Under this trade agreement, intellectual property will be transformed into a means of protecting the investments of multinational companies in culture, advertising, and medicine, writes Matthew Rimmer.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a blockbuster trade deal, which will transform the intellectual property of the Pacific Rim.

The Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has argued the trade agreement is a "gigantic foundation stone" for the country's future prosperity. Nonetheless, though the final text remains unreleased, it's clear from what we do know that the Intellectual Property Chapter is set to protect legacy intellectual property industries - rather than support disruptive technologies and dynamic innovation.

In terms of copyright law, Disney and Hollywood will be delighted over a reported copyright term extension across the Pacific Rim for life plus 70 years. Such a proposal will provide longer copyright protection for lucrative franchises, such as Mickey Mouse, the Disney Princesses, Pixar, and Star Wars. The Pacific Rim will become a Disneyland playground.

The copyright term extension, though, will have an adverse impact upon consumer rights, competition policy and cultural heritage. One expects further legal controversies over vintage cultural works - such as what happened with the Kookaburra song, and the Happy Birthday song.

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. Watch Duration: 7 minutes 1 second 7 m Dr Rimmer talks to Lateline about the TPP

The TPP will also entrench aspects of the anachronistic Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (US). Countries will be required to provide civil remedies and criminal offences to protect technological protection measures, and electronic rights management systems. This will be controversial in Australia.

CHOICE Australia and other consumer rights group have persistently raised concerns about high IT pricing. Moreover, the TPP will place greater regulatory burdens upon intermediaries, much like in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (US). This could well have an impact upon privacy, freedom of speech, and remix culture.

Moreover, the TPP will provide for a wide range of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures to address copyright infringement. There will be a punitive model of copyright law entrenched.

In addition to copyright law, the TPP will offer enhanced protection of well-known trade marks - global brands such as Nike, Tiffany's, Louis Vuitton, IBM, Google, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and McDonalds. We will see civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures to tackle the problem of trade mark counterfeiting.

Professor Sean Flynn from American University has said that the regime under the TPP is even worse than the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

The topic of intellectual property and pharmaceutical drugs proved to be controversial. In respect of patent law, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) expressed its dismay that "TPP countries have agreed to United States government and multinational drug company demands that will raise the price of medicines for millions by unnecessarily extending monopolies and further delaying price-lowering generic competition".

The group warned:

The big losers in the TPP are patients and treatment providers in developing countries. Although the text has improved over the initial demands, the TPP will still go down in history as the worst trade agreement for access to medicines in developing countries, which will be forced to change their laws to incorporate abusive intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical companies.

The question of sui generis intellectual property protection for biologics was especially controversial. The United States trade representative initially demanded 12 years of protection for biologics. After that proved to be unpalatable, the trade representative called for eight years of protection. Turnbull and the Trade and Investment Minister, Andrew Robb, remained firm, and refused to extend protection of biologics beyond five years of protection.

There will also be great controversy over the demand for criminal penalties and procedures in respect of trade secrets. Such measures will have an impact upon journalists, whistleblowers and civil society.

The TPP also provides intellectual property owners with investor rights under an investor-state dispute settlement regime. This will be deeply controversial. Copyright owners will be able to object to progressive law reform in foreign investor tribunals. Trademark holders could seek to counter government labelling regulations. Patent holders could invoke investor rights in respect of disputes over patent validity.

Notably, the pharmaceutical drug company Eli Lilly has brought an investor challenge against Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement, after its drug patents had been rejected by the courts.

On the topic of tobacco control, there will be some protection offered under the TPP to graphic health warnings and plain packaging of tobacco products. Under the investor-state dispute settlement regime, tobacco companies will not be able to bring action against national governments implementing tobacco control measures. The TPP should have gone further, and called for Pacific Rim countries to fully implement the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Overall, the TPP represents a radical shift in the role of intellectual property across the Pacific Rim. Under the agreement, intellectual property will be transformed into a means of protecting the investments of multinational companies in culture, advertising, and medicine.

The public interest in access to knowledge, public health and technology transfer has been given short shrift under the plan.

Dr Matthew Rimmer is a Professor in Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Faculty of Law in the Queensland University of Technology.