Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I bet most of the commenters here don't complain when their favorite sportsperson gets paid millions.
I would like to see how pro sports salaries/contracts would be affected if teams were responsible for the cost of building their stadiums, rather than taxpayers. Let's remove the public subsidy and see if pro sports remain a viable financial enterprise.
This draft text is dated August 30, 2013. You're absolutely right that earlier (and later) texts will likely reveal very different patterns. So what I did is really just a snapshot in time. Ideally, I would have had multiple texts in chronological order, which would make it possible to provide an animation of changing patterns.
However, I'd argue that having any insight into the process, even if it's just a single point in time, is better than nothing. We'd all like to see more transparent negotiations, along with legitimate releases of draft texts, but for now we're stuck with Wikileaks.
Actually, the graphs did not entirely match what I expected to see. I expected far more concordance between the US and Australia, the US and Japan, and Australia and New Zealand than what I actually saw. I wrote the analysis after generating the graphs in an attempt to explain what I was seeing. FWIW, one of the reasons I did this was to contribute something to the discussion of the TPP that was actually based on data, rather than just a general "feel" one gets after reading the leaked text.
I did note in the article that Japan appears to be just as isolated. But I don't know how Japanese businesses influence their government nearly as well as how I know US businesses influence the U.S. Trade Representative, so I didn't focus on that in the article.
As for the Peru/Chile statement, I called such connections "natural" based primarily on geographical proximity or shared languages. I think it's entirely reasonable to expect more overlap of positions in an international trade negotiation between countries on the same continent, speaking the same language, than between far-flung continents with totally different languages. Such a connection doesn't mean anything more than that the countries agree on an issue in the text.
I've never used Python, though I did read this article from R-bloggers yesterday that made me think I should probably start learning it.
I used Perl mostly because it's what I grew up with, though I rarely do that kind of coding anymore.
That specific line was actually written by the editor, not by me. I would not agree that the US and Japan (mostly the US, though) will have trouble shaping the document the way they want. In fact, the US has shaped the document to its preferences to a large degree already.
But, it is more complex than simply the US getting what it wants. The US can't force anyone to sign this agreement. There have to be benefits in other areas for these countries to trade away IP issues. Unfortunately we don't have texts from the other chapters, so we don't really know what these might be. Also, the fact that there is a draft article on traditional knowledge indicates that some of the parties are pushing back with their own preferences (though I think that particular article has zero chance of making it into an agreement).
Hi, I'm the author of the article. I have read the text (well, not all of it, just the portions relevant to my research - mostly copyright and pharmaceutical data exclusivity aspects, as well as the traditional knowledge article). However, I'm not a lawyer, and many lawyers have already analyzed the legal aspects of the text. That's why I linked to Margot Kaminski, Michael Geist, etc. in the article.
I thought my analysis would be valuable if it did something the lawyers were not (and could not) do.