The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized the leak of the proposed chapter on intellectual property, which covers copyright, trademarks and patents. In the United States, they believed that this would further strengthen controversial aspects of U.S. copyright (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and limit Congress` ability to participate in national law reform to meet the evolving intellectual property needs of U.S. citizens and the innovative technology sector. The standardization of copyright rules by other signatories would also require significant changes to copyright law in other countries. These include, according to the EFF, the obligation for countries to extend copyright rules, to limit fair dealing, to impose criminal sanctions for copyright violations that are not commercially motivated (for example. B, sharing copyrighted digital media files), taking on greater responsibility for internet intermediaries, strengthening the protection of digital blockages and creating new threats to journalists and whistleblowers.  There were conflicting arguments as to whether or not the TPP would like to strengthen trade liberalization. For the arguments suggesting that the TPP will succeed in liberalizing exchanges between participating nations, the question arises as to whether or not this leads to a positive or negative net change. Some scientists argue that the participatory members of the TPP believe that such membership is a utilitarian and practical method for further trade liberalization.  Scholars Peter Petri and Michael Plummer describe the TPP as a “dynamic – and exemplary, process of competitive liberalization,” and this described liberalization can lead to a new mode of governance for Asia-Pacific as well as transnational trade.  Trump campaigned for the White House against the TPP and other trade agreements, including NAFTA.
In a video released in November, Trump promised to leave the TPP “on Day 1,” calling it a “potential disaster for our country.” Fredrik Erixon and Matthias Bauer of the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) write that Tufts` analysis is so flawed “that their results should not be considered reliable or realistic.”  You write that the tufts model “is, on the whole, a demand-driven model, which makes no effort to measure the effects of trade on supply, which are the effects that turn out to be the main positive effects of trade liberalization. What is also problematic is that the model is not designed to assess the impact of trade agreements on trade – in fact, the model is deeply unsuited to such an exercise. No commercial economist, regardless of the school of thought he or she possesses, has ever used this model to make trade estimates. The reason is simple: if a model cannot predict the impact of trade liberalization on trade flows and the profile of trade, it is useless.  They add: “In Capaldo`s analysis, structural changes and the emergence of new industries play no role.