] propose: generate information necessary to] support an application for [AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: regulatory or] marketing approval [CL/NZ/PE/SG/MY/AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: or sanitary permit] of a [AU/CA/VN/BN oppose: pharmaceutical] product [PE propose: or agricultural chemical product], [US/NZ/PE/SG/MY/MX/JP propose: and shall further] [CL/AU/CA/VN/BN propose: that Party may also] provide that any product produced under such authority [CL/AU/CA/VN/BN propose: may be] [US/NZ/PE/SG/MY/MX/JP propose: shall not be] made, [CA propose: constructed,] [CL/PE/VN/BN propose: offered for sale], [PE/VN/BN propose: imported,] used, or sold in its territory [US/NZ/PE/SG/MY/MX/JP propose: other than] for purposes related to [US/NZ/PE/AU/MX/VN/BN/JP propose: generating such information to support an application for] meeting [AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: regulatory or] marketing approval [CL/NZ/PE/SG/MY/AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: or sanitary permit] requirements of that Party [NZ/SG/MY/AU/CA/MX/CL/VN/BN propose: or another country].

[US/SG/MY/PE/MX/CL propose;109 NZ/AU/CA/VN/BN oppose: If the Party permits exportation of such a product, the Party shall provide that the product shall only]] [NZ/CA/BN propose: Each Party shall permit a product to] [AU/VN propose: Each Party may permit such a product to] be exported outside its territory [US/NZ/PE/AU/MX/VN/BN propose: for purposes of generating information] to support an application for meeting [AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: regulatory or] marketing approval [CL/NZ/SG/MY/PE/AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: or sanitary approval] requirements of that Party [CL/NZ/SG/MY/AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: or another country].

Article QQ.E.14:

[US propose;110 AU/NZ/CL/PE/MY/SG/BN/VN/CA/MX oppose: 6.

(a) Each Party shall make best efforts to process patent applications and marketing approval applications expeditiously with a view to avoiding unreasonable or unnecessary delays.

(c) Each Party, at the request of the patent owner, shall make available an adjustment of the patent term of a patent which covers a new pharmaceutical product111 or a patent that covers a method of making or using a pharmaceutical product, to compensate the patent owner of unreasonable curtailment of the effective patent term as a result of the marketing approval process.

(d) In implementing subparagraph 6(c), a Party may:

  1. limit the applicability of subparagraph 6(c) to a single patent term adjustment for each new pharmaceutical product that is being reviewed for marketing approval;

  2. require the basis for the adjustment to be the first marketing approval granted to the pharmaceutical product in that Party;

    and

  3. limit the period of the adjustment to no more than 5 years.

(e) In implementing subparagraph 6(c), and as a condition for providing the adjustment set forth in subparagraph 6(c) for a new pharmaceutical product approved consistent with Article 9.2(b) or Article 9.2(d), a Party may require an applicant that has submitted an application for marketing approval consistent with Article 9.2(b) or Article 9.2(d) to commence the process of obtaining marketing approval for that new pharmaceutical product in the Party within [X] years of the date of the first marketing approval of the same pharmaceutical product in another Party.112

(f) Any adjustment under subparagraph 6(c) shall confer all of the exclusive rights, subject to the same limitations and exceptions, of the patent claims of the product, its method of use, or its method of manufacture in the originally issued patent as applicable to the product and the approved method of use of the product. ]] ]

Article QQ.E.16: 113 [US: Pharmaceutical Products

Submission of Information or Evidence Concerning the Safety or Efficacy of a New Pharmaceutical Product

[US propose; AU/PE/VN/NZ/CL/MY/SG/BN oppose: 1. (a) If a Party requires or permits, as a condition for granting marketing approval for a new pharmaceutical product, the submission of information concerning the safety or efficacy of the product, the origination of which involves a considerable effort, the Party shall not, without the consent of a person previously submitting such safety or efficacy information to obtain marketing approval in the territory of the Party, authorize a third person to market a same or a similar product based on:

  1. the safety or efficacy information previously submitted in support of the marketing approval; or

  2. evidence of the existence of the marketing approval,

  1. for at least five years from the date of marketing approval of the new pharmaceutical product in the territory of the Party.

  2. If a Party requires or permits, in connection with granting marketing approval for a new pharmaceutical product, the submission of evidence concerning the safety or efficacy of a product that was previously approved in another territory, such as evidence of prior marketing approval in the other territory, the Party shall not, without the consent of a person previously submitting the safety or efficacy information to obtain marketing approval in the other territory, authorize a third person to market a same or a similar product based on:

  1. the safety or efficacy information submitted in support of a prior marketing approval in the other territory; or

  2. evidence of the existence of a prior marketing approval in the other territory,

for at least five years from the date of marketing approval of the new pharmaceutical product in the territory of the Party.

Submission of New Clinical Information or Evidence relating to a Pharmaceutical Product that Includes a Chemical Entity that has been Previously Approved for Marketing in Another Pharmaceutical Product

  1. If a Party requires or permits, as a condition of granting marketing approval for a pharmaceutical product that includes a chemical entity that has been previously approved for marketing in another pharmaceutical product, the submission of new clinical information that is essential to the approval of the pharmaceutical product containing the previously approved chemical entity, other than information related to bioequivalency, the Party shall not, without the consent of a person previously submitting such new clinical information to obtain marketing approval in the territory of the Party, authorize a third person to market a same or a similar product based on:

  1. the new clinical information previously submitted in support of the marketing approval; or

  2. evidence of the existence of the marketing approval that was based on the new clinical information,

for at least three years from the date of marketing approval based on the new clinical information in the territory of the Party.

  1. If a Party requires or permits, in connection with granting marketing approval for a pharmaceutical product of the type specified in subparagraph (c), the submission of evidence concerning new clinical information for a product that was previously approved based on that new clinical information in another territory, other than evidence of information related to bioequivalency, such as evidence of prior marketing approval based on new clinical information, the Party shall not, without the consent of a person previously submitting such new clinical information to obtain marketing approval in the other territory, authorize a third person to market a same or a similar product based on:

  1. the new clinical information submitted in support of a prior marketing approval in the other territory; or

  2. evidence of the existence of a prior marketing approval that was based on the new clinical information in the other territory,

for at least three years from the date of marketing approval based on the new clinical information in the territory of the Party.]

[US: Additional Provisions relating to Pharmaceutical Products

  1. Notwithstanding paragraph 2 above, a Party may take measures to protect public health in accordance with:

  1. the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2) (the "Declaration");

  2. any waiver of any provision of the TRIPS Agreement granted by WTO Members in accordance with the WTO Agreement to implement the Declaration and in force between the Parties; and

  3. any amendment of the TRIPS Agreement to implement the Declaration that enters into force with respect to the Parties.

  1. A Party that requires or permits an applicant to obtain approval for marketing a new pharmaceutical product in its territory by relying, in whole or in part, on the prior approval of the pharmaceutical product by the regulatory authority in another territory may, as a condition for providing the period of data protection specified in subparagraph 2(b) or 2(d), require an applicant that has submitted an application for marketing approval consistent with said subparagraphs to commence the process of obtaining marketing approval for that pharmaceutical product within [X] years of the date of first marketing approval of the same pharmaceutical product in another Party.

Article QQ.E.17:

1. Where a Party requires or permits, as a condition of approving the marketing of a pharmaceutical product, persons, other than the person originally submitting safety or efficacy information, to rely on that information or on evidence concerning safety or efficacy information for a product that was previously approved, such as evidence of prior marketing approval in another territory, each Party shall:114

(a) provide a transparent and effective system to:

  1. identify a patent or patents covering an approved pharmaceutical product or its approved method of use; and

  2. provide notice to a patent holder of the identity of another person who intends to market, during the term of the identified patent or patents, a product that is the same as, or similar to, the approved pharmaceutical product referenced in subparagraph 5(a)(i).

(b) unless such other person agrees to defer the marketing of the product until after the expiration of an identified patent, ensure that a patent holder may seek, prior to granting of marketing approval to an allegedly infringing product, available remedies by providing:

  1. an automatic delay of the grant of marketing approval that remains in place for a period of time designed to ensure sufficient opportunity to adjudicate115 disputes concerning the validity or infringement of allegedly infringed patents; and

  2. judicial or administrative procedures, including effective

    provisional measures, to allow for the timely adjudication of disputes concerning the validity or infringement of an allegedly infringed patent.

(c) If such other person's product has been found to infringe a valid patent identified pursuant to subparagraph (a), provide measures that operate to prohibit the unauthorized marketing of that product prior to the expiration of the patent.

(d) when a Party delays the grant of marketing approval consistent with subparagraph 5(b)(i), provide an effective reward, consistent with the provisions of this Agreement, for the successful challenge of the validity or applicability of the patent.116

  1. In implementing subparagraph 5(b)(i), and as a condition for providing the automatic delay of the grant of marketing approval specified in subparagraph 5(b)(i) for a new pharmaceutical product approved consistent with subparagraph 2(b) or 2(d), a Party may require that an applicant that has submitted an application for marketing approval consistent with subparagraph 2(b) or 2(d) to commence the process of obtaining marketing approval for that new pharmaceutical in the Party within [X] years of the date of first marketing approval of the pharmaceutical product in another Party.

Article QQ.E.18:

Where a Party provides for a period of data protection for a pharmaceutical product of more than [5+Y] years pursuant to subparagraph 2(a) or 2(b) of this Article, that Party is not required to implement for that pharmaceutical product subparagraphs 2(c), 2(d) (3-year data protection in connection with submission of new clinical information), 5(b)(i) (automatic delay of marketing approval) or 5(d) of this Article (reward for the successful challenge of the validity or applicability of a patent).

Article QQ.E.19:

Where a Party chooses to apply subparagraph 6(e) of Article 8 and paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article, the following provisions shall apply:

  1. a Party shall permit an applicant to commence the process of obtaining marketing approval by providing the regulatory authority of the Party information supporting approval of the new pharmaceutical product in the Party that is available to the person at the time the request is made, such as evidence of the prior approval of the product in another Party. It is understood that, while a Party may impose reasonable additional requirements or deadlines as a condition of authorizing the person to market the pharmaceutical product in its territory, satisfaction of those additional requirements or deadlines or the granting of approval shall be recognized by the Party as necessarily occurring after the commencement of the marketing approval process within the meaning of subparagraph 6(e) of Article 8 and paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article; and

  2. a Party may not refuse to grant approval of a new pharmaceutical product on the basis of a failure of an applicant for marketing approval to satisfy the requirements of subparagraph 6(e) of Article 8 or paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article.

Article QQ.E.20: [Placeholder for specific provision applying to biologics].]

[US: General Provisions relating to Pharmaceutical Products and Agricultural Chemical Products

Article QQ.E.21:

For purposes of this Article, a new pharmaceutical product means a product that does not contain a chemical entity that has been previously approved in the territory of the Party for use in a pharmaceutical product [JP propose: for human use].117

Article QQ.E.22:

Subject to paragraph 3 (protection of public health), when a product is subject to a system of marketing approval in the territory of a Party pursuant to paragaph 1 or 2 and is also covered by a patent in the territory of that Party, the Party shall not alter the term of protection that it provides pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2 in the event that the patent protection terminates on a date earlier than the end of the term of protection specified in paragraph 1 or 2.]]

Article QQ.E.XX.1: {Measures to Encourage Timely Entry of Pharmaceutical Products}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY/VN propose: Each Party may adopt or maintain measures to encourage the timely entry of pharmaceutical products to its market.]

Article QQ.E.XX.2: {Patent Quality and Efficiency}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY/VN propose: 1. Each Party shall endeavour to improve quality and efficiency in its patent system.

2. Each Party shall endeavour to enhance its patent registration system by maintaining examination procedures, cancellation procedures and, where provided, opposition procedures that consistently provide high quality rights for granted patents, and endeavour to simplify and streamline its administration system for the benefit of all users of the system and the public as a whole.]

Article QQ.E.XX.3: {Processing Efficiency}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY/VN propose: 1. Each Party shall endeavour to process applications for patents, and applications for marketing, regulatory or sanitary approval of pharmaceutical products, in an efficient and timely manner.

2. Each Party may provide a procedure for patent applicants to apply to expedite the examination of their patent application.

3. If there are unreasonable delays in a Party's processing of applications for patents, or processing of applications for marketing, regulatory or sanitary approval of pharmaceutical products, the Party shall endeavour to address those delays.]

Article QQ.E.XX.4: {Protection of Undisclosed Data}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY/VN propose: 1. Where a Party requires, as a condition of marketing, regulatory or sanitary approval for pharmaceutical products which utilize new chemical entities, the submission of undisclosed test or other data, the origination of which involves a considerable effort, that Party shall protect such data against unfair commercial use. In addition, each Party shall protect such data against disclosure, except where necessary to protect the public or unless steps are taken to ensure that the data is protected against unfair commercial use.

  1. Each Party may provide that the protection of data under paragraph 1, inter alia:

    1. is limited to undisclosed test or other data, the origination of which involves a considerable effort;

    2. is limited to pharmaceutical products that do not contain a new chemical entity that has been previously approved for marketing in the Party;

    3. is limited to pharmaceutical products which utilize a new chemical entity;

    4. is available only once per pharmaceutical product;

    5. is not available for new uses or indications, new dosage forms or methods of making a pharmaceutical product;

    6. is limited to a period of time as determined by the Party; or

    7. may be waived to facilitate the marketing, regulatory or sanitary approval of a pharmaceutical product that is the subject of a voluntary or compulsory license, or a licence otherwise issued pursuant to the TRIPS Agreement.

  1. Each Party may take measures to protect public health in accordance with:

    1. the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2) (the "Declaration");

  1. any waiver of any provision of the TRIPS Agreement granted by WTO Members in accordance with the WTO Agreement to implement the Declaration and in force between the Parties; and

  2. any amendment of the TRIPS Agreement to implement the Declaration that enters into force with respect to the Parties.]

Article QQ.E.XX.5: {Publication of Regulatory Approval}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY/VN propose: Each Party shall endeavour to promptly make public the granting of marketing, regulatory or sanitary approval of pharmaceutical products.]

Article QQ.E.XXX {Agricultural Chemical Products}

[US/SG/PE/MX/JP propose118 ; NZ/VN oppose: 1.

(a) If a Party requires [AU/CL/MX oppose: or permits], as a condition of granting marketing approval [CL/MX propose: or sanitary permit] for a new agricultural chemical product [CL/MX propose; JP oppose: which utilize new chemical entity], the submission of [CL/MX propose: undisclosed][AU oppose: information] [AU propose; JP oppose: undisclosed test or other data] concerning safety or efficacy of the [CL/MX oppose: product][CL/MX propose; JP oppose: new chemical entity], the Party shall not, without the consent of [AU oppose: a person that previously submitted such] [AU propose: the person who provided the] [CL/MX oppose: safety or efficacy] information [AU oppose: to obtain marketing approval in the Party, authorize another] [AU propose: , permit third persons] to [CL/MX oppose: market] a [CL/MX oppose: same or a similar] product based on:

[SG oppose: (i) [CL/MX propose; JP oppose: undisclosed information concerning][AU oppose: the safety or efficacy information submitted in support of the marketing approval] [CL/MX propose: or sanitary permit][AU propose; JP oppose: that undisclosed test or other data]; or]

[CL/MX oppose: (ii) [AU oppose: evidence of the existence of] the marketing approval,]

[MX oppose: for [AU oppose: at least] ten years from the date of marketing approval [AU oppose: in the territory of] [AU propose: by] the Party .] [MX propose: Where origination of such data involve considerable efforts,119 ] [CL/MX propose; JP oppose: Each Party shall protect such information against disclosure except where necessary to protect the public, or unless steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use]

[CL/MX oppose: (b) If a Party [AU oppose: requires or permits, in connection with] [AU propose: permits, as a condition of ] granting marketing approval for a new agricultural chemical product, the submission of evidence concerning the safety or efficacy of a product that was previously approved in another territory, such as evidence of prior marketing approval [AU oppose: in the other terrritory]; the Party shall not, without the consent of [AU oppose: a person that] [AU propose: the person who] previously submitted [AU oppose: the safety or efficacy] information [AU propose: concerning safety or efficacy] to obtain marketing approval in another territory, [AU oppose: authorize another] [AU propose: permit third persons] to market a same or a similar product based on:

[SG oppose: (i) [AU oppose: the safety or efficacy] information [AU propose: concerning safety or efficacy] submitted [AU oppose: in support of] [AU propose: to obtain] the prior marketing approval in the other territory; or]

(ii) evidence of [AU oppose: the existence of a] prior marketing approval in the other territory,

for [AU oppose: at least] ten years from the date of marketing approval [AU oppose: of the new product in the territory of the Party].]

[PE propose120: In order to receive protection under subparagraph (b), a Party may require that the person providing the information in the other territory seek approval in the territory of the Party within five years after obtaining marketing approval in the other territory.]

[MX propose121: Where a Party relies on a marketing approval granted by another Party, the reasonable period of exclusive use of the data submitted in connection with obtaining the approval relied on shall begin with the date of the first marketing approval relied on.]

[CL/MX oppose: 2. For purposes of this Article, a new agricultural chemical product is one that [AU oppose: contains] [AU propose: does not contain] a chemical entity that has [AU oppose: not] been previously approved [AU propose: for marketing] in the [AU oppose: territory of the] Party [AU oppose: for use in an agricultural chemical product].]]

[NOTE: ARTICLES ORIGINALLY LABELED AS QQ.E.23-24 HAVE BEEN MOVED TO QQ.A.4-5]

Article QQ.E.23 122 : [PE/NZ/MX/SG: Proposed joint text for the Intellectual Property Chapter on Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources

[PE/NZ/VN/BN/MX/SG/CL/MY propose: 1. The Parties recognise the importance and contribution of traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and biological diversity to cultural, economic and social development. ]

[PE/MY/MX/BN propose; NZ/AU/SG/CL oppose: 2. Each Party exercises sovereignty over their biological [MY/BN oppose: diversity] [MY/BN propose: resources] and shall determine the access conditions to their genetic resources and their derivatives in accordance to their domestic legislation.]

[PE/NZ/BN/MY/MX/VN propose; AU/SG/CL oppose: 3. Where national legislation [MY/BN propose: or policies] establishes such requirements, the Parties recognise that users of genetic resources [NZ/CA oppose: and their derivatives] [ 123 ] or traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources [NZ/CA oppose: and their derivatives] [NZ propose: may] [PE/MY propose: shall]:

(a) obtain prior informed consent to access genetic resources [NZ/CA oppose: and their derivatives];

(b) access traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources [NZ/CA oppose: and their derivatives] with the prior informed consent or approval and involvement of the indigenous or local community holding such knowledge; and

  1. [BN/MY propose: fairly and] equitably share the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources [NZ/CA oppose: and its derivatives] and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources [NZ/CA oppose: and their derivatives] on mutually agreed terms.]

[PE/NZ/MX/CL/VN propose; SG oppose: 4. The parties recognize that:

(a) information about genetic resources [NZ/CL/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives] and traditional knowledge [CL oppose: associated with genetic resources [NZ/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives]] can be useful in assessing patent applications against existing eligibility criteria; and

(b) the intellectual property system is one possible means to protect the traditional knowledge [CL oppose: associated with genetic resources [NZ/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives]] and traditional cultural expressions of indigenous and local communities.]

[PE/NZ/MX/CL propose; SG oppose: 5. The Parties affirm that they will promote quality patent examination of applications concerning genetic resources and traditional knowledge [CL oppose: associated with genetic resources [NZ/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives]] to ensure that the eligibility criteria for patentability are satisfied. This may include:

(a) in determining prior art, ensuring that readily available documented information related to genetic resources [NZ/CL/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives] or traditional knowledge [CL oppose: associated with genetic resources [NZ/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives]] is taken into account;

(b) an opportunity to cite, in writing, to the appropriate examining authority prior art that may have a bearing on patentability;

(c) where applicable and appropriate, the use of databases or digital libraries containing traditional knowledge [CL oppose: associated genetic resources [NZ/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives]]; and

(d) cooperation in the training of patent examiners in the examination of patent applications related to genetic resources [NZ/CL/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives] and traditional knowledge [CL oppose: associated with genetic resources [NZ/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives]].]

[PE/NZ/AU/MX/MY/BN/VN/CL propose; SG oppose: 6. Subject to each Party's international obligations [AU/MY/BN/VN/CL oppose: the Parties affirm that they will endeavour to][AU/MY/BN/VN/CL propose: each Party may] establish appropriate measures to protect traditional knowledge and [MY oppose: traditional cultural expressions].]

[PE/MX propose; NZ/AU/SG/CL oppose: 7. Each Party will take appropriate, effective and proportionate measures to address situations of non-compliance with provisions established in paragraph 3.]

[PE/NZ/MX/SG/MY/BN/VN propose: 8. The Parties shall, through their respective agencies responsible for intellectual property, cooperate to enhance understanding of how the intellectual property system can deal with issues associated with traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources. [This text is a place holder, to be reconsidered depending on the outcome of the cooperation section of the IP chapter]]]

[JP propose: {INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS}

{Section F: Industrial Designs}

Article QQ.F.1: {Partial Design}

Each Party shall ensure that adequate and effective protection is provided to industrial designs, including to designs of a part of an article, regardless of whether or not the part can be separated from the article.]

{COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS}

{Section G: Copyright and Related Rights [124]}

Article QQ.G.1: {Copyright and Related Rights / Right of Reproduction}

  1. Each Party shall provide125 that authors, [NZ oppose: performers], and producers of phonograms126 have the right127 to authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, [NZ oppose: performances], and phonograms, [128] in any manner or form,[129] [VN/CA/NZ oppose: permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in electronic form)] [130] [131] [VN propose: it shall be a matter for national legislation to determine exceptions and limitations under which the right may be exercised].

Article QQ.G.2: {Copyright}

Without prejudice to Articles 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1)(i) and (ii), 11ter(1)(ii), 14(1)(ii), and 14bis(1) of the Berne Convention, each Party shall provide to authors the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.132

Article QQ.G.3: {Copyright and Related Rights}

[US/AU/PE/NZ/SG/CL/MX propose; VN/MY/BN/JP oppose: Each Party shall provide to authors, [NZ/MX oppose: performers,] and producers of phonograms the right to authorize or prohibit the importation[133] into that Party's territory of copies134 of the work [PE oppose: [NZ/MX: oppose: performance,] or phonogram] made without authorization, [PE/AU/NZ/CA/SG/CL/MX/JP oppose: or made outside that Party's territory with the authorization of the author, performer, or producer of the phonogram.[135] ]] [136]

Article QQ.G.4: {Right of Distribution}

Each Party shall provide to authors, [NZ/MX oppose: performers,] and producers of phonograms the right to authorize or prohibit the making available to the public of the original and copies137 of their works, [NZ/MX oppose: performances,] and phonograms through sale or other transfer of ownership.[138]

Article QQ.G.5:

Each Party shall provide that in cases where authorization is needed from both the author of a work embodied in a phonogram and a performer or producer owning rights in the phonogram, the need for the authorization of the author does not cease to exist because the authorization of the performer or producer is also required. Likewise, each Party shall provide that in cases where authorization is needed from both the author of a work embodied in a phonogram and a performer or producer owning rights in the phonogram, the need for the authorization of the performer or producer does not cease to exist because the authorization of the author is also required.

Article QQ.G.6:

[US/AU/PE/SG/CL/MX propose; VN/BN/NZ/MY/CA/JP oppose: Each Party shall provide that, where the term of protection of a work (including a photographic work), performance, or phonogram is to be calculated:

  1. on the basis of the life of a natural person, the term shall be not less than the life of the author and [MX propose: 100] [MX oppose: 70] years after the author's death; and

  1. on a basis other than the life of a natural person, the term shall be:

  1. not less than [US propose; CL oppose: 95] [AU/PE/SG/CL propose: 70] [MX propose: 75] years from the end of the calendar year of the first authorized publication of the work, performance, or phonogram, or

  2. failing such authorized publication within [US propose; CL oppose: 25] [SG/PE/AU/CL propose: 50] years from the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram, not less than [US propose; CL oppose: 120] [AU/PE/SG/CL propose: 70] years from the end of the calendar year of the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram.]

Article QQ.G.7: {Term of Protection for Copyright and Related Rights}

[NZ/BN/MY/VN/CA/JP propose; US/AU/SG/MX oppose: The term of protection of a work, performance or phonogram shall be determined according to each Party's domestic law and the international agreements to which each Party is a party.]

Article QQ.G.8:

Each Party shall apply Article 18 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1971) (Berne Convention) and [PE/SG/NZ/BN/US/VN/CL/MY/MX139: the corresponding provision in] Article 14.6 of the TRIPS Agreement, mutatis mutandis, to [CA oppose: the subject matter, rights, and obligations] [CA propose; US oppose: rights of authors, performers and producers of phonograms] in [Section G].

QQ.G.8

[CA/JP/SG/BN/NZ/PE/CL/VN/AU140 propose: Each Party shall apply, mutatis mutandis, Article 18 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1971) to the rights of authors, performers and producers of phonograms in [Section G]. A Party may provide for conditions, limitations, exceptions and reservations to the extent permitted in Article 14.6 of the TRIPS Agreement. ]

Article QQ.G.9:

Each Party shall provide that for copyright and related rights, any person acquiring or holding any economic right141in a work, [SG/BN/NZ/MY/VN/CL oppose: performance,] or phonogram:

  1. may freely and separately transfer that right by contract; and

  1. by virtue of a contract, including contracts of employment underlying the creation of works, [BN/SG/MY/VN/NZ/CL oppose: performances,] and phonograms, shall be able to exercise that right in that person's own name and enjoy fully the benefits derived from that right.

[CL: (c) Each Party may establish:

(i) which specific contracts underlying the creation of works or phonograms shall, in the absence of a written agreement, result in a transfer of economic rights by operation of law; and

(ii) reasonable limits to the provisions in [paragraph 2(a)] [cross reference to QQ.G.9(a)-(b)] to protect the interests of the original right holders, taking into account the legitimate interests of the transferees.]

Article QQ.G.X

No Party may subject the enjoyment and exercise of the rights of authors, performers and producers of phonograms provided for in this Chapter to any formality.

Article QQ.G.10: {Copyright and Related Rights / Technological Protection Measures}142

[US/AU/SG/PE/MX143 144 145 propose; MY/VN/BN/JP oppose146: (a) In order to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms use in connection with the exercise of their rights147 and that restrict unauthorized acts in respect of their works, performances, and phonograms, each Party shall provide that any person who:

  1. knowingly, [CL oppose: or having reasonable grounds to know]148, circumvents without [CL oppose: authority] [CL propose: authorization] any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, phonogram, [PE/CA/CL oppose: or other subject matter]; or

  2. manufactures, imports, distributes, [CL oppose: offers [CA/CL propose: for sale or rental] to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics149 in] devices, products, or components, [CL oppose: or offers to the public] or provides services, that:

    1. are promoted, advertised150, or marketed by that person, [PE/SG/CL oppose: or by another person acting in concert with that person and with that person's knowledge,] for the purpose of circumvention of any effective technological measure,

    2. have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent any effective technological measure, or

    3. are primarily designed, produced, or performed for the purpose of [CA oppose: enabling or facilitating] the circumvention of any151 effective technological measure,

    shall be liable and subject to the remedies set out in Article [12.12]152 153. [CL propose: If the conduct is carried out in good faith without knowledge that the conduct in prohibited, a Party may exempt acts prohibited under this subparagraph that are carried out in connection with a nonprofit library, archive or educational institution]. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied when any person, other than a nonprofit 154 library, [CA/CL propose: museum,] archive, educational institution, or [CA/CL oppose: public noncommercial broadcasting entity,] [CA propose: any other nonprofit entity as determined by a Party's law] is found to have engaged [CA oppose: willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage [CL oppose: or private financial gain]] [CA propose: knowingly and for commercial purposes] in any of the foregoing activities. [SG/AU/PE/CL155 oppose: Such criminal procedures and penalties shall include the application to such activities of the remedies and authorities listed in subparagraphs (a), (b), and (f) of Article [15.5]156 as applicable to infringements, mutatis mutandis. [157] ][CL propose: No Party is required to impose civil or criminal liability for a person who circumvents any effective
    technological measure that protects any of the exclusive rights of copyright or related rights in a protected work, but does not control access to such work].

  1. In implementing subparagraph (a), no Party shall be obligated to require that the design of, or the design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as the product does not otherwise violate any measures implementing subparagraph (a).

[CL oppose: (c) Each Party shall provide that a violation of a measure implementing this paragraph is independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party's law on copyright and related rights.]

  1. 158 Each Party shall confine exceptions and limitations to measures implementing subparagraph (a) [CL oppose: to the following activities,] [CL propose: certain special cases that do not impair the adequacy of legal protection of the effectiveness of legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures] [CL oppose: which shall be applied to relevant measures in accordance with subparagraph (e)]:

    1. [CA oppose: noninfringing reverse engineering activities with regard to a lawfully obtained copy of a computer program, carried out in good faith with respect to particular elements of that computer program that have not been readily available to the person engaged in those activities 159, for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs160] [CA propose: reverse engineering activities with regard to a lawfully obtained copy of a computer program, for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability of the program or any other program];

    2. [CA oppose: noninfringing good faith activities, carried out by an appropriately qualified researcher who has lawfully obtained a copy, [CL oppose: unfixed] performance, or display of a work, performance, or phonogram and who has made a good faith effort to obtain authorization for such activities, to the extent necessary for the sole purpose of research consisting of identifying and analyzing flaws and vulnerabilities of [CL propose: encryption] technologies161 [CL oppose: for scrambling and descrambling of information]] [CA propose: activities with regard to a lawfully obtained copy of a work, performance, or phonogram for the sole purpose of encryption research] ;

    3. the inclusion of a component or part for the sole purpose of preventing the access of minors to inappropriate online content in a technology, product, service, or device that itself is not prohibited under the measures implementing subparagraph (a)(ii)162;

    4. [CA oppose: noninfringing good faith activities that are authorized by the owner of a computer, computer system, or computer network for the sole purpose of testing, investigating, or correcting the security of that computer, computer system, or computer network] [CA propose: security testing activities that are authorized by the owner or administrator of a computer, computer system or computer network for the sole purpose of testing, investigating, or correcting the security of that computer, computer system or computer network];

    5. [CA oppose: noninfringing activities for the sole purpose of identifying and disabling a capability to carry out undisclosed collection or dissemination of personally identifying information reflecting the online activities of a natural person in a way that has no other effect on the ability of any person to gain access to any work] [CA propose: activities for the sole purpose of identifying or disabling a capacity to carry out collection or dissemination of personally identifying information];

    6. lawfully authorized activities carried out by government employees, agents, or contractors for the purpose of law enforcement, intelligence, essential security, or similar governmental purposes163;

    7. access by a nonprofit library, [CA propose: museum,] archive, or educational institution to a work, performance, or phonogram not otherwise available to it, for the sole purpose of making acquisition decisions; and

[CA propose: (viii) activities for the sole purpose of making a work, performance or phonogram perceptible to a person with a perceptual disability.

  1. activities for the sole purpose of making an ephemeral reproduction of a work, performance or phonogram,

  2. circumvention of a technological measure on a radio apparatus for the sole purpose of gaining or facilitating access to a telecommunication service by means of the radio apparatus]

  1. [CA oppose: noninfringing uses [SG oppose: of a work, performance, or phonogram] in a particular class of works, [SG oppose: performances, or phonograms] when an actual or likely adverse impact on those noninfringing uses [CL propose: or exceptionsor limitations to copyright or related rights with respect to users] is [PE oppose: credibly demonstrated] [PE propose: found] [CL propose: demonstrated or recognized] in a legislative or administrative review or proceeding [SG oppose: by substantial evidence]; provided that [AU/PE oppose: any limitation or exception adopted in reliance upon this clause shall have effect for a renewable period of not more than three [SG propose: four] years] [AU/PE propose: any such review or proceeding is conducted at least once every four years] from the date of conclusion of such review or proceeding.]

    [CA propose: (xi) Each Party may provide further exceptions and limitations to measures implementing subparagraph (a) in relation to non infringing uses as determined through a legislative, regulatory, judicial, or administrative process in accordance with the Party's law, following due consideration of the actual or potential adverse impact on those non infringing uses.]

  1. 164 The exceptions and limitations to measures implementing subparagraph (a) for the activities set forth in subparagraph [4.9(d)] may [CL oppose: only] be applied as follows[CL oppose: , and only to the extent that they do not impair the adequacy of legal protection or the effectiveness of legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures]:

    1. Measures implementing subparagraph (a)(i) may be subject to exceptions and limitations with respect to each [CL propose: situations and] activity set forth in subparagraph (d).

    2. Measures implementing subparagraph (a)(ii), as they apply to effective technological measures that control access to a work, performance, or phonogram, may be subject to exceptions and limitations with respect to activities set forth in subparagraph (d)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (vi).

  1. Measures implementing subparagraph (a)(ii), as they apply to effective technological measures that protect any copyright or any rights related to copyright, may be subject to exceptions and limitations with respect to activities set forth in subparagraph (d)(i) and (vi).

  1. 165 Effective technological measure means any [CA propose: effective] technology, device, or component that, in the normal course of its operation, controls access to a protected work, performance, phonogram, [PE/CL/CA oppose: or other protected subject matter,] or protects [CA oppose: any copyright or any rights related to copyright] [CA propose: rights related to a work, performance or phonogram].][CL propose: and cannot, in a usual case be circumvented accidentally.]

Article QQ.G.11:

[SG/CL propose166: Nothing in this agreement shall require any Party to restrict the importation or domestic sale of a device that does not render effective a technological measure the sole purpose of which is to control market segmentation for legitimate copies of cinematographic film or computer program, and is not otherwise a violation of law.]

Article QQ.G.12167: {Technological Protection Measures}

[CL/NZ/PE/VN/MY/BN/JP propose; AU/US oppose:

1. [PE/SG oppose: Each Party [VN propose: may] [VN oppose: shall] provide legal protections and remedies against the circumvention of effective technological protection measures in their domestic copyright laws where circumvention is for purposes of infringing the exclusive rights of copyright [NZ oppose: or related rights] owners.]

2. Each Party may provide that such protections and remedies shall not hinder or prevent uses of copyright or related rights protected material that are permitted under exceptions or limitations to the exclusive rights of copyright [NZ oppose: and related rights] owners, or the use of materials that are in the public domain.

[PE/SG: It is understood that nothing in this Article prevents a Party from adopting effective and necessary measures to ensure that a beneficiary may enjoy limitations and exceptions provided in that Party's national law, in accordance with Article QQG16, where technological measures have been applied to a work, performance or phonogram, and the beneficiary has legal access to that work, performance or phonogram particularly in circumstances such as where appropriate and effective measures have not been taken by rights holders in relation to that work, performance or phonogram to enable the beneficiary to enjoy the limitations and exceptions under that Party's national law.168]

3. Subject to each Party's international obligations, the Parties affirm that they may establish provisions to facilitate the exercise of permitted acts where technological measures have been applied.]

Article QQ.G.13: {Copyright and Related Rights / Rights Management Information}

In order to provide adequate and effective legal remedies to protect rights management information:

  1. each Party [VN oppose: shall] [VN: may] provide [VN oppose: that] [VN: legal remedies against] any person who without authority, and knowing, or, with respect to civil remedies, having reasonable grounds to know, that it would induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of [CA oppose: any] [CA propose: the] copyright or related right [VN oppose: ,] [VN: :]

  1. knowingly removes or alters any [CA/JP propose: electronic] rights management information;

  2. [MY/BN/VN/CA/JP oppose: distributes or imports for distribution rights management information knowing that the rights management information has been altered without authority; or]

  3. [CA propose: knowingly] distributes, imports for distribution, broadcasts, communicates or makes available to the public copies of works, [CL/NZ/MY/SG/VN oppose: performances,] or phonograms, knowing that [CA/JP propose: electronic] rights management information has been removed or altered without authority [VN oppose: ,] [VN: .]

[VN oppose: shall be liable and subject to the remedies set out in Article [QQ.H.4(15) 169 ]. 170 Each Party [CA/MX/JP propose: may] [CA/MX oppose: shall] provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied when any person, other than a nonprofit library, archive, [CA propose: museum,] [MY: or] educational institution [MY/CA oppose: , or [CL oppose: public noncommercial] broadcasting entity] [CA propose: any other nonprofit entity as determined by a Party's law.] [CL: established without a profit-making purpose], is found to have engaged [CA oppose: willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain] [CA propose: knowingly and for commercial purposes] in any of the foregoing activities. [MY/CA propose: Each Party may provide that these criminal procedures and penalties do not apply to any other nonprofit entity as determined by a Party's law.] [AU/SG/PE/CL/MY/NZ/BN/CA/MX/JP oppose: Such criminal procedures and penalties shall include the application to such activities of the remedies and authorities listed in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (f) of Article [15.5] as applicable to infringements, mutatis mutandis.]]

[SG/NZ/CL/MY/BN/VN/CA/JP oppose: (b) each Party shall confine exceptions and limitations to measures implementing subparagraph (a) to lawfully authorized activities carried out by [MX propose: the] government [MX oppose: employees, agents, or contractors] for the purpose of law enforcement, intelligence, essential security, or similar governmental purposes.]

(c) Rights management information means:

  1. [AU/MY/CA/JP propose: electronic] information that identifies a work, [NZ/MY oppose: performance,] or phonogram, the author of the work, [NZ/MY oppose: the performer of the performance,] or the producer of the phonogram; or the owner of any right in the work, [NZ/MY oppose: performance,] or phonogram;

  2. [AU/MY/CA/JP: electronic] information about the terms and conditions of the use of the work, [NZ/MY oppose:performance,] or phonogram ; or

  3. any [AU/MY/CA/JP: electronic] numbers or codes that represent such information,

when any of these items [CA propose: of information] is attached to a copy of the work, [NZ/MY oppose: performance,] or phonogram or appears in connection with the communication or making available of a work, [NZ/MY oppose: performance] or phonogram, to the public.

(d) For greater certainty, nothing in this paragraph shall obligate a Party to require the owner of any right in the work, performance, or phonogram to attach rights management information to copies of the work, performance, or phonogram, or to cause rights management information to appear in connection with a communication of the work, performance, or phonogram to the public.

Article QQ.G.14: {Related Rights}

1. Each Party shall accord the rights provided for in this Chapter with respect to [NZ/BN/MY oppose: performers and] producers of phonograms to the [NZ/BN/MY oppose: performers and] producers of phonograms who are nationals171 of another Party and to [NZ/BN/MY oppose: performances or] phonograms first published or first fixed in the territory of another Party172. A [NZ/BN/MY oppose: performance or] phonogram shall be considered first published in the territory of a Party in which it is published within 30 days of its original publication.[173][174]

2. Each Party shall provide to performers the right to authorize or prohibit:

  1. broadcasting and communication to the public of their unfixed performances, except where the performance is already a broadcast performance; and

  2. fixation of their unfixed performances.

3. [US/AU/PE/NZ/MY/BN/VN/CL/MX/SG propose ; CA oppose:

(a) Each Party shall provide to [NZ oppose: performers and] producers of phonograms the right to authorize or prohibit [BN oppose: the broadcasting or] any communication to the public of their [NZ oppose: performances or] phonograms, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of those [NZ oppose: performances and] phonograms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.]

[US/CL/PE/MX/SG/MY/NZ/AU/VN/BN propose: (b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) and Article [QQ.G.16.1] [exceptions and limitations - 3 step test], the application of this right to analog transmissions and [SG/VN/BN oppose: non-interactive], free over-the-air [CL/PE/MX oppose: analog and digital] broadcasts, and exceptions or limitations to this right for such activity, shall be a matter of each Party's law.]

[US/AU/SG/CL/PE/VN/MY propose: (c) Each Party may adopt limitations to this right in respect of other noninteractive transmissions in accordance with Article [QQ.G.16.1] [exceptions and limitations - 3 step test], provided that the limitations do not [CL/PE oppose: unreasonably] prejudice the right of the performer or producer of phonograms to obtain equitable remuneration].

[CA propose: Each Party shall provide to performers and producers of phonograms the rights to authorize or prohibit:

(c) the broadcasting or any communication to the public of their performances or phonograms; and

(d) the making available to the public, by wire or wireless means, of their performances and phonograms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

Where, upon the data of signature of this Agreement, the right in subparagraph (a) has not been implemented by a Party, the requirement may be satisfied by providing a right to a single equitable remuneration for the direct or indirect use of phonograms published175 for commercial purposes for broadcasting or for any communication to the public.176]

Article QQ.G.15:

For purposes of this [Article QQ.G.1 and Article QQ.G.3 - 18 ], the following definitions apply with respect to performers and producers of phonograms:

  1. broadcasting means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting"; transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent177;

  2. communication to the public of a performance or a phonogram means the transmission to the public by any medium, other than by broadcasting, of sounds of a performance or the sounds or the representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram. For the purposes of paragraph [3], "communication to the public" includes making the sounds or representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram audible to the public;

  1. fixation means the embodiment of sounds, or of the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated through a device;

  2. performers means actors, singers, musicians, dancers and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore;

  3. phonogram means the fixation of the sounds of a performance or of other sounds, or of a representation of sounds, other than in the form of a fixation incorporated in a cinematographic or other audiovisual work;

  4. producer of a phonogram means the person who, or the legal entity which, takes the initiative and has the responsibility for the first fixation of the sounds of a performance or other sounds, or the representations of sounds; and

  5. [CA propose:178]publication of a performance or a phonogram means the offering of copies of the performance or the phonogram to the public, with the consent of the rightholder, and provided that copies are offered to the public in reasonable quantity.

Article QQ.G.16 {Limitations and Exceptions}179

Article QQ.G.X

  1. With respect to Section G, each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

  2. Article QQ.G.X.1 neither reduces nor extends the scope of applicability of the limitations and exceptions permitted by the TRIPS Agreement, Berne Convention [VN propose: Rome Convention,] the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. 180


Article QQ.G.Y

Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions that are consistent with Article QQ.G.X, including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research [CL/MY propose181: ,education, ] [CL propose: and persons with disabilities] [US/MY/SG/CA/PE/BN/MX/VN propose: , as well as facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled]182 183.

Article QQ.G.Z

[CL/NZ/MY propose184: It is consistent with this Agreement to provide exceptions and limitations for temporary acts of reproduction which are transient or incidental and an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable (a) a lawful transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of a work; and which have no independent economic significance.]

Article QQ.G.17: {International Exhaustion of Rights}

[CL/NZ/SG/MY/BN/VN/PE/MX185 propose; AU/US oppose: The Parties are encouraged to establish international exhaustion of rights.]

[CA propose: Nothing in this Chapter shall affect the freedom of the Parties to determine whether and under what conditions the exhaustion of copyright and related rights applies.]

Article QQ.G.18: {Collective Management}

The Parties recognize the important role of collective management societies for copyright and related rights in collecting and distributing royalties186 based on practices that are fair, efficient, transparent and accountable, and which may include appropriate record keeping and reporting mechanisms.

{ENFORCEMENT}

{Section H: Enforcement}

Article QQ.H.1: {General Enforcement / General Obligations Relating to the Enforcement of Law [187] of Intellectual Property Rights}

1. Each Party shall ensure that enforcement procedures as specified in this section, are available under its law [CL/SG/CA/BN/PE/MX/VN propose: and its legal system] so as to permit effective action against any act of infringement of intellectual property rights covered by this Chapter, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and remedies which constitute a deterrent to future infringements. These procedures shall be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse.

2. Each Party shall ensure that its procedures concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights shall be fair and equitable. These procedures shall not be unnecessarily complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable time-limits or unwarranted delays.

[CL/VN/PE/AU/MY/BN/NZ/SG/MX/CA propose: 3. This Section does not create any obligation:

(a) to put in place a judicial system for the enforcement of intellectual property rights distinct from that for the enforcement of law in general, nor does it affect the capacity of each Party to enforce their law in general, or

(b) with respect to the distribution of resources as between the enforcement of intellectual property rights and the enforcement of law in general.]

[US/SG propose188; BN/VN/PE/MY/NZ/MX/CA oppose: 4. The Parties understand that the distribution of enforcement resources shall not excuse that Party from complying with this Section189.]

Article QQ.H.2: {Presumptions}

1. In civil, criminal, and if applicable, administrative proceedings involving copyright or related rights, each Party shall provide:

  1. for a presumption [US/CA propose: 190] that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the person whose name is indicated in the usual manner [CL/VN/BN/AU/MX/CA/SG/PE/NZ propose: 191 ] as the author, performer, producer [CA oppose: , or publisher] of the work, performance, or phonogram [CA propose: , or as applicable, the publisher] is the designated right holder in such work, performance, or phonogram; and

  2. for a presumption that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the copyright or related right subsists in such subject matter.

[US/BN/MY/NZ/SG/CA propose; 2 AU/PE/CL/VN/MX oppose192: In civil, [BN/MY oppose: administrative,] and criminal proceedings involving trademarks, each Party shall provide for a rebuttable presumption that a registered trademark is valid.

[BN/SG/MY oppose193: In civil or administrative patent enforcement proceedings, each Party shall provide for a rebuttable presumption that each claim in a patent substantively examined and granted by the competent authority satisfies the applicable criteria of patentability in the territory of the Party 194].]

Article QQ.H.3: {Enforcement Practices With Respect to Intellectual Property Rights}

1. Each Party shall provide that final judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application pertaining to the enforcement of intellectual property rights shall [SG/BN/MY/CA propose: preferably] be in writing and [MY oppose: shall] [MY/CA propose: may] state [VN/SG/BN/MY/CA oppose: any relevant findings of fact and] the reasoning or the legal basis on which the decisions and rulings are based. Each Party shall also provide that such decisions and rulings shall be published [195] or, where publication is not practicable, otherwise made available to the public, in a national language in such a manner as to enable interested persons and Parties to become acquainted with them.

2. Each Party recognizes the importance of collecting and analyzing statistical data and other relevant information concerning intellectual property rights infringements as well as collecting information on best practices to prevent and combat infringements.

3. Each Party [US/AU/PE/NZ/CL/MX/CA/JP/SG/BN/VN propose: shall] [MY propose: may] publish or otherwise make available to the public information on its efforts to provide effective enforcement of intellectual property rights in its civil, administrative and criminal systems, such as statistical information that the Party may collect for such purposes.

Article QQ.H.4: {Civil Procedures and Remedies / Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies}

1. Each Party shall make available to right holders 196 civil judicial procedures concerning the enforcement of any intellectual property right 197 covered in this Chapter.

2 Each Party shall provide [198] that in civil judicial proceedings its judicial authorities have the authority at least to order the infringer to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered [PE oppose: because of an infringement of that person's intellectual property right by an infringer who knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity.] [SG/PE/AU/NZ/MY/CL/CA/MX/BN/VN oppose: 199]

2bis. At least in cases of copyright or related rights infringement and trademark counterfeiting, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings, its judicial authorities have the authority to order the infringer to pay the right holder the infringer's profits that are attributable to the infringement.[200]

2ter. In determining the amount of damages under paragraph 2, its judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia,any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.

[US/CA/BN/AU/JP/MX/NZ/PE/VN propose: 3.201 Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to order injunctive relief that conforms to the provisions of Article 44 of the TRIPS Agreement, inter alia, to prevent goods that involve the infringement of an intellectual property right from entering into the channels of commerce [VN propose: in that Party's Jurisdiction].]202

[CL/PE/BN//VN propose;203 US/NZ oppose: 4. Each Party shall ensure that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order a party at whose request measures were taken and who has abused enforcement procedures to provide the party wrongfully enjoined or restrained adequate compensation for the injury suffered because of such abuse.]204

Article QQ.H.4.X

(1) In civil judicial proceedings, with respect to infringement of copyright or related rights protecting works, phonograms, and performances, each Party shall establish or maintain a system that provides for one or more of the following:

  1. pre-established damages, which shall be available upon the election of the right holder; or

  2. additional damages205.

(2)206 In civil judicial proceedings, with respect to trademark counterfeiting, each Party [US propose: shall] [NZ/MY/BN/JP propose: may] also establish or maintain a system that provides for one or more of the following:

  1. pre-established damages, which shall be available upon the election of the right holder; or

  2. additional damages.

(3) Pre-established damages shall be set out in an amount that would be sufficient to compensate the right holder for the harm caused by the infingement [VN oppose: , and with a view to deterring future infringements].

(4) In awarding additional damages, judicial authorities shall have the authority to award such additional damages as they consider appropriate, having regard to all relevant matters, including the [seriousness / extent / blatancy of the infringing conduct]207 and the need to deter similar infringements in the future.

ARTICLE QQ.H.4.Y

[US propose; SG/PE/VN/CA/CL/NZ/MY/BN/AU/MX/JP oppose: 6. In civil judicial proceedings concerning patent infringement, each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to increase damages to an amount that is up to three times the amount of the injury found or assessed.208 ]

7. Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities, [PE oppose: where appropriate,] [CA propose:209] [PE propose: except in exceptional circumstances] have the authority to order, at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings concerning infringement of at least copyright or related rights, [CA/MX/US propose: patents and] [CA/MX/US oppose: or] trademarks, that the prevailing party be awarded payment by the losing party of court costs or fees and appropriate attorney's fees, or any other expenses as provided for under that Party's law.

9210. In civil judicial proceedings concerning copyright or related rights infringement and trademark counterfeiting, each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority [VN propose: , at the right holder's request,] to order [VN propose: as provisional measures] the seizure or other taking into custody of suspected infringing goods, materials and implements relevant to the infringement, and, at least for trademark counterfeiting, documentary evidence relevant to the infringement.

21110. Each Party shall provide that in civil judicial proceedings :

  1. At least with respect to pirated copyright goods and counterfeit trademark goods, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings, at the right holder's request, its judicial authorities have the authority to order that such infringing goods be [VN propose: disposed of outside the channel of commerce or] destroyed, except in exceptional circumstances, without compensation of any sort.

  2. Each Party shall further provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to order that materials and implements that have been used in the manufacture or creation of such infringing goods, be, without undue delay and without compensation of any sort, destroyed or disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to minimize the risks of further infringements.

  3. in regard to counterfeit trademark goods, the simple removal of the trademark unlawfully affixed shall not be sufficient, other than in exceptional circumstances, to permit the release of goods into the channels of commerce.

11212. Without prejudice to its law governing privilege, the protection of confidentiality of information sources, or the processing of personal data, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority, upon a justified request [VN: propose213] of the right holder, to order the infringer or, in the alternative, the alleged infringer, to provide to the right holder or to the judicial authorities, at least for the purpose of collecting evidence, relevant information as provided for in its applicable laws and regulations that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls. Such information may include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution.

12. Each Party shall provide that in relation to a civil judicial proceeding concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial or other authorities have the authority to impose sanctions on a party, counsel, experts, or other persons subject to the court's jurisdiction, for violation of judicial orders concerning the protection of confidential information produced or exchanged in connection with such a proceeding. 214

13. To the extent that any civil remedy [VN propose; MX oppose:215 ]can be ordered as a result of administrative procedures on the merits of a case, each Party shall provide that such procedures conform to principles equivalent in substance to those set out in this Article (civil and administrative proceedings)

14. In the event that a Party's judicial or other authorities appoint technical or other experts in civil proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights and require that the parties to the litigation bear the costs of such experts, that Party should seek to ensure that such costs are reasonable and related appropriately, inter alia, to the quantity and nature of work to be performedand do not unreasonably deter recourse to such proceedings.

[US/AU/SG propose; BN/VN/MX/JP oppose216: 15. In civil judicial proceedings concerning the acts described in Article 4.[9] (TPMs) and Article 4.[10] (RMI), each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall, at the least, have the authoriy to:

  1. impose provisional measures, including seizure or other taking into custody of devices and products suspected of being involved in the prohibited activity;

  2. [US/SG propose; NZ/AU/MY oppose: provide an opportunity for the right holder to elect between actual damages it suffered (plus any profits attributable to the prohibited activity not taken into account in computing those damages) or pre-established damages;] [AU/NZ/PE propose: order damages of the type available for the infringement of copyright]

  3. order [NZ propose: , where appropriate,] payment to the prevailing party at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings of court costs and fees, and appropriate attorney's fees, by the party engaged in the prohibited conduct; and

  4. order the destruction of devices and products found to be involved in the prohibited activity.

[US/AU/SG/NZ/MY/CL/CA propose [US propose: No Party shall make damages available under this paragraph] [AU/SG/NZ/MY/CL/CA propose: A Party may provide that damages shall not be available] against a [MY oppose: nonprofit] library, archives, educational institution, [CA propose: museum, or any other nonprofit entity as determined by a Party's law] [CA oppose: or public noncommercial broadcasting entity] [MY oppose: that sustains the burden of proving that such entity was not aware and had no reason to believe that its acts constituted a prohibited activity]. ]]217

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose: 16. Each Party may adopt or maintain measures to discourage vexatious or unreasonable proceedings, including those involving pharmaceutical products that are subject to marketing, regulatory or sanitary approval.]

Article QQ.H.5: {Provisional Measures}

1. Each Party's authorities shall act on requests for relief inaudita altera parte expeditiously in accordance with the Party's judicial rules.

2. Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to require the applicant, with respect to provisional measures, to provide any reasonably available evidence in order to satisfy themselves with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant's right is being infringed or that such infringement is imminent, [VN//PE: and that any delay in the issuance of such measures is likely to cause irreparable harm to the right holders, or there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed,] and to order the applicant to provide a security or equivalent assurance set at a level sufficient to protect the defendant and to prevent abuse. Such security or equivalent assurance shall not unreasonably deter recourse to such procedures.

Article QQ.H.6: {Special Requirements Related to Border Enforcement218 / Special Requirements related to Border Measures} [219]

1. Each Party shall provide that any right holder initiating procedures for its competent authorities to suspend release of suspected counterfeit [SG/BN/MY/VN/CA oppose: or confusingly similar] trademark goods, or pirated copyright goods220 into free circulation is required to provide adequate evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that, under the law{s} of the [CA/NZ/MX/US/PE/AU oppose: country of importation] [CA/NZ/MX/US/PE/AU221 propose: Party providing the procedures], there is prima facie an infringement of the right holder's intellectual property right and to supply sufficient information that may reasonably be expected to be within the right holder's knowledge to make the suspected goods 222reasonably recognizable by its competent authorities. The requirement to provide such information shall not unreasonably deter recourse to these procedures.

1bis. Each Party shall provide for applications to suspend the release of, or to detain, any suspect goods 223 [SG/VN oppose: under customs control 224 in its territory.][SG/VN propose: that are imported into the territory of the Party225] A Party may provide that, at the request of the right holder, an application to suspend the release of, or to detain, suspect goods may apply to selected points of entry [US/CA/JP/MX226 propose; CL/SG/VN oppose: and exit] under customs control.]227 228 [US/AU/CA/JP/NZ propose; MX /PE/CL/MY/SG/VN/BN oppose: Each Party shall provide that applications [NZ oppose: shall] remain in force [NZ propose: for the period requested by the right holder but not exceeding five years, or] for a period of not less than one year from the date of application, or the period that the good is protected by copyright or the relevant trademark registration is valid, whichever is shorter.[NZ propose: A Party may provide that its competent authorities have the authority to suspend or invalidate an application when there is due cause.]

2. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities have the authority to require a right holder initiating procedures to suspend the release of suspected counterfeit [BN/SG/MY/VN/CA oppose: or confusingly similar] trademark goods, or pirated copyright goods, to provide a reasonable security or equivalent assurance sufficient to protect the defendant and the competent authorities and to prevent abuse. Each Party shall provide that such security or equivalent assurance shall not unreasonably deter recourse to these procedures. A Party may provide that such security may be in the form of a bond conditioned to hold the defendant harmless from any loss or damage resulting from any suspension of the release of goods in the event the competent authorities determine that the article is not an infringing good.


3. Without prejudice to a Party's laws pertaining to privacy or the confidentiality of information, where its competent authorities have detained or suspended the release of goods that are suspected of being counterfeit or pirated, a Party may provide that its competent authorities have the authority to inform the right holder [CA/VN propose: who has filed a request for assistance] [MY/CA/BN/PE/VN oppose: promptly] [MY/CA/PE
229 /BN/SG/VN propose: within a reasonable period] of the names and addresses of the consignor, exporter, consignee or importer, a description of the merchandise, quantity of the merchandise, and, if known, the country of origin of the merchandise.: Where a Party does not provide such authority to its competent authorities when suspect goods are detained or suspended from release, it shall provide [US/VN propose: , at least in cases of imported goods,] its competent authorities with the authority to provide the foregoing information to the right holder [SG/VN oppose: within 30 days230] [SG/VN propose: within a reasonable period] of the seizure or determination that the goods are counterfeit or pirated, whichever is earlier.

[US/PE/AU/SG/MY/CL/CA/BN/JP propose; NZ/VN/MX oppose: 4. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities may initiate border measures ex officio231 with respect to [AU propose: merchandise that is] imported, [MY/CL/AU/PE/BN oppose: exported,] [CL/AU/PE propose; SG oppose: destined for export,] [AU/MY/SG/CA/BN/CL oppose: or in-transit merchandise,[PE oppose: 232 ]] [PE/SG/MY/CL/CA/BN oppose: or [AU oppose: merchandise] [US propose: entering into or exiting from] [US oppose: in] free trade zones], that is suspected of being counterfeit [SG/PE/MY/CA/BN oppose: or confusingly similar] trademark goods, or pirated copyright goods.]

5. Each Party shall adopt or maintain a procedure by which its competent authorities may determine, within a reasonable period oftime after the initiation of the procedures described under Article QQ.H.6(1)233 whether the suspect goods infringe an intellectual property right. Where a Party provides administrative procedures for the determination of an infringement, it [VN234 propose: may] [VN oppose: shall] also provide its authorities with the authority to impose administrative penalties, which may include monetary penalties or the seizure of the infringing goods, following a determination that the goods are infringing.

6. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities have the authority to order the destruction [VN propose: , or disposal outside the channel of commerce,] of goods following a determination that the goods are infringing. In cases where such goods are not destroyed, each Party shall ensure that, except in exceptional circumstances, such goods are disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm to the right holder. In regard to counterfeit trademark goods, the simple removal of the trademark unlawfully affixed shall not be sufficient, other than in exceptional cases, to permit the release of the goods into the channels of commerce.

7. Where a Party establishes or assesses, in connection with the procedures described in this section [article], an application fee, storage fee, or destruction fee, such fee shall not be set at an amount that unreasonably deters recourse to these procedures

8. Each Party shall include in the application of this Article goods of a commercial nature sent in small consignments. A Party may exclude from the application of this Article small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers' personal luggage.235

Article QQ.H.7: {Criminal Procedures and Remedies / Criminal Enforcement}

1. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale.

2. [US/AU/SG/PE propose; CL/VN/MY/NZ/CA/BN/MX oppose: Willful copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale includes:

  1. significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain; and

  2. willful infringements for purposes of commercial advantage or [AU/SG/PE/JP oppose: private] financial gain.[AU/SG/PE/CA/JP oppose: 236]]

Each Party shall treat willful importation [SG/MX/BN/MY/VN oppose: or exportation] of counterfeit trademark goods [VN oppose: or pirated copyright goods] on a commercial scale as unlawful activities subject to criminal penalties.237

[US propose; AU/BN/MY/NZ/SG/CL/VN/PE/CA/MX/JP oppose: 3. Each Party shall also provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied, even absent willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy, at least in cases of knowing trafficking in:

  1. labels or packaging, of any type or nature, to which a counterfeit trademark 238 has been applied, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive; and

  1. counterfeit or illicit labels239 affixed to, enclosing, or accompanying, or designed to be affixed to, enclose, or accompany the following:

    1. a phonogram,

    2. a copy of a computer program or a literary work,

    3. a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,

    4. documentation or packaging for such items; and

  2. counterfeit documentation or packaging for items of the type described in subparagraph (b).]

[NZ/AU/BN/MY/US/CA/SG/MX/JP propose; PE/CL/VN oppose: 4. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied in cases of willful importation240 and domestic use, in the course of trade and on a commercial scale, of labels or packaging241:

  1. to which a mark has been applied without authorization which is identical to, or cannot be distinguished from, a trademark registered in its territory; and

  2. which are intended to be used in the course of trade on goods or in relation to services which are identical to goods or services for which such trademark is registered.]

[US propose; CA/JP oppose: Each Party shall further ensure that criminal penalties and procedures are applied in cases of knowing trafficking in illicit labels242 affixed, enclosing, or accompanying, or designed to be affixed to, enclose, or accompany phonograms, copies of computer programs, literary works, motion pictures, or other audiovisual works.]

5. [AU/NZ/SG/MY/ CA/US propose; PE/VN/BN/MX/CL oppose: [US/CA propose: Each] [US/CA oppose: A] Party [SG/NZ/CL oppose: shall] [SG/NZ/CL/JP: may] provide criminal procedures and penalties [US/CA oppose: , in appropriate cases,] for the [US/CA propose: knowing and] unauthorized copying [MY: or recording] [US propose; CA/JP oppose: or transmittal] of [US/CA propose: a [JP propose: first-run] cinematographic work, or any part thereof,] [US/CA oppose: cinematographic works] from a performance in a [CA oppose: motion picture exhibition facility generally open to the public] [CA/JP propose: movie theater].]

6. With respect to the offenses for which this Article requires the Parties to provide for criminal procedures and penalties, Parties shall ensure that criminal liability for aiding and abetting is available under its law.

7. With respect to the offences described in Article QQ.H.7[1]-[4] above, each Party shall provide:

  1. penalties that include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to future acts of infringement, consistently with the level of penalties applied for crimes of a corresponding gravity; 243

  1. 244that its judicial authorities shall have the authority, when determining penalties, to account for the seriousness of the circumstances, which may include those that involve threats to, or effects on, health or safety;245

  2. that its judicial [VN propose: or other]authorities shall have the authority to order the seizure of suspected counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods, any related materials and implements used in the commission of the alleged offense, documentary evidence relevant to the alleged offense [MY oppose: , and assets 246 derived from, or obtained directly [VNoppose: or indirectly] through the alleged infringing activity].

    Where a Party requires the identification of items subject to seizure as a prerequisite for issuing any such judicial order, that Party shall not require the items to be described in greater detail than necessary to identify them for the purpose of seizure;

  3. that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the forfeiture, at least for serious offenses, of any assets derived from, or obtained directly [VN oppose: or indirectly] through the infringing activity;

  4. that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the forfeiture or destruction of:

    1. all counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods; and

    2. materials and implements [CA/VN/MX propose: predominantly][CA/VN/MX oppose: that have been] used in the creation of pirated copyright goods or counterfeit trademark goods; and

    [CL/PE/VN/BN/SG/AU/CA/MX/JP oppose: (iii) any other articles consisting of a counterfeit trademark].

In cases where counterfeit trademark goods and pirated copyright goods are not destroyed, the [MY oppose: judicial][MY/SG/CL/AU/PE/MX/VN/JP: competent247] authorities shall ensure that , except in exceptional circumstances, such goods shall be disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid causing any harm to the right holder. Each Party shall further provide that forfeiture or destruction under this subparagraph and subparagraph (c) 248 shall occur without compensation of any kind to the defendant;

[US/NZ propose; BN/SG/MY/CL/PE/AU/VN/CA/MX/JP oppose: (f)
that its judicial authorities have the authority to order the seizure or forfeiture of assets the value of which corresponds to that of the assets derived from, or obtained directly or indirectly through, the infringing activity];

  1. that its judicial or other competent authorites shall have the authority to release or, in the alternative, provide access to, goods, material, implements, and other evidence held by the authority to a right holder for civil249 infringement proceedings.

[US/NZ/PE/SG/BN/CL/AU/MY/CA/MX propose: VN/JP oppose: (h) that its competent authorities may act upon their own initiative to initiate a legal action without the need for a formal complaint by a private party or right holder].

Article QQ.H.8 {Trade Secrets}

1.250[CL propose: In the course of ensuring effective protection against unfair competition as provided in Article 10bis of the Paris Convention] Parties shall ensure that natural and legal persons have the legal means to prevent trade secrets lawfully in their control from being disclosed to, acquired by, or used by others (including state commercial enterprises) 251 without their consent in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices.[ 252 ] As used in this Chapter, trade secrets encompass, at a minimum, undisclosed information as provided for in Article 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.

[US/MX/CA/NZ/JP253 propose; SG/MY/PE/VN/CL/AU254/BN oppose: 2. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties at least in cases in which a trade secret relating to a product in national or international commerce is misappropriated, or disclosed, willfully and without authority for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain, and with the intent to injure the owner of such trade secret.]

Article QQ.H.9: {Protection of Encrypted Program-Carrying Satellite Signals/Protection of Encrypted Program-Carrying Satellite and Cable Signals}

  1. Each Party shall make it a [CL/MX propose: civil or,] [VN propose: administrative or] criminal offense to:

  1. manufacture, assemble, modify, import, export, sell, lease, or otherwise distribute a tangible or intangible device or system, knowing[CL 255] [CL/JP oppose: or having reason to know] that the device or [CL oppose: system is primarily of assistance] [CL propose: system's principal function is solely to assist] in decoding an encrypted program-carrying satellite [CL/VN/SG/PE/CA/MX oppose: or cable] signal without the authorization of the lawful distributor of such signal256; and

[US/AU/NZ/PE/MY/SG/MX/VN/CA/CL propose, BN/JP oppose: (b) [VN oppose: [CA propose: except in circumstances where the lawful distributor has not made the signal available to persons in the area where the decoding occurs,] willfully receive257 [CL oppose: and make use of,][258] or] willfully further distribute a program-carrying signal that originated as an encrypted satellite [PE/SG/MX/VN/CL/CA oppose: or cable] signal knowing that it has been decoded without the authorization of the lawful dstributor of the signal, [PE/SG/MX/VN/CL/CA oppose: or if the signal has been decoded with the authorization of the lawful distributor of the signal, willfully to further distribute the signal for purposes of commercial advantage knowing that the signal originated as an encrypted program-carrying signal and that such further distribution is without the authorization of the lawful signal distributor.] ]

[US/AU/PE/NZ/MX/CL259 propose260, MY/BN/VN/CA oppose: 2. Each Party shall provide for civil remedies, [CL/MX oppose: including compensatory damages,] for any person injured by any activity described in paragraph [1], including any person that holds an interest in the encrypted programming signal or its content.]

Article QQ.H.10: {Special Measures Relating to Enforcement in the Digital Environment}

[US/AU/CA/SG/NZ/PE propose, VN/ oppose:1. Each Party shall ensure that enforcement procedures, to the extent set forth in the civil and criminal enforcement sections of this Chapter, are available under its law so as to permit effective action against an act of trademark, copyright or related rights infringement which takes place in the digital environment, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringement and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringement.]261

Article QQ.H.11: {Government Use of Software / Government Use of Software and Other Materials Protected by Copyright or Related Rights}

Each Party262 shall adopt or maintain appropriate laws, regulations, policies, orders, government-issued guidelines, or administrative or executive decrees providing that its [US/AU/CA/MY/VN/MX propose: central 263 ] government agencies use only non-infringing264computer software [US/AU/CA/MX propose:; SG/CL/PE/NZ/MY/BN/VN oppose: and other materials protected by copyright or related rights] in a manner authorized by law and by the relevant license. These measures shall apply to the acquisition and [PE/CA oppose: management] [PE/CA propose: use] of such software [PE/CL/BN/SG/NZ/MY/VN oppose: and other materials] for government use.

Article QQ.H.12265:

[US propose: Notwithstanding Article QQ.G.16 [limitations and exceptions] and Article QQ.G.14.3(b) [over the air broadcasting reference], no Party may permit the retransmission of television signals (whether terrestrial, cable, or satellite) on the Internet without the authorization of the right holder or right holders of the content of the signal and, if any, of the signal.266]

{SECTION I: INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS}

Article QQ.I.1:267 {Internet Service Provider Liability}

[CL/BN/NZ/MY/VN/CA/SG/MX propose; AU/US oppose: 1.268 Each Party shall limit the liability of, or the availability of remedies against, internet service providers269 [when acting as intermediaries270], for infringement of copyright or related rights that take place on or through communication networks, in relation to the provision or use of their services.]

[CA propose: 2. Limitations referred to in the previous paragraph shall cover at least the following functions:

  1. mere conduit, which consist of the provision of the means to transmit information provided by a user, or the means of access to a communication network;

  2. hosting of information at the request of a user of the hosting services;

  3. caching carried out through an automated process, when the internet service provider:

    1. does not modify information other than for technical reasons;

    2. ensures that any directions related to the caching of information that are specified in a manner widely recognized and used by industry are complied with; and

    3. does not interfere with the use of technology that is lawful and widely recognized and used by the industry in order to obtain data on the use of information;

  4. providing an information location tool, by making reproductions of copyright material in an automated manner, and communicating the reproductions.]

[CA propose: 3. Qualification by an internet service provider for the limitations as to each function in the previous paragraph shall be considered separately from qualification for the limitations as to each other function. Eligibility for the limitations in the previous paragraph may not be conditioned on the internet service provider monitoring its service, or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity.]

[CL/BN/NZ/VN/MX propose; AU/US/SG/MY oppose: 2. 271 272 The framework in Paragraph 1 [CA oppose: will only apply if an internet service provider meets conditions, including] [CA/CL/VN propose; NZ/MX oppose: shall be accompanied in a Party's law by]:

(a) [CA/NZ/CL/VN/MX propose: procedures for notifications of claimed infringement and for] removing or disabling access to infringing material [CA/CL/MX oppose: upon notification from the right holder through a procedure established by each Party]; and]

[CA/NZ/CL/VN273 propose: (b) legal incentives for internet service providers to comply with these procedures, or remedies against internet service providers who fail to comply.]]

[CA propose: 4. Each Party shall provide legal incentives for internet service providers to comply, or remedies against internet service providers who fail to comply, with any procedures established in each party's law for:

(a) effective notifications of claimed infringement; or

(b) removing or disabling access to infringing material residing on its networks.]

[CA/CL/VN274] propose: [CA oppose: 3.] [CA propose: 5.] The framework in Paragraph 1 will not apply to the extent that an internet service provider provides a service primarily for the purpose of enabling acts of copyright or related right infringement.]

[CA propose: 6. This Article is without prejudice to the availability in a Party's law of other defences, limitations and exceptions to the infringement of copyright or related rights. This Article shall not affect the possibility of a court or administrative authority, in accordance wth Parties' legal systems, or requiring the internet service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.]

[US/AU/SG/NZ/PE propose; BN/VN/CA/MX oppose: 1. [SG/MY oppose275: For the purpose of providing enforcement procedures that permit effective action against any act of copyright276 infringement covered by this Chapter, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and criminal and civil remedies] each Party shall provide, consistent with the framework set out in this Article:

  1. [MY/VN oppose: legal incentives for service providers to cooperate with copyright owners in deterring the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials; and]

  2. limitations in its law [MY/NZ/SG propose: on the liability of, or on the remedies] [NZ/MY/VN oppose: regarding the scope of remedies 277 ] available against service providers for copyright infringements that they do not control, initiate or direct, and that take place through systems or networks controlled or operated by them or on their behalf, as set forth in this subparagraph (b).278[PE propose: 279]

    1. [MY/VN oppose: These limitations shall preclude monetary relief and provide reasonable restrictions on court-ordered relief to compel or restrain certain actions for the following functions, [NZ oppose: and shall be confined to those functions]][280]:

      1. transmitting, routing, or providing connections for material without modification of its content[CL propose:281], or the [MY oppose: intermediate and] transient storage of such material in the course thereof;

      2. caching carried out through an automatic process;

      3. storage, at the direction of a user, of material residing on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider282; and

      4. referring or linking users to an online location by using information location tools, including hyperlinks and directories.

    2. These limitations shall apply only where the service provider does not initiate the transmission of the material, and does not select the material or its recipients (except to the extent that a function described in clause (i)(D) in itself entails some form of selection).

    3. Qualification by a service provider for the limitations as to each function in clauses (i)(A) through (D) shall be considered separately from qualification for the limitations as to each other function[CL oppose: , in accordance with the conditions for qualification set forth in clauses (iv) through (vii)]

    4. With respect to functions referred to in clause (i)(B), the limitations shall be conditioned on the service provider:

[CL/MY oppose: (A) permitting access to cached material in significant part only to users of its system or network who have met conditions [NZ propose: imposed by the originator of the material] on user access to that material;]

  1. 283complying with rules concerning the refreshing, reloading, or other updating of the cached material when specified by the [CL oppose: person making the material available online] [CL propose: supplier of the material] in accordance with a relevant industry standard data communications protocol for the system or network through which that person makes the material available that is generally accepted in the Party's territory;

  2. 284not interfering with technology used 285at the originating site consistent with industry standards generally accepted in the Party's territory to obtain information about the use of the material, and not modifying its content in transmission to subsequent users; and

  3. [MY oppose: expeditiously] removing or disabling access, on receipt of an effective notification of claimed infringement, to cached material that has been removed or access to which has been disabled at the originating site.

  1. With respect to functions referred to in clauses (i)(C) and (D), the limitations shall be conditioned on the service provider:

(A) not receiving a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in circumstances where it has the right and ability to control such activity;

(B) [MY oppose: expeditiously] removing or disabling access to the material residing on its system or network on obtaining actual knowledge of the infringement or becoming aware of facts or circumstances from which the infringement was apparent, such as through effective notifications of claimed infringement in accordance with clause (ix); [NZ oppose: and

(C ) publicly designating a representative to receive such notifications.]

[MY/NZ oppose: (vi) Eligibility for the limitations in this subparagraph shall be conditioned on the service provider:

(A) adopting and reasonably implementing a policy that provides for termination in appropriate circumstances of the accounts of repeat infringers; and

(B) accommodating and not interfering with standard technical measures accepted in the Party's territory286 that protect and identify copyrighted material, that are developed through an open, voluntary process by a broad consensus of interested parties287, that are available on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, and that do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.]

  1. Eligibility for the limitations in this subparagraph may not be conditioned on the service provider monitoring its service, or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity [NZ/MY oppose: , except to the extent consistent with such technical measures.]

[NZ oppose: (viii) If the service provider qualifies for the limitations with respect to the function referred to in clause (i)(A), court-ordered relief to compel or restrain certain actions shall be limited to terminating specified accounts, or to taking reasonable steps to block access to a specific, non-domestic online location.[MY oppose: If the service provider qualifies for the limitations with respect to any other function in clause (i), court-ordered relief to compel or restrain certain actions shall be limited to removing or disabling access to the infringing material, terminating specified accounts, and other remedies that a court may find necessary, provided that such other remedies are the least burdensome to the service provider [CL propose: and users or subscribers] among comparably effective forms of relief. Each Party shall provide that any such relief shall be issued with due regard for the relative burden to the service provider [CL propose: ,to users or subscribers] and harm to the copyright owner, the technical feasibility and effectiveness of the remedy and whether less burdensome, comparably effective enforcement methods are available. Except for orders ensuring the preservation of evidence, or other orders having no material adverse effect on the operation of the service provider's communications network, each Party shall provide that such relief shall be available only where the service provider has received notice of the court order proceedings referred to in this subparagraph and an opportunity to appear before the judicial authority.]]

[NZ oppose: (ix) For purposes of the notice and take down process for the functions referred to in clauses (i) [CL propose: (B)] (C) and (D), each Party shall establish appropriate procedures in its law or in regulations for effective notifications of claimed infringement, and effective counter-notifications by those whose material is removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification. Each Party shall also provide for monetary remedies against any person who makes a knowing material misrepresentation in a notification or counter-notification that causes injury to any interested party as a result of a service provider relying on the misrepresentation.]

[NZ oppose: (x) If the service provider removes or disables access to material in good faith based on claimed or apparent infringement, each Party shall provide that the service provider shall be exempted from liability for any resulting claims, provided that, in the case of material residing on its system or network, it takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the [CL oppose: person making the material available on its system or network] [CL propose: supplier of the material] that it has done so and, if such person makes an effective counter-notification and is subject to jurisdiction in an infringement suit, to restore the material online unless the person giving the original effective notification seeks judicial relief within a reasonable time.]

  1. Each Party shall establish an administrative or judicial procedure enabling copyright owners [NZ oppose: who have given effective notification of claimed infringement] to obtain expeditiously from a service provider information in its possession identifying the alleged infringer.

  1. For purposes of the function referred to in clause (i)(A), service provider means a provider of transmission, routing, or connections for digital online communications without modification of their content between or among points specified by the user of material of the user's choosing, [NZ oppose: and for purposes of the functions referred to in clauses (i)(B) through (D)service provider means a provider or operator of facilities for online services or network access288.]]

[US/AU/SG propose; CL/MY/NZ/VN/BN/CA/MX/PE oppose: Annex to Article QQ.I.1.3(b)(ix)

In meeting the obligations of Article QQ.I.1.3(b)(ix), each Party shall adopt or maintain requirements for: (a) effective written notice to service providers with respect to materials that are claimed to be infringing, and (b) effective written counter-notification by those whose material is removed or disabled and who claim that it was disabled through mistake or misidentification, as set forth in this letter. Effective written notice means notice that substantially complies with the elements listed in section (a) of this letter, and effective written counter-notification means counter-notification that substantially complies with the elements listed in section (b) of this letter.

(a) Effective Written Notice, by a Copyright289 Owner or Person Authorized to Act

on Behalf of an Owner of an Exclusive Right, to a Service Provider's Publicly Designated Representative290

In order for a notice to a service provider to comply with the relevant requirements set out in Article QQ.I.1.3(b)(ix), that notice must be a written communication, which may be provided electronically, that includes substantially the following:

  1. the identity, address, telephone number, and electronic mail address of the complaining party (or its authorized agent);

  1. information reasonably sufficient to enable the service provider to identify the copyrighted work(s)291 claimed to have been infringed;

3. information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to identify and locate the material residing on a system or network controlled or operated by it or for it that is claimed to be infringing, or to be the subject of infringing activity, and that is to be removed, or access to which is to be disabled;292

  1. a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;

  1. a statement that the information in the notice is accurate;

  1. a statement with sufficient indicia of reliability [SG propose:293] (such as a statement under penalty of perjury or equivalent legal sanctions) that the complaining party is the [SG/AU oppose: holder] [SG/AU propose: owner] of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed, or is authorized to act on the owner's behalf; and

  2. the signature of the person giving notice.294

(b) Effective Written Counter-Notification by a Subscriber295 Whose Material Was Removed or Disabled as a Result of Mistake or Misidentification of Material

In order for a counter-notification to a service provider to comply with the relevant requirements set out in Article QQ.I.1.3.(b)(ix), that counter-notification must be a written communication, which may be provided electronically, that includes substantially the following:

  1. the identity, address, [SG/AU propose: electronic mail address] and telephone number of the subscriber;

  2. the identity of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled;

  1. the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled;

  1. a statement with sufficient indicia of reliability (such as a statement under penalty of perjury or equivalent legal sanctions) that the subscriber [SG/AU propose: is the supplier of the material and] has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material;

  1. a statement that the subscriber agrees to be subject to orders of any court that has jurisdiction over the place where the subscriber's address is located, or, if that address is located outside the Party's territory, any other court with jurisdiction over any place in the Party's territory where the service provider may be found, and in which a copyright infringement suit could be brought with respect to the alleged infringement;

  1. a statement that the subscriber will accept service of process in any such suit; and

  1. the signature of the subscriber.296

]]

[CL propose: Annex […]

List of Geographical Indications from Chile

WINES Name of Indication

Valle de Aconcagua

Alhué

Valle del Bío Bío

Buin

Valle del Cachapoalf

Valle de Casablanca

Cauquenes

Chillán

Chimbarongo

Valle del Choapa

Coelemu

Valle de Colchagua

Valle de Copiapó

Valle de Curicó

Region de Aconcagua

Region de Atacama

Region de Coquimbo

Valle del Claro

Region del Sur

Region del Valle Central

Valle del Elqui

Valle del Huasco

Illapel

Isla de Maipo

Valle del Itata

Valle de Leyda

Valle de Limarí

Linares

Valle del Loncomilla

Valle del Lontué

Lolol

Valle del Maipo

Maria Pinto

Valle del Marga-Marga

Valle del Maule

Marchigue

Valle del Malleco

Melipilla

Molina

Monte Patria

Mulchén

Nancagua

Ovalle

Paiguano

Pajarete

Palmilla

Panquehue

Parral

Pencahue

Peralillo

Peumo

Pirque

Portezuelo

Puente Alto

Punitaqui

Quillón

Rancagua

Valle del Rapel

Rauco

Rengo

Requínoa

Río Hurtado

Romeral

Sagrada Familia

Valle de San Antonio

San Juan

Salamanca

San Clemente

San Fernando

San Javier

San Rafael

Santa Cruz

Santiago

Talagante

Talca

Valle del Teno

Valle delTutuvén

Traiguén

Vicuña

Villa Alegre

Vino Asoleado

Yumbel

SPIRITS Name of Indication Country

Pisco Chile

AGRICULTURAL Name of Indication Country

Limón de Pica Chile]

1Section and Article titles and headings appear in this text on a without prejudice basis. Parties have agreed to defer consideration of the need for, and drafting of, Section and Article titles and headings. Such titles or headings that appear in braces (i.e., "{ }") are included for general reference and information purposes only.

2Negotiators' Note: NZ/SG supports a definition for Intellectual Property which mirrors TRIPS Article 1.2 subject to confirmation of treatment of plant varieties rights.

3[AU/PE: For the purpose of this Chapter "intellectual property" also includes rights in plant varieties.]

4Negotiators' Note: AU supports including objectives but is still considering the drafting and scope of this article.

5Negotiators' Note: CA supports this provision in principle, but is reviewing the proposal.

6Negotiators' Note: MX will reflect further on the additional subparagraphs (g) and (h).

7Negotiators' Note: JP is reflecting further on this paragraph.

8Negotiators' Note: AU is still considering the drafting and scope of this paragraph.

9Negotiators' Note: AU is considering the drafting of the language.

10Negotiators' Note: Parties to discuss paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 with legal group to consider possible redundancy with General Provisions and receive advice on resolution.

11Negotiators' Note: Delegations are considering the relationship between this proposal and the general non-derogation provision in Article [ ]. Proponent delegations other than VN are prepared to consider addition of the opening clause shown in brackets if it aids in forming a consensus.

12Negotiators' Note: MX is flexible if the obligation is on a best endeavor basis.

13Negotiators' Note: SG has no substantive objection to this paragraph and will follow consensus.

14Negotiators' Note: MY/BN do not object in principle subject to further domestic internal consultations or procedures and greater clarity regarding views of other Parties. SG/CL has no substantive objection to this paragraph and will follow consensus. VN are continuing domestic procedures for consideration of the Protocol.

15Negotiators' Note: AU considering drafting of this provision.

16Negotiators' Note: JP reserves its position pending the outcome of Article QQ.A.1.

17[US/AU/SG/PE: For purposes of Articles [QQ.A.7.1-2___(NT & Judicial/Admin Procedures)_QQ.D.2.a__(GIs/Nationals), and (QQ.G.14.1 Performers/Phonograms/Related Rights,] a national of a Party shall [US propose: include] [US oppose: also mean], in respect of the relevant right, an entity of that Party that would meet the criteria for eligibility for protection provided for in the agreements listed in [Article QQ.A.6.4] and the TRIPS Agreement.]

18[US/AU/SG/PE/MY/VN/BN/NZ/MX/CLpropose: For purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 "protection" shall include matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, and enforcement of intellectual property rights as well as matters affecting the use of intellectual property rights specifically covered by this Chapter. Further, for purposes of paragraph 1[and 2], "protection" also includes the prohibition on circumvention of effective technological measures set out in Article QQ.G.10 and the rights and obligations concerning rights management information set out in Article QQ.G.13]
Negotiators' Note: [CL/SG/PE/MY/VN/BN/NZ/MX: reserves its position with regards to the second sentence, depending on the outcome of the technological protection measure/rights management information][Parties to determine whether this footnote shall refer to paragraph 1, or paragraphs 1 and 2.]

19Negotiators' Note: SG/CL is flexible on either approach to National Treatment.

20Negotiators' Note: NZ notes its proposed text may not be necessary depending on outcome of following two paragraphs. CA supports in principle and is considering further the drafting of this provision.

21Negotiators' Note: AU can be flexible on either approach to National Treatment.

22Negotiators' Note: MY/SG/PE support in principle. CP/JP is considering further.

23Negotiators' Note: MX is considering its position in relation to the whole paragraph.

24Negotiators' Note: CA can support consensus on the first sentence.

25Negotiators' Note: AU/NZ/CL/SG/BN/MY/JP is reviewing this provision in light of discussion in Legal and Institution Group. CA understands that a similar provision has already been agreed upon in the Transparency chapter.

26[SG/MY: Negotiators Note: Subject to the acceptance of provision concerning the disclosure of confidential information that will impede law enforcement.]

27[US: A Party may satisfy requirement for publication by making the law, regulation, or procedure available to the public on the Internet.]

28Text from Legal and Institution Group inserted for comparison purposes: Each Party shall ensure that its laws, regulations, procedures, and administrative rulings of general application with respect to any matter covered by this Agreement are promptly published or otherwise made available in such a manner as to enable interested persons and Parties to become acquainted with them.

29Negotiators' Note: CA supports in principle pending clarification of what is meant by "open to public inspection" in sub-paragraph (b).

30Negotiators note: AU/MY/CA/JP/MX: support inclusion of a provision regarding disclosure of confidential information but would prefer to see such a provision located in a chapter dealing with general provisions and exceptions.

31Text from LII Group inserted for comparison purposes: [LII Group: Article CCC.6: Disclosure of Information. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring a Party to furnish or allow access to confidential information the disclosure of which would impede law enforcement, otherwise be contrary to the public interest, or prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular enterprises, public or private. FN: AU/NZ/MY: For the purposes of this paragraph, the public interest includes, for example, compliance with legislative or constitutional provisions regarding privacy.]

32Negotiators' Note: AU/NZ/CL/SG/PE/MY/BN/VN/JP/MX/CA/US reserve positions pending final outcome of Chapter. All Parties agree to revisit this provision at the conclusion of this chapter.

33Negotiators' Note: JP will follow consensus on this paragraph.

34Negotiators' Note: CA is reflecting on the notion of the meaning of relevant authorities.

35Negotiators' Note: US consulting experts on wording of provision.

36Negotiators' Note: US and JP can go along with the consensus.

37Negotiators' Note: MY supports this article subject to further domestic implementation.

38[JP propose: For clarity a Party may require that a sign has acquired distinctiveness through use, where the sign consists only of names of place.]

39For purposes of this Chapter, geographical indication means indications that identify a good as originating in the territory of a party, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Consistent with this definition, any sign or combination of signs shall be eligible for protection under one or more of the legal means for protecting GIs, or a combination of such means.

40Negotiators' Note: CA/MY is flexible on this proposal.

41Negotiators' Notes: PE/MX/SG will go with consensus on this paragraph.

42[PE/US propose: For greater certainty, the existence of such measures does not per se, amount to impairment.]

43Negotiators' Note: MX is still reflecting on this provision. JP is considering this provision.

44[SG propose: this provision is not intended to affect the use of common names of pharmaceutical products in prescribing medicine.]

45Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

46Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

47Negotiators' Note: MX will go with consensus with this paragraph.

48[US/CA/CL/MX/SG/NZ/VN/BN/AU/MY propose: Where a Party determines whether a mark is well-known in the Party, the Party need not require that the reputation of the trademark extend beyond the sector of the public that normally deals with the relevant goods or services.]

49Negotiators' Note: MY support subject to domestic implementation.

50Negotiators' Note: Parties reviewing the scope of this paragraph intersessionally.

51Negotiators' Note: CA is flexible on this language, subject to its final attribution of this paragraph.

52Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

53For greater certainty, cancellation for purposes of this Section may be implemented through nullity or revocation proceedings.

54Parties that rely on translations of the Nice Classification are required to follow updated versions of the Nice Classification to the extent that official translations have been issued and published.

55Negotiators' Note: AU supports this article ad referendum.

56Negotiators' Note: AU supports this paragraph ad referendum.

57Negotiators' Note: Brunei can accept this provision pending completion of its database.

58Negotiators' Note: US seeks further clarification on the scope of application of privacy data.

59Negotiators' Note: AU/CL/MY/NZ/US/SG/JP support contingent on understanding that TPP will include a general provision related to privacy/disclosure of information; issues.

60Negotiators' Note: JP seeks clarification as to whether "registration" is deemed to be synonymous with "acquiring the right to use" and reserves its position pending clarification of the term "trafficking".

61Negotiators' Note: [JP is still considering this issue depending on the outcome of discussions on Article QQ.C.2][AU/NZ: will go with consensus.]

62Subparagraph (a) shall also apply to judicial procedures that protect or recognize a geographical indication.

63Negotiators' Note: Parties are considering the different terms used in this provision along with similar issues that have cropped up in C6 and D3.

64Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this language.

65Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision depending on the meaning of this Article.

66Negotiators' Note: subject to legal clarification on consistency of the term cancellation etc.

67Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision including Note to (i) and (ii).

68[US/NZ/BN propose; CL/PE/SG/MX/MY oppose: For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that a geographical indication that is likely to cause confusion with a pre-existing trademark or with another geographical indication should be refused protection, even if that geographical indication is a translation or modification of a geographical indication that the Party already protects.] [US alternative propose; PE/MX/ SG/MY/CL oppose: For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that, where a translation or a modification of a geographical indication is likely to cause confusion with a pre-existing trademark or geographical indication, it should be refused protection.]

69[US/AU propose: For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that the prior trademarks referred to in Article QQ.D.3 include well-known trademarks.]

70Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

71[US: For greater certainty, nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit a Party from barring third parties from using or registering translations of geographical indications if: (1) such uses give rise to a likelihood of confusion[JP oppose: , and (2) the geographical indications became protected through means other than an agreement between a Party and a government or governmental entity].] Negotiators' Note: JP proposes to move this footnote before subparagraph (a), so that it covers subparagraph (b) as well.

72Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

73Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

74[NZ propose: for greater certainty the filing date reference in Article QQ.D.6 includes the priority filing date under the Paris Convention, where applicable.]

75Negotiators' Note: CA to consider; BN can go along with consensus: VN/BN maintains opposition to reference to agreement with another government, etc.

76Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

77Negotiators' Note: CA reserves its right to revisit this article once the Geographical Indication provisions have been agreed upon. MY/SG still considering this provision.

78Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

79Negotiators' Note: CA is reflecting on both proposals. JP is considering this provision.

80Negotiators' Note: MY/PE supports SG proposal in principle but is reflecting on language.

81Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

82Negotiators' Note: VN supports subject to this list of GIs in the Annex.

83[CL/BN/SG propose: For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that geographical indications will be recognized and protected in the Parties only to the extent permitted by and according to the terms and conditions set out in their respective domestic laws.]

84Negotiators' Note: CA is continuing to reflect on this provision but notes concerns regarding scope and operation. JP is considering this provision.

85Negotiators' Note: US supports the principle reflected in this Article, but has concerns about limiting the Article just to names of countries.

86Negotiators' Note: AU/ NZ/ SG/ BN reflecting on reformulated proposal. JP is considering this provision.

87For purposes of this [Section] Article, a Party may deem the terms "inventive step" and "capable of industrial application" to be synonymous with the terms "non-obvious" and "useful", respectively. In determinations regarding inventive step (or non-obviousness), each Party shall consider whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person skilled or having ordinary skill in the art having regard to the prior art.

88Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

89Negotiator's Note: NZ/VN accept ad referendum pending confirmation on scope of publication and duration of grace period.

90[CA/SG/JP propose: A Party shall not be required to disregard information contained in [gazettes related to intellectual properties or] patent applications made available to the public by a patent office unless erroneously published or unless the application was filed without the consent of the inventor or their successor in title by a third party who obtained the information directly or indirectly from the inventor.]

91For greater certainty, a Party may limit application of this provision to disclosures made by or obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. [PE/US/MY/SG/AU propose: For greater certainty, a Party may provide that, for purposes of this article information obtained directly or indirectly from the patent applicant may be information contained in the public disclosure that was authorized by, or derived from, the patent applicant.]

92Negotiators' Note: Parties will continue to work to resolve the drafting of footnotes 61 & 62 (2nd sentence) intersessionally.

93Negotiator's Note: PE and SG are flexible with both options.

94US withdraw Article QQ.E.4 ad referendum pending confirmation from capital.

95Negotiator's note: CA reserves its position on Articles QQ.E.6,QQ.E.11 and QQ.E.12 pending clarification of the definition of publish/published.

96Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

97[US: A Party may limit application of this provision to patent applications in which there is at least one claim to new subject matter filed after the entry into force of this Agreement.] Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

98Each Party may provide that such amendments do not go beyond the scope of the disclosure of the invention as of the filing date.

99Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

100Negotiator's Note: MX/SG are willing to accept the article provided that the sentence "without undue experimentation" is deleted.

101Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

102Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

103Negotiator's note: SG/BN/US/MY is not fundamentally opposed, but considering how their concerns over exceptions will be addressed. US support for this provision is contingent upon resolution of exceptions under U.S. law. JP is considering the issue of exceptions.

104Negotiator's Note: AU is considering the issue of "in the possession of the competent authority".

105Negotiator's Note CA: Publish includes making available for public inspection.

106Negotiator's Note: AU is still considering whether this would include personal information.

107Negotiator's Note: CA/MX/AU is still considering the options in this provision.

108[MX propose: For greater clarity, the duration of the regulatory review exception will be subject to each Party's national legislation.]

109Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

110Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

111[US: For greater certainty, new pharmaceutical product in subparagraphs 6 (c)-(e) means a product that at least contains a new chemical entity that has not been previously approved as a pharmaceutical product [JP propose: for human use] in the territory of the Party.]

112[US: Negotiator's Note: For purposes of paragraph 6(e) of Article 8 and paragraphs 4 and 6 of Article 9, the length of the [X]-year period should: enhance certainty regarding access to innovative and generic pharmaceutical products for all; provide incentives for innovation; provide incentives for the diffusion of pharmaceutical products within the TPP region; respect commercial considerations; and account for special challenges in developing and commercializing such products throughout the region (e.g., challenges faced by smaller or less experienced applicants, or the time that an applicant may need to assess additional safety or efficacy implications of marketing a product, such as to assess such implications in jurisdictions where risks may differ from those faced in markets where the product has previously been approved).]

113Negotiators' Note: CA reserves its position and seeks to develop its understanding of these provisions further to the discussion in Singapore. JP is still considering its position on Article QQ.E.16. to E.22.

114For greater certainty, the Parties recognize that this paragraph does not imply that the marketing approval authority should make patent validity or infringement determinations.

115[Negotiator's Note: As used in Article 9.5(b)(i), "adjudicate" does not mean final adjudication.]

116A Party may comply with paragraph 5(d) by providing a period of marketing exclusivity in appropriate circumstances to the first such other person or persons to challenge a patent.

117For greater certainty, the Parties understand that the term "pharmaceutical product" as used in this Chapter includes biologic products.

118Negotiators' Note: AU/CA/MY/CL/BN can support the inclusion of provisions on agriculture chemical but still considering the scope and drafting of the protection. CA is also considering the duration of the protection.

119Negotiator's Note: MX: Placeholder for definition for "considerable efforts".

120Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

121Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

122Negotiators' Note: CA/US position is that QQ.E.23 provisions should be addressed in the Environment Chapter. The US/JP opposes the inclusion of this proposal in this Chapter.

123[MX propose; CL oppose: For greater certainty "derivative" means a naturally occurring biochemical compound resulting from the genetic expression or metabolism of biological or genetic resources, without human manipulation, even if does not contain functional units of heredity.]

124Negotiator's Note: MX is still reflecting the coverage of related rights in this chapter.

125The Parties reaffirm that it is a matter for each Party's law to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works, performances and phonograms shall not be protected by copyright or related rights unless they have been fixed in some material form.

126References to "authors, performers, and producers of phonograms" refer also to any successors in interest.

127With respect to copyrights and related rights in this Chapter, the "right to authorize or prohibit" and the "right to authorize" refer to exclusive rights.

128[US/AU/PE/CA/CL/MX/SG/MY/NZ/VN propose: With respect to [PE/CL/MX oppose: copyright and] related rights in this Chapter, a "performance" means a performance fixed in a phonogram unless otherwise specified.]

129[VN/BN/CA propose: The reproduction right, as set out in Article 9 of the Berne Convention [CA propose: and articles 7 and 11 of the WPPT], and the exceptions permitted thereunder, fully apply in the digital environment, in particular to the use of works [CA propose: , performances and phonograms] in digital form. It is understood that the storage of a protected work [CA propose: , performance or phonogram] in digital form in an electronic medium constitutes a reproduction within the meaning of [CA propose: the articles referenced in this footnote] [CA oppose: Article 9 of the Berne Convention].]

130[CL/NZ/MY/BN/JP propose: It is consistent with this Agreement to provide exceptions and limitations for temporary acts of reproduction which are transient or incidental and an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable (a) a lawful transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of a work; and which have no independent economic significance.] [Negotiators Note: Discussions indicated no substantive objection to the concept, however, Parties continue to consider whether the footnote is required, where it might best be placed, and how it should be drafted.]

131[CA/JP propose: It is a matter for each Party's law to determine when a given act constitutes a temporary reproduction for the purposes of copyright and related rights.]

132It is understood that the mere provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication does not in itself amount to communication within the meaning of this Chapter or the Berne Convention. It is further understood that nothing in this Article precludes a Party from applying Article 11bis(2) of the Berne Convention.

133[NZ propose: For the purpose of this paragraph importation may exclude importation for private or domestic use.]

134[PE/NZ propose: The expressions "copies" in this paragraph refers exclusively to fixed copies that can be put into circulation as tangible copies]. [Negotiators' Note: US can support the concept subject to final drafting.] [JP propose: A Party may comply with its obligations under this paragraph by legislating in the Party's law that such importation, for the purpose of distribution, is deemed to be infringement.] Negotiator's Note: With this footnote, Japan can withdraw its opposition in the first line of QQ.G.3.

135[US: With respect to copies of works and phonograms that have been placed on the market by the relevant right holder, the obligations described in Article [QQ.G.3] apply only to books, journals, sheet music, sound recordings, computer programs, and audio and visual works (i.e., categories of products in which the value of the copyrighted material represents substantially all of the value of the product). Notwithstanding the foregoing, each Party may provide the protection described in Article [QQ.G.3] to a broader range of goods.]

136[Negotiator's Note: The US is considering the relationship between this provision and other proposals regarding the exhaustion of IP rights, as well as other TPP countries' legal regimes.]

137The expressions "copies" and "original and copies" subject to the right of distribution in this paragraph refer exclusively to fixed copies that can be put into circulation as tangible objects [US/CA/SG oppose: , i.e., for this purpose, "copies" means physical copies.]

138[AU/VN/PE/NZ/BN/MY/SG/CA/CL/MX/JP propose: Nothing in this Agreement shall affect a Party's right to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of this right applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of their works, performances, or phonograms with the authorization of [CA/SG propose: the author, performer or producer] [CA/SG oppose: the right holder].] (Negotiator's Note: VN prefers this to be in the text as opposed to a footnote).

139[Negotiators' Note: AU/CA agree in principle but will reflect further on the language.]

140Negotiators' Note: AU supports this article ad referendum.

141For greater certainty, this provision does not affect the exercise of moral rights.

142Negotiators' Note: Article QQ.H.4.15 should be discussed after discussions on this issue.

143Negotiator's Note: MX supports this provision in principle.

144Negotiator's Note: CA supports this provision in principle pending outcome of discussions on exceptions.

145Negotiator's Note: CL is considering pending the outcome of the language of this proposal.

146Negotiator's Note: NZ reserves its position on article QQ.G.10 pending the outcome of exceptions and limitations on TPMs protection. JP is considering a possibility of producing its proposal on Technological Protection Measures.

147Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position pending the clarification of the meaning of "rights".

148Negotiator's Note: CA pending clarification of criminal remedies.

149Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position pending clarification of "traffics".

150Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position pending clarification of the terms "promoted" and "advertised."

151Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position pending clarification of "any".

152Negotiator's Note: CA seeks clarification as to whether article "12.12" is meant to refer to article QQ.H.4(15).

153Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position pending outcome of discussion of provision QQ.H.4(15).

154Negotiator's Note: CA seeks clarification if nonprofit applies to all institutions.

155Negotiator's Note: CA seeks clarification of the intention of this sentence.

156Negotiator's Note: CA seeks clarification as to whether article "15.15" is meant to refer to article QQ.H.7(7). CA reserves position pending clarification of QQ.H.7(7).

157[US/AU: For purposes of greater certainty, no Party is required to impose liability under Articles [9 and 10] for actions taken by that Party or a third party acting with the authorization or consent of that Party.] [Negotiator's Note: CA seeks clarification of this footnote.]

158Negotiator's Note: CA is considering these limitations.

159[CL propose: For greater certainty, elements of a computer program are not readily available to a person seeking to engage in non-infringing reverse engineering when they cannot be obtained from literature on the subject, from the copyright holder, or from sources in the public domain.]

160[CL propose: Such activity occurring in the course of research and development is not excluded in this exception.]

161[CL propose: Such activity occurring in the course of research and development is not excluded from this exception.]

162Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position.

163Negotiator's Note: CA needs to reflect further on this paragraph.

164Negotiator's Note: CA is considering paragraph (e) pending the outcome on discussions on limitations and exceptions.

165Negotiator's Note: CA is considering paragraph (f).

166Negotiators' Note: NZ/PE/CA/AU/MX/MY/BN/VN support in principle pending drafting consultations.

167Negotiator's note: SG/CA/MX is willing to consider a more flexible approach to TPM provisions.

168Negotiator's Note: MY/VN/CL does not object in principle but needs to reflect further on the language.

169Negotiator's Note: CL/MY/NZ/BN/JP positions pending outcome of this provision.

170Negotiator's Note: NZ/JP is considering the scope of obligations under this paragraph.

171Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position pending the outcome of FN10 (Art. QQ.A.7).

172For greater certainty, in this paragraph with respect to performances or phonograms first published or first fixed in the territory of a Party, a Party may apply the criterion of publication, or alternatively, the criterion of fixation, or both.

173For purposes of this Article, fixation means the finalization of the master tape or its equivalent.

174[JP propose: A Party may comply with its obligations under this paragraph by legislating that performers and producers of phonograms are protected to the extent provided for in Article 3 of WPPT and/or Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the TRIPS Agreement.

175The term "published" in this paragraph includes phonograms that are made available in accordance with Article 15(4) of the WPPT.

176Where a Party has availed itself of the option contained in Article 15(3) of the World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), the obligation contained in [QQ.A.X - national treatment] does not apply to the extent that a Party makes use of a reservation taken under that Article.]"

177[US/SG propose ; CA/MX/CL/MY/VN/BN/CL oppose: For greater certainty, "broadcasting" does not include transmissions over computer networks or any transmissions where the time and place of reception may be individually chosen by members of the public.]

178Negotiator's Note; CA is considering the need for a deeming provision similar to article 15 (4) of WPPT.

179Negotiators' Note: CA supports a provision on limitations and exceptions and is reflecting further.

180Negotiators' Note: Delegations are considering the relationship between Article QQ.G.X.2 and new multilateral agreements concluded under the auspicies of WIPO and the agreements listed in Article QQ.G.X.2. Delegations will work to resolve this issue in Article QQ.A.6 (General Provisions - relationship to other agreements) or elsewhere.

181Negotiator's Note: SG/CA/PE/BN/NZ/AU is flexible on the inclusion of the word 'education' as the notion is already significantly covered by teaching, sholarship and research. US/MX believe the word 'education' is covered by teaching, scholarship and research, but is considering further.

182FN: For purposes of greater clarity, a use that has commercial aspects may in appropriate circumstances be considered to have a legitimate purpose under Article QQ.G.Y.

183Negotiator's Note: NZ/AU is flexible on either options referring to persons with disabilities.

184Negotiator's Note: Delegations are considering the appropriate placement of this issue under right of reproduction or L & E. There continue to be discussions regarding this issue and delegations have diverging views.

185Negotiators' Note: CA reserves its position pending the outcome of discussions elsewhere in this Chapter.

186For greater certainty, royalties may include equitable remuneration.

187[CL propose: For greater certainty, law may include enforcement procedures established under Parties legal systems.]

188Negotiators' Note: AU/CL can support if there is emerging consensus on this issue.

189Negotiators' Note: The reference to Section is intended to include enforcement-related provisions throughout the Chapter.

190[US/CA/MY propose: For greater certainty, a Party may implement this Article on the basis of sworn statements or documents having evidentiary value, such as statutory declarations. A Party may also provide that such presumptions are rebuttable presumptions that may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.]

191Each Party may establish the means by which it shall determine what constitutes the "usual manner" for a particular physical support.

192Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

193Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

194Negotiators' Note: AU/MX/US/PE will consider options to address concerns intersessionally and will involve the wider group.

195[US: A Party may satisfy the requirement for publication by making the decision or ruling available to the public on the Internet.]

196For the purposes of this Article, the term "right holder" shall include those authorized licensees, federations and associations that have the legal standing and authority to assert such rights. The term "authorized licensee" shall include the exclusive licensee of any one or more of the exclusive intellectual property rights encompassed in a given intellectual property.

197Negotiators' Note: AU/US/JP would like to consider this proposal in tandem with the definition of intellectual property rights in this Chapter.

198[AU/NZ/MY/CA/JP/SG propose: A Party may also provide that the right holder may not be entitled to either of the remedies set out in 2 and 2bis in the case of a finding of non-use of a trademark] [JP/AU/SG/CA/MY propose: it is understood that there is no obligation for a Party to provide for the possibility of the remedies in 2 and 2bisto be ordered in parallel.]

199[US propose: In the case of patent infringement, damages adequate to compensate for the infringement shall not be less than a reasonable royalty.] [Negotiators' note: JP can go along with consensus.]

200[CA propose: A Party may exclude from the application of this Article cases of Copyright or related rights infringement where an infringer did not knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engage in infringing activity or where an infringer is a non-profit entity.][JP propose: A Party may presume those profits to be the amount of damages referred to in the preceding paragraph.]

201Negotiators' Note: AU supports this paragraph ad referendum.

202Negotiators' Note: CL/MY/SG will revert back intersessionally.

203Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

204Negotiators' Note: MY support the principle but are still considering the need for this proposal in the context of Article 48 of TRIPS. SG/MX/VN/AU/CA can go along with the consensus.

205For greater certainty, additional damages may include exemplary or punitive damages.

206Negotiator's Note: AU is still considering this paragaph.

207Negotiators' Note: Parties are considering the drafting choice of the word that represent the concept of seriousness.

208No Party shall be required to apply this paragraph to actions for infringement against a Party or a third party acting with the authorization or consent of a Party.

209[CA propose: For the purposes of this Article, where appropriate shall not be limited to exceptional cases.]

210Negotiators note: NZ share view of the article but would rather see it placed some other place; MX is considering this issue in light of Article QQ.H.4.13; JP proposes to move paragraph. 9 to Article QQ.H.5. Otherwise, JP will support VN proposal.

211Negotiator's Note: MX supports this in principle but needs to reflect on this pending discussions on paragraph QQ.H.4.13.

212Negotiator's Note: MX is still considering this proposal.

213VN propose: A request for an order under this paragraph may be considered as unjustified in case such order would be out of proportion to the seriousness of the infringement.

214Negotiators' Note: PE/MX are considering the need for this proposal.

215[For greater certainty, civil remedies do not include administrative measures, decisions or any other actions taken by administrative authorities.]

216Negotiators Note: PE/MY/NZ/CL/CA reserve their positions pending resolution of related provisions regarding TPM and RMI.

217Negotiator's Note: This will be discussed in relation to provisions regarding TPM and RMI.

218Negotiators Note: The scope of border measures in this section will be confined to counterfeit trademark goods, pirated copyright goods. The US proposal for inclusion of, confusingly similar trademark goods is still under negotiation and Parties have different views on this proposal.

219[CA propose: It is understood that there shall be no obligation to apply the procedures set forth in this Article to goods put on the market in another country by or with the consent of the right holder.]

220For purposes of Article 14:

(a) counterfeit trademark goods means any goods, including packaging, bearing without authorization a trademark that is identical to the trademark validly registered in respect of such goods, or that cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trademark, and that thereby infringes the rights of the owner of the trademark in quesiton under the law of the country of importation; and

(b) pirated copyright goods means any goods that are copies made without the consent of the right holder or person duly authorized by the right holder in the country of production and that are made directly or indirectly from an article where the making of that copy would have constituted an infringement of a copyright or a related right under the law of the country of importation.

221Negotiators' Note: AU supports this ad referendum.

222Negotiators' Note: Need to clean up terminology in H.6 relating to 'goods' and 'merchandise'.

223Negotiators' Note: MY/CA/SG/AU/VN/BN: suspect goods need to be defined and revert back.

224Negotiators' Note: CA/MY/AU: Customs controls need to be defined and revert back.

225[SG propose: the requirement to provide for such application is applicable to the obligation to provide procedures referred to in Article QQ.H.6.1.]

226Negotiators' Note: AU/PE can support consensus.

227Negotiators' Note: MY/SG/VN/BN are considering this first clause.

228Negotiators' Note: Parties are considering the need for a footnote to deal with the scope of this clause.

229Negotiators' Note: CA would need to include minor amendments on disclosure.

230For purposes of this Article, "days" shall mean "business days".

231For greater certainty, the parties understand that ex officio action does not require a formal complaint from a private party or right holder [MY/BN propose: , provided that they have acquired prima facie evidence that intellectual property rights are being infringed].

232For purposes of this Article, in-transit merchandise means goods under "Customs transit" and goods "transhipped," as defined in the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Kyoto Convention).

233Negotiators' Note: US to revisit after the decision on scope of application ex officio.

234Negotiators' Note: VN can accept "shall" option if the scope of Border control is confined to trademarks counterfeit and copyright pirated goods.

235For greater certainty, a Party may also exclude from the application of this Article small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature sent in small consignments.

236[US propose; AU/SG/PE/CA/JP oppose: For greater certainty, "financial gain" for purposes of this Article includes the receipt or expectation of anything of value.]

237[US/CA propose; JP oppose: A Party may comply with this obligation in relation to [JP: importation and] exportation of pirated [JP: copyright] goods through its measures concerning distribution.] [JP alternatively propose: A Party may comply with its obligation relating to importation and exportation of counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods by providing for distribution, sale or offer for sale of such goods on a commercial scale as unlawful activities subject to criminal penalties.]

238US: Negotiator's Note: For greater certainty, the definition of "counterfeit trademark goods" in footnote [12] shall be used as context for this Article.

239US: For purposes of this Article, "illicit label" means a genuine certificate, licensing document, registration card, or similar labeling component:

(A) that is used by the copyright owner to verify that a phonogram, a copy of a computer program or literary work, a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or documentation or packaging for such phonogram or copies is not counterfeit or infringing of any copyright; and

(B) that is, without the authorization of the copyright owner-

(i) distributed or intended for distribution not in connection with the phonogram or copies to which such labeling component was intended to be affixed by the respective copyright owner;

or

(ii) in connection with a genuine certificate or licensing document, knowingly falsified in order to designate a higher number of licensed users or copies than authorized by the copyright owner, unless that certificate or document is used by the copyright owner solely for the purpose of monitoring or tracking the copyright owner's distribution channel and not for the purpose of verifying that a copy or phonogram is noninfringing.

240A Party may comply with its obligation relating to importation of labels or packaging through its measures concerning distribution.

241A Party may comply with its obligations under this paragraph by providing for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied to attempts to commit a trademark offence.

242US: For purposes of this Article, "illicit label" means a genuine certificate, licensing document, registration card, or similar labeling component:

(A) that is used by the copyright owner to verify that a phonogram, a copy of a computer program or literary work, a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or documentation or packaging for such phonogram or copies is not counterfeit or infringing of any copyright; and
(B) that is, without the authorization of the copyright owner-

(i) distributed or intended for distribution not in connection with the phonogram or copies to which such labeling component was intended to be affixed by the respective copyright owner;
or

(ii) in connection with a genuine certificate or licensing document, knowingly falsified in order to designate a higher number of licensed users or copies than authorized by the copyright owner, unless that certificate or document is used by the copyright owner solely for the purpose of monitoring or tracking the copyright owner's distribution channel and not for the purpose of verifying that a copy or phonogram is noninfringing.

243It is understood that there is no obligation for a Party to provide for the possibility of imprisonment and monetary fines to be imposed in parallel.

244Negotiator's Note: CL/PE/MX/CA is still considering pending consultation with capital.

245A Party may also account for such circumstances through a separate criminal offense.

246Negotiators' Note: CA/BN/VN are reflecting on the definition of "assets".

247Negotiators Note: The use of the term "competent/judicial" in this subparagraph will be revisited.

248Negotiators' Note: The cross reference to subparagraph (c) will be revisited during legal scrubbing.

249A Party may also provide such authority in connection with administrative infringement proceedings.

250Negotiators' Note: AU supports this paragraph ad referendum.

251Negotiators' Note: BN seeks further clarification on "state commercial enterprise".

252[US: For greater certainty, a Party may treat disclosure of a trade secret to that Party's authorities in connection with providing evidence of an alleged violation of that Party's law as not contrary to honest commercial practices.][AU propose: for the purposes of this paragraph "a manner contrary to honest commercial practices" shall mean at least practices such as breach of contract, breach of confidence and inducement to breach, and includes the acquisition of undisclosed information by third parties who knew, or were grossly negligent in failing to know, that such practices were involved in the acquisition.]

253Negotiators' Note: CA/MX/NZ/JP supports in principle subject to final drafting.

254Negotiators' Note: AU opposes this paragraph ad referendum.

255[CL propose: For purposes of paragraph 1, knowledge may be demonstrated through reasonable evidence, taking into account the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged illegal act.]

256[CA/AU/SG propose: The obligation regarding export may be met by making it a criminal offence to possess and distribute such a device or system.]

257[CA propose: willfully receiving may mean operating a radio apparatus so as to receive an encrypted signal].

258[US propose; CL/AU oppose: For greater certainty, "make use of" includes viewing of the signal, whether private or commercial].

259Negotiators' Note: CL position will depend on the outcome of paragraph 1(a).

260Negotiators' Note: SG agrees in principle but will reflect further on the language.

261Negotiator's Note: MX/MY/CL/BN are still considering this provision.

262Negotiators' Note: CA confirming with government procurement people.

263Negotiators' Note: CA support for central depends on how it is defined throughout the agreement.

264Negotiators' Note: SG/CL/MY/BN/VN subject to consideration of parallel importation issues.

265Negotiators' Note: delegations are still considering this proposal, and are also reflecting on the placement of this proposal in the Chapter.

266[US: For purposes of this Article and for greater certainty, retransmission within a Party's territory over a closed, defined, subscriber network that is not accessible from outside the Party's territory does not constitute retransmission on the Internet.]

267Negotiators' Note: JP is still considering its positions on this Section.

268Negotiator's Note: PE is still considering its position on paragraphs 1, 2 and the new paragraph 3 presented by CA.

269Each Party may determine, within its domestic law, what constitutes an internet service provider.

270Negotiator's Note; NZ is still considering this phrase.

271Negotiators' Note: VN to consider this provision further.

272Negotiator's Note: BN is considering its reactions to the proposals presented by CA on paragraphs 2 and 3.

273Negotiator's Note: MX is considering its reactions to paragraph 2b and 3.

274Negotiator's Note: NZ is considering its reactions to paragraph 3.

275Negotiator's Note: NZ proposes to look at the placement of this paragraph vis a vis its placement elsewhere in the text.

276For purposes of this paragraph, "copyright" includes related rights. Negotiators' Note: The placement of the footnote will depend on the outcome of the chapeau of this paragraph.

277[NZ propose: For the avoidance of doubt, limitations regarding the scope of remedies available can be implemented through limitations on the liability of internet service providers.]

278This subparagraph is without prejudice to the availability of defenses to copyright infringement that are of general applicability.

279[PE propose: For greater clarity, the failure of an ISP to qualify for the limitations in subparagraph (b) does not itself result in liability.]

280[US/PE/SG/AU propose; CL/NZ/VN oppose: A Party may request consultations with the other Parties to consider how to address under this paragraph functions of a similar nature that a Party identifies after the entry into force of this Agreement.]

281[CL/MY/SG/NZ/AU/PE/US propose: Such modification does not include modifications made as part of a technical process.]

282[CL/MY/SG/NZ/AU/US propose: For greater certainty, such storage of material may include e-mails and their attachments stored in the provider's server and web pages residing on the provider's server.]

283Negotiator's Note: MY needs to reflect further on this provision.

284Negotiator's Note: MY will reflect further on this provision.

285CL/SG/NZ/AU/US/PE propose: A Party may require that such technology shall be used in a lawful manner.]

286[CL/SG/NZ/AU/PE/US propose: A Party may require that such standard technical measures shall be used in a lawful manner, and that such measures are subject to approval by relevant authorities.]

287[CL/SG/NZ/AU/PE/US propose: A Party may provide that interested parties include copyright owners, service providers or other interested parties, [CL/SG/NZ/AU/US propose: as may be approved by relevant authorities,] as applicable.]

288[CL/MY/SG/NZ/AU/US/PE propose: As used in subparagraph (xii), a Party may provide that network access includes cases in which network access is provided by another provider.]

289All references to copyright in this letter are understood to include related rights, and all references to works are understood to include the subject matter of related rights.

290The Parties understand that a representative is publicly designated to receive notification on behalf of a service provider if the representative's name, physical and electronic address, and telephone number are posted on a publicly accessible portion of the service provider's website, and also in a register accessible to the public through the Internet, or designated in another form or manner appropriate for [insert Party name].

291If multiple copyrighted works at, or linked to from, a single online site on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at, or linked to from, that site may be provided.

292In the case of notices regarding an information location tool pursuant to paragraph (b)(i)(D) of Article 16.3, the information provided must be reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the reference or link residing on a system or network controlled or operated by or for it, except that in the case of a notice regarding a substantial number of references or links at a single online site residing on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, a representative list of such references or links at the site may be provided, if accompanied by information sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the references or links.

293[SG propose: To satisfy this requirement, the process to be established shall not be costly or cumbersome. An appropriate electronic mechanism may be used or incorporated in this process.]

294A signature transmitted as part of an electronic communication satisfies this requirement.

295All referenced to "subscriber" in this letter refer to the person whose material has been removed or disabled by a service provider as a result of an effective notice described in part (a) of this letter.

296A signature transmitted as part of an electronic communication satisfies this requirement.

Question Time: Jimmy Savile pedophile network story encompasses BBC, royal family, Parliament, Jersey, Netherlands -- crickets from US media

"What you have to understand, John, is that sometimes there are forces and events too big, too powerful, with so much at stake for other people or institutions, that you cannot do anything about them, no matter how evil or wrong they are and no matter how dedicated or sincere you are or how much evidence you have. This is simply one of the hard facts of life you have to face."
- Former CIA director and Cercle member William Colby giving advice to his friend senator John DeCamp, urging to quit his investigations into the Franklin child abuse affair and to write a book about his experiences (The Franklin Coverup, 2nd edition, foreword). via archived Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert politics project - https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/

[TRIGGER WARNING - Your world is controlled by many abusive psychopaths - details/links below. Aside from blockquoting Icke, Madsen & other stories, this post does not reach into many details of the abuse. Some of these links & the 1993 video "Conspiracy of Silence" contain very disturbing material including direct documentation of abuse]

A creepy theme, usually derided by debunker types as 'conspiracy theory' material, has been the frequent overlap between child abuse networks and vertically hierarchical, often sexually-codified, social structures & institutions, particularly those with some degree of control over vulnerable people. However these patterns are typically 'latent' & suppressed in media awareness until the dam bursts. Whether or not this horror encompasses interdimensional entities, blackmailed Nazi operatives or other exotically creepy ideas, the sheer evil of it all can send one's imagination hunting for weird connections. After all, one principal reason this never surfaced until now is because of the cognitive dissonance that tends to deflect our attention from such unthinkable cruelty.

Whether it's the revelation of vast abuse in the United Kingdom, Catholic hierarchies or Penn State, perpetrators & handlers of human trafficking & abuse are often well-protected & truth rarely spills out.

VIDEO: Member of Parliament Tom Watson asks Prime Minister Cameron about protected pedophile activity within the highest ranks of British government at House of Commons Question Time. (source)

savile_newsletterpromo.jpeg

Across the United Kingdom, hundreds of new leads & investigations have opened up with broadening awareness that a major BBC pop music presenter and producer, Jimmy Savile, helped mastermind a vast network of child abuse across much of the United Kingdom for decades, implicating major figures in the British Broadcasting Corporation, Parliament, the Prime Ministerial and Royal Family levels of UK society in undeniable horrors.

For decades, Savile [with a creepy resemblance to the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang childcatcher character] got what amounted to a green light from the major figures in British society, the BBC and the Royal Family, to do as he pleased, with full access including keys to numerous institutions hosting vulnerable children and teens.

For years the BBC's hierarchy looked the other way as Savile used his venues to not just abuse children [including it's widely said now, even dead children] directly, but also arrange for their trafficking on behalf of many other powerful figures.

A former BBC director, Mark Thompson, is now 'incoming president and chief executive' of the New York Times, forcing NYT Publisher Arthur Sulzburger Jr to back up their man, since he is obviously under the shadow of the BBC pedo coverup situation.

See: Amid BBC Scandal, Incoming Times Chief Receives Support - NYTimes.com // BBC Scandal Threatens to Become a Political Crisis - NYTimes // BBC News - Newspaper review: Savile scandal still leads papers // Jimmy Savile child abuse probe: TV stars set to be arrested 'within days' as probe widens - Mirror // Jimmy Savile scandal: Tom Watson MP claims powerful child sex ring was linked to Downing Street - Mirror Online // Jimmy Savile: Sex fiend was a 'necrophiliac', claims former colleague Paul Gambaccini - Mirror Online // Jimmy Savile abuse scandal: Doctors claimed to have attacked patients at hospitals where Savile allegedly struck - Mirror Online // BBC News - Giving Jimmy Savile victims their voice // BBC News - Jimmy Savile scandal: Alleged victims' stories

#OTB: The quirky alternative site OccupyTheBanks.com has been covering dimensions of this: see #BELGIUM DUTROUX CHILD RAPE & SNUFF #DEMMINK #DUTCH #Savile #BBC #Hague && THE top legal officers in HOLLAND (see last post) can be a NAMED PEDOPHILE, and CHILD RAPIST // #MASSARRESTS UK POLICE 50 POLICE PEDO ARRESTS // #NETHERLANDS TOP GOVT LAW OFFICER #PEDOPHILE #Demmink #Dutch #JUSTICE // **BREAKING** NO 10 PEDO RING NAMED UK PARLIAMENT // [UPDATED 7th OCT]] SATANIC RITUAL CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE #VATICAN #NWO #ILLUMINATI etc etc. Follow @censoredNewsNow for more items - a chatty account to be sure!

It's no surprise Savile was able to gather many honorifics thanks to the Royal Family and even made a member of the Knights of Malta (Sovereign Military Order of Malta - a major sketchy European aristocratic network). (additionally, with recent work from people identifying with Anonymous in exposing child porn networks, d0xing abusers, as well as criticism of the sexist, misogynist & creepy issues plaguing such groups as Reddit & "jailbait" subreddits, the 'skeptic humanist' community etc, it seems like these broader topics are finally getting the attention & reactions they need.)

It's important to realize that pedophiles and particularly creepy 'fixers', such as for example, that John Mark Kerr creeper, who bizarrely claimed to have killed Jon Benet Ramsey several years ago, are just outer tentacles, who clearly are 'charmed' with protection from law enforcement entanglements. [In Minneapolis, the longtime Park Police chief was yet another pedo in a key power position]

Icke was right?! Of all people, noted "interdimensional reptilian conspiracy" exponent David Icke gains a certain validation for having documented both Savile's depredations and others, prevailing in exposing ugly truths despite the famously libel-locked down British publishing world. His 5500 word exegesis on this subject is posted below.

I think this statement is well-substantiated - many examples are out there: Icke: "Paedophilia is a fundamental ‘cement’ that holds the networks of manipulation together across all political persuasions and allows those in the shadows to blackmail politicians into introducing legislation that advances the agenda of human control."

At this time in the UK press, former Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath & minister Sir Peter Morrison, a confidante of Heath's successor, Margaret Thatcher, are openly talked about. Former Minister says Thatcher aide was paedophile who preyed on boys' home - and Hague should have known | Mail Online

A former Tory Minister last night made incendiary claims that one of Margaret Thatcher’s closest aides was implicated in one of the most harrowing child abuse scandals of recent times.

Rod Richards, a former Conservative MP and ex-leader of the Welsh Tories, made the shocking allegation that he had seen evidence linking Sir Peter Morrison to the North Wales children’s homes case, in which up to 650 children in 40 homes were sexually, physically and emotionally abused over 20 years.

Mr Richards also linked a second leading Tory grandee – now dead – to the scandals at homes including Bryn Estyn and Bryn Alyn Hall, both near Wrexham.

He said official documents had identified the pair as frequent, unexplained visitors to the care homes.

Mr Richards – who helped establish the inquiry that unearthed the scale of the abuse – said bluntly: ‘What I do know is that Morrison was a paedophile. And the reason I know that is because of the North Wales child abuse scandal.’

He added that William Hague, who was Welsh Secretary at the time of the inquiry, ‘should have seen the evidence about Morrison’.

Morrison was Lady Thatcher’s parliamentary private secretary and deputy chairman of the Conservative Party.

Back in the 1990s -- the website ISGP.eu - [now archived via Wikispooks.com] covered a Belgian-centered dimension of the protected European elite child abuse network. This material gets very deeply disturbing & is not to be taken lightly [TRIGGER WARNING x infinity] ISGP - Beyond the Dutroux Affair // ISGP - Dutroux case and X-Dossier victim-witnesses // ISGP - Dutroux, Nihoul and X-Dossier investigators // ISGP - Belgian X-Dossiers - the accused // ISGP - Alleged assassinations in Belgium

"From East Belfast's Kincora Boys' Home, via Leicestershire, Staffordshire and London, to the children's homes of Clwyd, we have witnessed 25 years of cover-up. Cover-up, not to protect the innocent but to protect the regularly named elements of the British establishment who surface whenever widespread evidence of child abuse is exposed. From the public schools right through to the Catholic and Anglican churches, child abuse has been allowed a special place of sanctuary... Social workers, police, security services, local and national political figures remain the common factors in the fall-out from the [child abuse] inquiries... In case after case the cycle is described - a child is 'taken into care', then abused in a home, handed on to an outside pedophile ring and out on to the rent-boy/prostitution circuit beyond, if they live that long... Journalists find themselves battling first with authority, then with the libel laws, to publish the truth about a vast web of abuse."
- June 6, 1996, The Guardian, 'True scandal of the child abusers'. These lines were written by the author of the article and are not quotes.

....and so here we are in 2012, 18 years after that Guardian story was posted, previous layers breaking through to the surface anew. The 1990s saw parts of this general elite network [or layer] surface and recede again into obscurity. John DeCamp, a former CIA employee and Nebraska state representative, helped expose a major node of protected child abuse and trafficking in the American heartland.

This could almost be seen as an intra-CIA war or conflict as The Minders was a CIA-linked group that participated in child trafficking as well. Here is the long-suppressed 1993 documentary Conspiracy of Silence. The central figure in Nebraska, the late GOP rising star, Lawrence "Larry" King, bears some resemblance to Jimmy Sevile as another 'doorman to the cesspit' of protected elite child abuse.


savile_princecharles.jpegArguably, much of this ugliness, from Jim Jones to the recently deceased Rev. Sun Myung Moon to the CIA-influenced "evangelical" movement (Campus Crusade for Christ was set up as a counterpart to Mario Savio's Free Speech Movement by the CIA) all tie together ritualized group mind control and the inte-generational abuse of minors.

It could roughly add up to the distillation of MK-ULTRA & Nazi-derived research into a mind control template which could be applied across many religious & cultural gradients in Western societies. In the Scandinavian side, the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series illustrated via fiction Nordic fascist intergenerational abuse families.

Whether or not you find plausible the notion of "entities operating beyond human sight which mentally and emotionally possess these people feed off human energy in general", the rest of the piece is an ugly read on a lot of very solid foundations.

So let's get to the Icke piece - via here Jimmy Savile ... Doorman To The Cesspit - David Icke Website && ELITE CHILD ABUSE: ‘JIMMY SAVILE… DOORMAN TO THE CESSPIT’ « 21st Century Wire::

By David Icke

Something of massive significance has happened in Britain in the last two weeks which might have been lost on most of the rest of the world. It concerns the revelations about serial child abuse over decades by a man considered by many to be a British ‘icon’ and ‘national treasure’.

Savile’s connections to the political and royal elite are undeniable.

His name is Jimmy Savile and the reason the significance of what is happening may have passed most people by outside the UK is that Savile was a major figure in these islands, but little known beyond them. What, and who, he was involved with, however, is global in nature and has the potential to expose both the staggering scale of child sexual abuse and many of the mega-famous names for whom it is a way of life.

Savile was one of the first in the entertainment field known as ‘disc jockeys’ who emerged with the 1960s music and cultural explosion known as the ‘Swinging Sixties’. I remember him well as a kid appearing on television shows, still in black and white then, and in fact you could hardly miss him. Once seen, never forgotten. He would always appear with dyed hair, mostly blond, and highly colourful and eccentric clothing accompanied by multiple rings and other jewellery. Savile was what they called a ‘one-off’, a ‘character’ and people either loved him or deeply loathed him and thought he was seriously weird. There was little of the half-way about Jimmy Savile.

He began as a disc jockey in dance halls and later managed several of them before he launched a career in the media via the legendary Radio Luxemburg in 1958 and eventually moved to the BBC which was to be his prime public platform for decades. He was a first and last presenter of the ground-breaking music chart show Top of the Pops, which ran from 1964 to 2006, but his biggest claim to fame was the BBC show Jim’ll Fix It which he presented from 1975 to 1994.

This is particularly relevant to current events because it was a programme in which children wrote in to describe what they would most like to do or who they would most like to meet. The programme then ‘fixed it’ for the children chosen to take part. The ‘fix’ could be anything from going up in a hot air balloon to meeting their favourite pop star.

Savile was also famous for his charity work, which included running many marathons. He was also a volunteer porter at the Leeds General Infirmary; a volunteer and fundraiser at Stoke Mandeville Hospital with its world-famous spinal injuries unit; and he was involved with the Broadmoor high-security psychiatric hospital where many famous killers have spent their days. Savile is reported to have had his own room at both Stoke Mandeville and Broadmoor and, it was revealed this week, he was given his own set of keys that allowed him access to many areas within Broadmoor.

His public face was of a jolly and eccentric character who was famous for his trademark expensive cigar and constantly repeated catch phrases such as ‘how’s about that, then?’, ‘now then, now then, now then’, ‘goodness gracious’, ‘as it ‘appens’ and ‘guys and gals’. But away from the screen Savile lived a very different life and operated in very different circles to the ‘man of the people’ image that he so cultivated and it is now clear that much of his charity work was designed to give him access to children and below-age teenagers.
Savile was given a hero’s funeral when he died in 2011 at the age of 84, but a recent television documentary – not by the BBC – has revealed his decades of sexual abuse of underage girls with more revelations coming out by the day. Iceberg and tip come to mind.

Saville was a regular visitor to the royal households, and was close to Prince Philip and Prince Charles.

I was first told about the real Jimmy Savile in the late 1990s in conversations with people who had serious insider knowledge about the British royal family and they said that Savile had been a close friend of Prince Philip until they had fallen out after a ‘big row’.

When I questioned why someone like Savile would be so close to the royal family I was told about his paedophilia and necrophilia (sex with dead bodies) and, of course, his famous voluntary work at hospitals would have given him potential access to the mortuaries.

Savile himself would boast about his connections to the royals and it was publicly acknowledged that he was a regular visitor to Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace (where Princess Diana lived after her marriage ended with Prince Charles), and Highgrove (the country estate of Prince Charles).

Savile told Esquire: ‘The thing about me is I get things done and I work deep cover. I’ve known the Royal Family for a million years.’

According to the UK Daily Mail at the time of Savile’s death in 2011, he ‘was used as an intermediary in an attempt to resolve the differences between the Prince and Princess of Wales shortly before their split’. Savile said that he was invited to regular meetings with the royal family because ‘I have a natural good fun way of going on and we have a laugh.’

Would one of the world’s most powerful families invite an aging disc jockey into their inner sanctum so often just because he gave them ‘a good laugh’? Or is there likely to be a far more plausible reason for their strange closeness?

I have been writing since the 1990s and a book called The Biggest Secret about the royal family’s connection to Satanism and paedophilia and about paedophile Satanists like British Prime Minister Edward Heath and President ‘Father’ George Bush – just as I have told those who would listen about Jimmy Savile. But all I have had for my trouble from mainstream society is ridicule and dismissal.

Their minds are too closed and too programmed to make the leap into the world as it really is.

Now, in the wake of the public confirmation about Savile, it is time that they did. How many more children need to suffer before humanity grows up and faces the reality and sheer undiluted evil of the force that controls them?

Jimmy Savile and the royal family shared a love of Scotland and the sporting events known as the Highland Games. Savile was the Honorary Chieftain of the Lochaber Highland Games which he attended for 30 years. He had a secluded cottage at nearby Glencoe where Prince Charles was a visitor. Savile said after a visit by Charles in 1999: ‘I’ve had a few nosh-ups with the royals and I thought it was time I returned the hospitality.’

Charles sent a Christmas card to Savile in which he wrote: ‘Jimmy, with affectionate greetings from Charles. Give my love to your ladies in Scotland.’ The reference to the ‘ladies’ was meant for the women that Savile had arranged to serve the Prince during a visit to the Glencoe cottage.

Savile said that he had first been introduced to the royal family in 1966 by (known paedophile) Lord Louis Mountbatten, the uncle and mentor of Prince Charles. Mountbatten was Commandant General of the Royal Marines and arranged for the disc jockey to become the first civilian to be awarded the Marines’ Green Beret. It was one of a many ‘honourees’ that Savile would be awarded in the years that followed. Savile said:

Coming from Lord Louis, who was the favourite uncle of Prince Philip, that was quite something. So obviously I hooked up with the Prince – what was good enough for Lord Louis was good enough for him.

But what was ‘what’? Mountbatten was killed when a bomb exploded on his boat in Ireland in 1979 – a murder officially blamed on the Provisional IRA. New Zealand writer and researcher Greg Hallett writes in his book, Hitler was a British Agent:

Lord Louis Mountbatten was a pedophile, adulterer and homosexual incestuous lover for 10 years … the former King Edward VIII … was truly troubled by the revelations he too had betrayed the Canadians to the German Army, resulting in the open slaughter of those 4,000 men …

… the British monarchy arranged for MI-5 to blow up his boat (1979), happily covering their trail; by fitting up four IRA men … the tactic of blowing up one of your own leaders to cover up any incriminating evidence … was a face saving device to distract from even more damaging intelligence about the British monarchy working for the Germans, against peace, and for a prolonged war.

This is a young Prince Charles with his ‘mentor’ Lord Mountbatten, and father Prince Philip. Greg Hallett names both Mountbatten and Philip as paedophiles. Of course, you don’t just take one person’s word for that, but my own sources which have proved to be so accurate about Savile and others told me the same nearly 15 years ago with the addition that they were both Satanists. This is no surprise given that the British royal family, like all the royal bloodlines of Europe and further afield, are founded on Satanism and the manipulation of occult knowledge for deeply malevolent ends in league with the ‘dark suit’ expressions of the bloodlines in politics, banking, corporations and media.

But Jimmy Savile’s connections were certainly not confined to the royal family. They fanned out into the realms of politics and the rich and famous across the spectrum of human society. In short, he was not only a paedophile himself, but a supplier of children for some of the most famous paedophiles and Satanists on the planet.

The victims of his abuse that are now speaking out in the wake of the television documentary exposing his secret life are only part of a gigantic cesspit of paedophilia, Satanism, drug-running and murder in which he was involved.

I describe him as a ‘doorway to the cesspit’ because if you get past him and his fake persona you enter the sick and depraved world of the global bloodline elite. Savile was a ‘fixer’ – he described himself as such, though not in terms of what he was really fixing. As he told Esquire: ‘The thing about me is I get things done and I work deep cover.’ His most famous TV programme, Jim’ll Fix It, could not have been more appropriately named.

British police have said they are currently following 320 lines of inquiry into Savile’s abuse over decades all over the country, but if they are genuine and tenacious in their investigations and really want to know the truth they can multiply that by a very large number and still not be close to the totality.

If they do really want to uncover the truth they will have to be knocking on the door of Buckingham Palace eventually. If they don’t, it’s a cover up given the Windsors’ close relationship with Savile.

The current public revelations about Savile are being confined largely to the abuse of underage girls, but the truth about the way he supplied girls and boys for people like Prime Minister Edward Heath and so many others must also come out because the barricade is being held at the moment with only his own paedophilia and a few sleazy showbiz people. This is only one aspect of the scandal and his work as a supplier of children for the ‘elite’ is still being hidden in the mainstream media to protect the biggest names. This firewall has to be breached.

Guy Marsden today.

One of Savile’s nephews, Guy Marsden, now 59, has said publicly this week that he and his friends were taken to parties by his uncle in the late 1960s to ‘act as intermediaries for adults and younger children’. He said that the parties were attended by ‘household names’ in showbusiness, but only men – never women.

Marsden, then 13, and some friends from Leeds in the north of England, ran away to London for ‘an adventure’, he said. They were approached by men at Euston railway station and invited to a grubby flat. Then about four days later Savile turned up at the flat by coincidence because Marsden soon learned that his famous uncle mixed with ‘fellow child molesters’. He said he thought he would be in trouble for running away and not telling his parents where he was, but instead his uncle Jimmy just took him and his friends to a ‘much better place’ – the house of a ‘famous pop impresario’ which had a big indoor swimming pool and was one venue for Savile’s ‘paedophile parties’.

Marsden said that little boys and girls would disappear into bedrooms with the famous attendees and it was ‘perfectly obvious’ what was happening. ‘You heard sounds and moans and groans coming from the bedroom and knew what was going on.’ Marsden added:

At night you would get about 15 or 20 people turning up. There would be music and tables full of food, we couldn’t believe it. There was everything we needed and we just hung around.

At first we automatically assumed the children lived there, but we soon realised they didn’t. They would be brought there, sometimes by Uncle Jimmy, and would stay for six or seven hours until 3 or 4am. They were just little kids, boys and girls.

Interestingly, Marsden said that Savile sometimes arrived with a man dressed as a priest and he believed that children being abused may have come from an orphanage or children’s home. They almost certainly did – it fits the modus operandi of the paedophile rings to the letter. What better way to supply your children than have control of children’s homes?

Several of Savile’s victims who have come forward in recent times say they were abused by him at the Duncroft boarding school for ‘intelligent, emotionally disturbed girls’ in Surrey and wherever children and young people are gathered together in a boarding situation needs to be watched like a hawk. These establishments are the predators’ hunting grounds with often their own people appointed to the staff.

Savile at the infamous Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey, Channel Islands.

This is Savile with the children at the infamous Haut de la Garenne children’s home on the island of Jersey in the Channel Islands. Jersey is the fiefdom of mega-rich and mega-crooked networks that combine criminal business, banking and drug operations with paedophilia and Satanism. The island of Jersey, off the French coast,, is only nine miles by five with a population of 90,000 and yet has 55 banks, more than 33,000 registered companies and hundreds of billions of dollars on deposit. It is a money laundering operation of global proportions and attracts the super wealthy with low tax rates.

Haut de la Garenne, or ‘Forest Heights’, was a ‘children’s home’ (detention centre) from 1867 to 1986 and it is clear that it played the role of providing children for sexual and violent abuse by the Jersey Mafia in all its forms – as well as the rich and famous of mainland Britain, including members of the Royal Family.

Jersey has an almost self-contained government of its own, but the Queen remains at the top of its power structure and wherever the ‘Crown’ holds sway, so does Satanism and child abuse.

The infamous Satanist, Edward Paisnel, who was dubbed ‘The Beast of Jersey’ after being jailed for 30 years for the rape of boys and girls, used to play Father Christmas at Haut de la Garenne during the 1960s. You get the picture.

A high-profile police investigation began in 2008 into historic long-term abuse at the home and, unfortunately for those involved, a decent, honest copper was in control of the investigation. This was Lenny Harper, a States of Jersey police detective who led a three-year child abuse inquiry that genuinely tried to expose what happened.

Genuine police officers and detectives who sought the truth in the Marc Dutroux child abuse and murder scandal in Belgium in the 1990s found that refusing to cover up the facts is not a good career move for law enforcement personnel if the truth is leading to rich, famous and powerful people and their networks. So it proved again with the Jersey investigation.

Both sets of genuine investigators were removed from these cases and any credible ‘investigation’ went with them. Lenny Harper, like his counterpart in the Belgian inquiry, was accused of ‘misconduct’ as a blatant excuse to get rid of him – the allegations were later proved false. Harper’s boss, Jersey police chief Graham Power, was also outrageously suspended and neutralised as part of this.
More than a hundred people came forward claiming to have been sexually and violently abused at the Jersey home and Lenny Harper has confirmed that Jimmy Savile’s name came up early in his investigation but with not enough evidence to charge him at the time. Savile denied any knowledge of ever being at the home, but a picture emerged of him at the home to show that he was lying.

Highly significantly, the name of Edward Heath, the British Prime Minister between 1970 and 1974, has also emerged in relation to abuse at Haut de la Garenne and to Jimmy Savile. I named Heath as a serial child abuser and killer and practicing Satanist in The Biggest Secret seven years before he died in 2005.

A local newspaper reporter, or an excuse for one, contacted Heath when the book was published in 1998 and read him the passage. He replied with the usual ‘Icke is crazy’ response and did nothing else. The reporter, a Charlotte Hofton, condemned me for attacking a ‘nice old man’.

I had spoken to many people who said they had been abused by Heath and witnessed his sexual abuses and satanic child murders, while I was told about Savile by those who knew from having access to the ‘inside’. I was therefore confident enough, with direct contract with the abused themselves, to name Heath in the book and defend any libel action. But that never came because what I said was true.

Those who survived Heath’s abuse were the minority. He loved to torture children and then kill them, often by cutting their throats. This was the man who ran Britain for his masters for four years as prime minister and signed us into the fascism that is the European Union.

Heath was famous as an ocean-going sailor in his yacht Morning Cloud which he used to sail to Jersey and visit the children’s home, Haut La Garenne. According to some sources it was Jimmy Savile who supplied children for Heath that would be abused at sea and probably never return.

Savile had many close and intimate contacts in British politics and he boasted that he spent Christmas with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her husband Dennis every year for a decade. Thatcher replaced Heath as leader of the Conservative Party and many of her government ministers were paedophiles.

Edward Heath and Lord Mountbatten, who first introduced Savile to the royal family, have also been connected by some researchers to the Kincora Boys Home in Belfast, Northern Ireland, the centre of another paedophile ring scandal that broke in 1980. It was clear that the authorities knew what was going on for years before that, but did nothing.

Kincora was a home for working class boys, the very type of kids which Mountbatten was said to be most keen to abuse. Kincora children would also be taken to castles and other homes of the rich and aristocratic families, some of whom were connected to the Irish branch of the Hellfire Club. This is the Satanic network established in the 18th century by British politician and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Francis Dashwood, 15th Baron le Despencer, and his close friend, American hero, Benjamin Franklin.

Three members of staff at Kincora were jailed, including William McGrath, a friend and associate of Northern Ireland’s most famous politician, Ian Paisley, but none of the elite clientele were ever investigated, let alone named and charged. The official inquiry (anything but) decided there was no wider ring operating from the home when that was clearly absurd.

The same happened when a paedophile ring was exposed at children’s homes in North Wales in the 1990s, including the Bryn Alyn home in Wrexham. Policemen, social workers and prominent public figures were named during public sessions of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal by those abused, but its chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, threatened the media with High Court proceedings if the names were published.

First Waterhouse said that this ban applied only to people who were alive and who did not have previous convictions for child abuse. Then he banned the naming of a man who had died 16 years before and another with two convictions of abusing children in North Wales homes. All together now…

Lord McAlpine – denies involvement.

The UK Guardian went so far as describing one of those named as ‘A man who bears the same surname as a prominent Conservative supporter’. The report added that two witnesses had told the tribunal of a rich and powerful man who belonged to the alleged ring.
The now defunct Scallywag magazine named Lord McAlpine, a treasurer of the Conservative Party, and also Derek Laud, a leading ‘mover and shaker’ in Conservative administrations. Both were close friends of long-time Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a close friend of Jimmy Savile. McAlpine and Laud denied the allegations. I am not saying that Margaret Thatcher knew about Savile’s background, only that his friendship with her reveals his connections into the Conservative Party at the highest levels.

Scallywag also alleged that MI5 took foreign diplomats to the North Wales homes and secretly filmed them abusing and torturing boys to use the tapes for blackmail. This is a classic Intelligence modus operandi with regard to child abuse by the famous and influential – especially politicians that they want to control..

Paedophiles and Satanists pervade the world of politics, royalty, banking, corporations and media and it is just as rife in the UK Labour and Liberal Democrat parties as it is in the Conservatives – and among the Democrat and Republican elite in the United States.

-
War criminal and long-time Prime Minister Tony Blair represented the paedophile-infested Labour Party (see website link after this article) and at his private school, Fettes in Edinburgh, Scotland, he was a close friend of its chaplain, the Very Reverend Dr Ronald Selby Wright, who was known as a persistent paedophile. Edinburgh is a major centre for elite paedophilia and secret societies. Wright was a Church of Scotland Moderator and Chaplain to the Queen and the Fettes historian Robert Philip once said that the young Blair looked up to Dr Wright as a `spiritual mentor’. Philip said: `When Mr Blair was having trouble with the establishment, he confided in Ronald. I think a lot of seeds for his religious faith were sown there.’

And what else?

Tony Blair is reported to have blocked the exposure of famous names during Operation Ore – Operation Avalanche.

Tony Blair is reported to have blocked the exposure of famous names in law, business and politics, including some in his own cabinet, during the police investigation into paedophile Internet activity known as Operation Ore, which came out of the FBI investigation in the United States called Operation Avalanche. Neither convicted any of the big fish – as usual.

The figures in Operation Ore were enormous: 7,250 suspects identified, 4,283 homes searched, 3,744 arrests, 1,848 charged, 1,451 convictions, 493 cautioned; 140 children removed from suspected dangerous situations. But still no major names in the paedophile-infested elite levels of society. Operation Avalanche in the US produced 35,000 Internet records, but only 100 charges.

Blair was leader of the Labour Party at the time of the mass killing of children by known paedophile Thomas Hamilton who walked into Dunblane Primary School in Scotland in 1996 and shot dead 16 children and a teacher before killing himself. Hamilton, like Savile, was a procurer of children for ‘pillars’ of the Establishment.

Scottish judge Lord Cullen was appointed to head the official inquiry into Dunblane and he ordered that significant documents relating to the case should be locked away from public view for a hundred years. He said that this was to protect the victims and families when anyone with a brain could see that it was to protect the Establishment.

Cullen also led the five-judge tribunal which heard the appeal against conviction of the (innocent) Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and decided that he was guilty. It was revealed that Lord Cullen is a member of an elite Freemasonic group based at Edinburgh University known as The Speculative Society.

Lord Burton, a former Grand Master of Scottish Freemasonry, told a British Sunday newspaper that Cullen’s ‘inquiry’ was a cover up that suppressed crucial information and he linked Cullen to what he called the ‘Super Mason’ Speculative Society. He said that he had been bullied and threatened by other members of the House of Lords when he tried to raise his concerns about a Dunblane cover-up. ‘There’s no escaping the fact that there’s something sinister about the whole affair’, he said.

Thomas Hamilton wandered around Queen Victoria School, Dunblane’s only private boarding school – just like Savile did in girls’ homes and hospitals – and these people are given so much protection and free rein because they are the sources of children for the paedophiles that run government and law enforcement.

Paedophilia is a fundamental ‘cement’ that holds the networks of manipulation together across all political persuasions and allows those in the shadows to blackmail politicians into introducing legislation that advances the agenda of human control.

Jimmy Savile’s involvement with politicians goes back to the 1960s and he has been a ‘friend’ of so many who have dictated the direction of national and even world affairs, including the long-time Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who I have exposed in my books as a Rothschild front man and manipulator fully aware of the Orwellian world that he was helping to create. Savile was also associated with paedophile Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe and the London gangland villains, the Kray twins, who are also reported to have provided children for the famous.

The network is just so vast – and global.

Jimmy Savile was also closely associated with convicted pop music paedophiles, Jonathan King and Gary Glitter (who he publicly defended after Glitter’s conviction) and he was into far more than child molestation. Satanists get their biggest ‘high’ from having sex with dead bodies and some paedophiles get their ‘high’ from sex with mentally and physically disabled children. Savile’s charity work gave him access to both.

He was a volunteer porter at Leeds General Infirmary and had his own room at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, with its world-renowned spinal injuries unit, and the Broadmoor psychiatric hospital. Allegations of abuse have come from all three and it is said to have happened with the knowledge of staff. Some children were told by staff to act as if they were asleep when Savile came round to avoid his sexual abuse. Hospitals have mortuaries and Savile’s fellow BBC radio presenter Paul Burnett said without knowing the significance: ‘He did a lot of work as a porter in the [Leeds] hospital that he collected money for. He would go there at night and work as a porter.’ Yes, and what else?

None of this wider background is appearing in the mainstream media. The story is being sold as a famous paedophile being exposed, but of most importance to the big picture here is that Savile was a procurer of children for those in positions of national and international power.

Savile died extremely rich and no one seems to be asking where all that came from. Okay, he would have earned well enough in his prime with television, advertising and personal appearances, but he has done none of that with any serious earning capacity for a long time.

Yet he still owned a £160,000 Rolls Royce and had five other cars including a Bentley Turbo and Mercedes 500 SL. He also reported to have owned at least eight homes and left millions in his will on top of that. Where did all the money come from into old age to keep that scale of lifestyle going?

The answer is that child procurement for elite paedophiles is a very lucrative business and also ensures you protection from the law so long as you keep the secrets because if you go down so do your clients. This is why Savile could boast that he was untouchable. He told television presenter Louis Theroux: ‘I can get anything. There’s nothing I can’t get, and there’s nothing I can’t do.’

Those who stay quiet are protected. Those who threaten to speak out are soon dead. The latter was not going to happen to Savile who knew how the game worked and played it for his personal benefit.

Savile was so good at what he did – ‘working deep cover’ – that he was made a member of the Knights of Malta, an elite secret society that I have long exposed in my books, and awarded a papal knighthood by Pope John Paul II in a show of thanks and admiration from the biggest paedophile racket on Earth, the Roman Catholic Church. He was also awarded a knighthood by his friend the Queen and the Establishment in general.

Paedophile and Satanic rings are just that – rings, networks. They include people in all walks of life from politics, law enforcement, judiciary, banking, corporations and media, and they watch each other’s’ backs because their own backs depend upon it.

This happens the world over and most certainly in the United States, as I have widely exposed, and involves a mass of prominent people including US presidents like Father George Bush and major manipulators like Henry Kissinger.

Children’s homes and government mind control programmes are the major source of children for the American ‘elite’. High on the list is Boys Town, Nebraska, which is also known as ‘Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home’ after its founder, Roman Catholic priest Father Edward J. Flanagan. He established Boys Town in 1921 for the ‘care, treatment, and education of at-risk children’.

If you read the book, The Franklin Cover Up, by former Nebraska state senator, John W DeCamp, you might wonder when the children are most ‘at risk’ – before they go to Boys Town or after. The story almost got out at one point during the Reagan and Bush administrations, but was quickly covered up after this was published in 1989.

So the question is why? Why is paedophilia so all-pervading in these elite levels of human society? The answer is that entities operating beyond human sight which mentally and emotionally possess these people feed off human energy in general, but the energy they want more than anything is that of children before puberty.

The hormonal changes that happen at puberty are only holographic expressions of deeper energetic changes and the entities want that energy before those change takes place. When the paedophile is having sex with the child the possessing entities are using the paedophile as a conduit to draw off the child’s life-force.

The bloodline-possessed are genetically and energetically stimulated to desire sex with children and when they get what they want the entities get what they want – the child’s energy. This requires an endless supply of children to constantly repeat this process and this is where the Jimmy Saviles and Thomas Hamiltons come in.

I see that I have written 5,500 words in this article and yet I could have written 30,000 and still not told the whole story of how Satanism and paedophilia are the foundation and connecting tissue of the global network of human suppression.

People find it so hard to go there, or to accept what appears to be so fantastic, but if the Savile story continues to be pursued tenaciously, and with an open mind, it can open a doorway to expose the darkest of dark.

Source: DavidIcke.com

RELATED STORY: BEN FELLOWS FULL INTERVIEW ON LIVE – EXPOSING BBC CHILD ABUSE /// RELATED STORY: 'I RAN THE GAUNTLET OF PEDOPHILES IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY' /// RELATED INTERVIEW: Blowing the Lid on Child Abuse in Entertainment – The Ben Fellows Radio Show

Labour25 – paedophiles in the UK Labour Party - http://labour25.com/

David Icke – Knock Knock … Who’s There? Your Apathy! (Viewer Discretion Advised) Click here to watch …

/// BELOW THE FOLD: More from Wayne Madsen & Christopher Story on disturbing pedophile networks, perhaps even the Illuminati / German authoritarian connection to PM Heath, & more ////

Anonymous Bank of America docs show Insurance Cutouts destroying info, fraud double-bank shot; Operation Empire State, lolz for all

The Chain of Crime Starts Here: #BlackMonday Ex-Bank of America Employee Can Prove Mortgage Fraud Part 1

With the tragic situation in Japan - and the lawless situation ruling the day in Wisconsin - the news about more exposure of Bank of America systems of fraud comes mostly under the radar, but it's getting out there.

BankofAmericaSuck.com with the stamp of the Anonymous crew has spurred interest including an inquiry from the government investigators who have failed to jail any bankers so far.

At this point, why call it hacking? Is there "hacker" in the BoA stuff so far? Are journalists actually hackers in the realm of social engineering? Is there a difference between the Beltway establishment's coverup-oriented view of reality -- and a stance of "refusing to hack away against the bullshit of the system"?

As the insidious totalizing power of Lawyer Bullshit and its financial bridge counterpart, Insurance-Related Securitization of All Reality & Judicially Protected Fraudlayering, have spread more and more towards a complete takeover of all society, the truth about this network of criminals and flacks has become more and more suppressed.

With prima facie cases of fraud, no one goes to jail. It's all one big transaction -- the legal system is far too corrupted to effectively prosecute virtually any actual criminal acts. Insurance treadmills of money define the pathway of the entire process.

The insurance entities profiting from the documented foreclosure fraud brought forth by the BoA whistleblower are helped in the judicial realm by the Rules of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure -- yet another part of their 100% arbitrary gibberish, judicial-branch derived, non-legislatively-based schemes.

How many more abused like the Anonymous BoA whistleblower, demonized by the Bank operatives? Who are the hatchetmen and legal triggermen for these neutralization operations?

This person ain't going to take no more bullshit. Interesting point here, a couple different ways to interpret: "I know you don’t put your personal name on your statements because you fear the legal action that will be taken against you. You do not want to be made the scapegoat for your own actions."

This is (I think) a good example of the Prudent Man Rule -- essentially the same trap as pyramid schemes and other low-level fraud participants and pawns. you crossed the line, so you're already neutralized, ready to be hung out.

#BlackMonday Open Letter To All from Ex-BofA Employee:

What Bank of America seems not to understand as they continue to underestimate me is that I’ve already read their plan of action against me. Anonymous leaked it for the world to see months ago. While “Anonymous” BofA executives huddle together and cower behind their corporate logo, hoping their corporate name can withstand a greater shitstorm than mine, we’ve both been reading the exact same battle plan. Don’t be fooled by press releases. The HB Gary plan cost a lot of the money from their piggy bank, and they’re not ones to let their own money go to waste.

To those at BofA that are plotting against me:

I’m not afraid of you. I’m not some distant, unapproachable eccentric like Julian Assange. Sensationalize all you want, but your employees all know me, and they’re slowly starting to figure out why it is you did what you did to me. I live in your backyard. Drag my name through the mud all you want. I can take it. I’ve got more friends in more high places than you think. While the media races to be the first to report any story they can about me to make their money, I’m neither making nor losing money on this. You took my statement of “I’ve got nothing to lose” as meaning I’m desperate and lonely. Get the facts straight. I’ve got a large family that’s been supporting me this entire time. I’ve got friends in places you can’t even imagine. My community knows me, and the bonds I’ve formed are backed by love, not money. When will you ever learn? I know you don’t put your personal name on your statements because you fear the legal action that will be taken against you. You do not want to be made the scapegoat for your own actions.

To my fellow Americans, struggling to hold on to your house or car:

Hang in there. Help is coming. While you may not yet fully understand the full impact of the lesson I have been and will continue teaching, you will benefit from it soon enough. Throughout all of the misquoted garbage I’ve read and seen thus far, the people the message was meant for are starting to get it:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/the-first-bank-of-america...

http://bankofamericasuck.com/03/15/anonymous-bank-of-america-blackmonday...

Make no mistake. It was not just some overnight and irrational decision I made to create this blog and begin talking. I don’t put anything in writing for you that I’m not willing to back up and prove. I’m not in jail because I followed the rules as I will continue to do.

Ignore the hype. Disregard the sensationalism. Learn the facts. They’re easy to see for those willing to look.

Coverage on the subject:

Bank of America Document Leaks Allege Forced-Place Insurance Scams - DailyFinance

“Anonymous” Whistleblower Charges BofA With Large Scale Force Placed Insurance Scheme With Cooperation of Servicers « naked capitalism

#Anonymous Bank Of America #BlackMonday On RT

#Anonymous Bank Of America #BlackMonday Epic Intro

#Anonymous Bank Of America #BlackMonday On MSNBC

Bubbling up - Latest Mortgage Scandal: Force-Placed Insurance | The Big Picture

When a homeowner fails to keep up their insurance premiums on a mortgaged residence, their loan servicer has the option/obligation to step in to buy a comparable insurance policy on the loan holder’s behalf, to ensure the mortgaged property remains fully insured….

Consider one case found by [American Banker's Jeff] Horwitz. A homeowner’s $4,000 insurance policy, was paid by the loan servicer, Everbank via escrow. But Everbank purposely let that insurance policy lapse, and then replaced it with a different policy – one that cost more than $33,000. To add insult to injury, the insurer, a subsidiary of Assurant, paid Everbank a $7,100 kickback for giving it such a lucrative policy — and, writes Horwitz, “left the door open to further compensation” down the road.

That $33,000 policy — including the $7,100 kickback – is an enormous amount of money for any loan servicer to make on a single property. The average loan servicer makes just $51 per loan per year.

Here’s where things get interesting: That $33,000 insurance premium is ultimately paid by the investors who bought the loan.

Also recommended: YouTube - The American Dream By The Provocateur Network

It goes on and on...

Mort Zuckerman, Charter Member of Generation of Swine sez "WikiLeaks, Cyber War Threaten Our Way of Life" / I say, You Kids Get Off My Cyber-Lawn!

MORT.png

I've noticed that the shadiest old men of the Establishment frequently make political arguments that boil down to 'GET OFF MY LAWN YOU DAMN KIDS'. For example, the corrupt paleo-reaganite federal judge in Minnesota who tossed the Shepard Road RNC lawsuit said he didn't care about illegal government operations because GET OFF MY LAWN. Interesting philosophy, to which the kids respond "Ok we'll become anarchists then." The tighter they squeeze, the moar star systems slip thru their clumsy fingers.

One of the more nasty old Weasels of the Woodwork, Mort Zuckerman, posted another of his characteristic Grumpy Old Man rants, because wrecking America wasn't enough he has to blather about Hacktivists© now too.

So we need to destroy the internets now because the national security state is weak & feckless in the face of anarchic HTTP protocols and Denial of Service attacks.

As A Victim Of Cyberwar © Myself This Week, I mean damn, I had a DDoS take Hongpong.com's shared box off the internets all damn day yesterday, and you know what?

Denial of Service attacks don't matter for jack! I survived, everything's fine, it's annoying but it's like spilling yr beverage. Wash out the keyboard, let it dry, get on with things.

Anyway the Old Zuckster, a nasty racist old man who hates Palestinians and loves his criminal financial operative besties friends, let loose with this broadside: WikiLeaks, Cyber War Threaten Our Way of Life - US News and World Report (related he wrote in WSJ Mortimer Zuckerman: How to Fight and Win the Cyberwar)

Which literally included an 80-year old disinfo bit about Anarchism © :

Anarchists have a long history in America of acting to create and at times threaten a violent overthrow of civil society. An anarchist assassinated President William McKinley in 1901 and others tried to kill Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer in 1919; anarchists sent 36 parcel bombs to prominent citizens in 1919 and exploded a lethal bomb on Wall Street in 1920. Our cyber anarchists would be appalled at any comparison, but their intent is the same—the creation of chaos—and the philosophy is the same, characterized as are all anarchic movements by an inability to distinguish liberty from license and an overriding narcissistic contempt for the rights of others. Of course, the license is pre-emptively asserted in the name of "the people."

Actually I'm pretty sure it was your buddies on Wall Street that acted for the creation of chaos etc...

Read All 18 Comments - Anyway I think my response was pretty good:

You Kids Get Off My Cyber-Lawn!

Mr. Zuckerman, your corrupt generation of swine has virtually destroyed the United States, and you've been a cheerleader of the most perfidious rings of financial criminals every step of the way -- your personal friends are the core of our nation's problems. As the official mascot for obsolete & grumpy old men everywhere, you're leading by anti-example, showing us all how to march towards the apocalypse with aplomb. Perhaps in the afterlife you'll be sentenced to a Groundhog Day-like scenario, experiencing directly the destruction your generation of unstoppable criminals has wrought, from the West Bank bulldozers to the nuked pension funds.

The more vengeful and abusive shady old people like you get, the more young people turn away from your deadwood ideology by the thousands. Raiding the Royal Carriage, the kids in England chant 'Off With Their Heads' as the Grumpy Old Men fume and ask their grandkids to setup the DVD player. You will have no ideological heirs, sorry Mort! The National Security state is a layer cake of lies, and it's so weak just proclaiming a few bits from the rooftops sends it spinning into Chaos. On Internets we call this a LOL: your dictatorship of information control is eroding exponentially. It's not the anarchists' fault these hierarchies are falling apart!

It's a good feeling that the snarling geriatric types are losing their grip - but I fear within 10 years or so, nearly demonic geezers like Zuckerman and Dick Cheney could be effectively almost immortal/zombie-like due to medical advances. Transhumanist Grumpy Hyper-Old Men would be awful.

I'll leave it there - oh wait here's an awesome roundup describing how evil this man is, how he treats his media employees abusively, and nukes their 401Ks while lunching at the Four Seasons. A Look Back: Ten Years of Branding Mort Zuckerman As A Boring Monster: lulz:

Over the last ten years, the New York Post has called Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman a cheapskate, a tyrant, an illegal maid-payer, a friend to unsavory characters, a bad businessman, a racist, a friend of terrorism, a firer of pregnant women, a publisher who uses his editorial page for the his own real estate interests, a constructor of dangerous buildings, the provoker of staff suicides, as well as wild-eyed, mercurial, panicky, a cheater of readers, a scoffer at laws, a "horrible, nickel-and-diming boss," and the publisher of boring publications.

Let's hope the real estate crash bankrupts him before he can rant again!

Metals To Nibiru! Gold & silver $1400 / $29 parabolics as Zoellick pitches global-gold-SDR action; HFT Robot firms buying Eric Cantor's vote; Bill Black Vs BOA; Always Time for Vatican Annunaki

Linkdump O Quick Hitz! Way too many links going on-have fun! Sorry for lack of pics, you gotta clix em to see :-|

 

"Where is My Mind" came on TheCurrent as I posted this, really appropriate for the ZeroHedge Durden posts. Total Waveform Synchronicity and it ain't even 11/11 yet.... Onwards.

 

Much like Frederick Hitz, there are a few oldskewl opponents o' graft still around. Bill Black has been on a lot of stuff lately, good for him, he earned it because he knew how to put criminal financiers into Jail - a skill entirely lost on the whole federal government nowadays.

 

Bill Black around the Block: William K. Black: Foreclose on the Foreclosure Fraudsters, Part 1: Put Bank of America in Receivership // Foreclose on the Foreclosure Fraudsters, Part 2: Spurious Arguments Against Holding the Fraudsters Accountable and even bettar Let's Set the Record Straight on Bank of America: Open the Books! and Part 2: Eliminating Foreclosure Fraud

 

From $1400 to World Gold Standard?! I tried to say Gold-SDR as global currency was coming from the IMF type people, well now it's happening. Previously on hongpong.com: April Whistle Blower Comes Forward With Solid Proof The Price Of Gold And Silver Is Being Manipulated By Major Financial Institutions // July: Heads Up to Quigley's Apex: Bank of International Settlements (Former Nazi Bank) developing Gold/SDR global fractional reserve currency with IMF, Federal Reserve. It's getting here fast.

 

Jim Rickards On Silver Margin Changes, Peter Schiff On A New World Gold Standard | zero hedge - Zoellick is pitching this thing in Financial Times which helped kick the price right over $1400. JEEBUS!  GoldPrices would have to multiply 47x to do this they say. Whacked down to 1402 by professionals - hah Accelerating Sell Off In Commodities Shows Why Fed's Hands Are Now Tied | zero hedge

 

There was almost a flashcrash in the Euro/Dollar prices Forex EUR/USD - down to 1.377 "something very ugly behind the scenes" . EURUSD Friend-O'ed

 

For fun: Pentagon Can't Explain "Missile" Sighting, NORAD Believes It Is Not A Foreign Military Object | zero hedge - I told the airmen to quit mason around.

 

Silver changeup : When JPM/HSBC Don't Like The Results, The CME Just Changes The Rules: Full Revised Silver Margin Schedule | zero hedge - Silver is goin nuts - Forget Parabolic: Silver Is Now Asymptotic, Hits $29. Andrew Maguire Re-Emerges: Ex-Goldman Trader Exposes JPMorgan, HSBC In Latest Silver Price Manipulation Class Action Lawsuit. earlier :  Silver Passes $28 | zero hedge

 

BTW things took off On Aug 27 when Bernanke floated QE2 to the boy in Jackson Hole Text Of Ben Bernanke's Jackson Hole Speech - this makes clear that a 1/10th of a %% hike in government debt servicing costs greece 1.5% of GDP, this is how interest rates are like a radioactive bomb for govt debt in the unstable times we live in...Morgan Stanley On How Only A "Deux Ex Machina" Can Save The European Periphery, And Why The Fed May Have To Do God's Work Out Of The Machine

 

GENERALIZED INSANITY - What could beat the nuking of the once-rocksolid American Land Title System: Video Depositions of Nationwide Title Clearing Employees - Bin laden couldn't pull this!

 

Dig the New Modern: The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations | The Big Picture - Barry Ritholtz rousted things up. Bigpicture is an ace site. Old but good. Another from Sept - Chris Hedges: Do Not Pity the Democrats - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig. Dude turned pretty radical. He needs some years of drinking Black Label to round things out I think.

 

Haterz: Pennsylvania Homeland Security office engaged in domestic surveillance, compared political groups to Al Qaeda | PennLive.com - unbelievably catty and insane emails inside the PA consultants' crazed cluster

 

Royalist Chemtrail Agenda! Ah taking on the oldskewl AngloScientific elite's plan for Global Engineering (aka chemtrails and/or nano-doomclouds etc) UK Indymedia - Royal Society Picket : Our Planet is not your experiment - not bad! For Moar Official (celebrating 350 years of) Taking control! Geoengineering - taking control of our planet's climate - Events Diary - The Royal Society.

 

What On Earth Are They Spraying? The new Chemtrailz movie is really quite good by "conspiracy documentary" standards and leads off with hilarious meteorologists joking about all the sprays messing up radar. Nicely done realityzone crew, strong recommend! YouTube - 1 of 7 What in the world are they spraying? (Chemtrails) www.realityzone.com/whatspray.html - (Lets make a Morgellons Movie?!)

 

Foul mouthed Bernie Sanders vs Comcast buyout! What Keith Olbermann's Suspension Says About Our Cowardly Corporate Media | Media and Culture | AlterNet -- 

 

Torturelinx: As Bush Gets Sugarcoated - Congratulations, America. Torture Has Led You On a Wild Goose Chase, Destroyed the Rule of Law and Made You Less Safe | zero hedge

 

A call for A Debt Jubilee - I saw it proposed on Zerohedge. All the ancient civilizations cancelled debts because otherwise they spiraled - compounded - out of control. Jubilee (Biblical) - and also don't miss the new documentary - Watch Inside Job - The Movie | zero hedge. Mishkin and some other goons get proven ridiculous. Now that's some interviewing! 

 

Gold Breakout and econ pins getting pulled - The Dollar is going all WTC7 Up On This - Gold hits new high on inflation worry, Europe debt | Reuters - an interview in re peak oil and perpetual growth etc The Automatic Earth: October 23 2010: Jim Puplava interviews Stoneleigh, Part 2

 

ECONBITS - take em & weep: wisdom from Zerohedge and a little stuff from earlier -John Boehner Says In Order To Pay For The Wars, We Need To Raise The Social Security Retirement Age To 70 - BlackListed News

 

This is the most nuts of all maybe: 500+ Micro-Flash Crashes in 2010 Exclusive: Presenting The Flash Crashes Of 2010 - Part 1 | zero hedge

 

Guest Post: Money Is Not A Tangible “Thing”, It Is A Concept | zero hedge

 

Debt Bubble Chronicles: Does Bernanke REALLY Think QE Will Boost Home Prices… Or is He Simply Trying to Hide an Even Bigger Problem? | zero hedge

 

Mark Fisher Slams Bernanke: "QE Is Going To End Bad...This Is Going To Be The Bubble Of All Bubbles" | zero hedge

 

Art Cashin On Fraudclosure Reminds Everyone That "Things Could Turn Very Ugly" // Two Lawsuits Filed Against JP Morgan In Connection To Mortgage Foreclosures | zero hedge

 

Bullion for  Margin collateral now an option! ICE Starts Accepting Gold As Initial Margin Collateral For All Energy And CDS Trades | zero hedge

 

Lying Is the Expected Norm - Guest Post: The Banality Of (Financial) Evil | zero hedge

 

The HFT RobotLobby is The Powerfulz - Keeping Eric Cantor bankrolled etc High-Frequency Traders Lobby, Donate to Head Off U.S. Rules - Bloomberg

 

Finally coming clean? Noam Chomsky: No Evidence that Al-Qaeda Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks - BlackListed News

 

As Fed Allows Red Close, And All Time Record High Close In Gold, Is JPM's Commodity Trading Desk In Need Of A Bailout? | zero hedge

 

Nice exposure lolcats - The Conflict Of Interest Behind The Kauffman ETF Report | zero hedge

 

Just for fun: Microwaves are disgusting on the molecular level, people! The Hidden Hazards of Microwave Cooking :: Health-Science.Com ::

 

Sweet video - border drugwar CSPAN WHut! With Chuck Bowden's crazy new book about Juarez. Border Drug Wars Panel - C-SPAN Video Library - Don Ford strikes in 2005 Death and Drugs on the Border - C-SPAN Video Library

 

lulz why not eh comrades: YouTube - Vatican Prepares for Annunaki Disclosure - late great Zecharia Sitchin - sitchin.com/ -  Origin of the Species, From an Alien View - NYTimes.com

If you’re going to ask Zecharia Sitchin, be ready for a “Planet of the Apes” scenario: spaceships and hieroglyphics, genetic mutations and mutinous space aliens in gold mines.

It sounds like science fiction, but Mr. Sitchin is sure this is how it all went down hundreds of thousands of years ago in Mesopotamia. Humans were genetically engineered by extraterrestrials, he said, pointing to ancient texts to prove it.

Till I see you on Nibiru, Mr Sitchin...

Syndicate content