The Trade Committee's report on UK-Japan - the Committee considers a debate as critical. Allow me to reinforce that argument with some detail. (Thread) https://twitter.com/CommonsIntTrade/status/1329357566862905349

The Committee rightly states that UK-Japan and EU-Japan are largely similar, but differ in some respects. Let me identify one of those aspects: Intellectual Property law. /2

This is what the Committee writes in that regard: the UK-Japan FTA goes beyond the EU-Japan one. But what does this mean? /3

Let's take two examples. First up: design rights. A curious difference here: Art. 14.35 (7) in UK-Japan protects design rights for 25 years. Art. 14.31 (7) in EU-Japan for 20. A triumph of negotiations? What does it mean?

First of all: the length of IP protection is hugely problematic. I do not ascribe to the school that longer is always better. But if you look at what happens here it is vastly less exciting.

EU and UK protection is 25 years. Japan had a reform after the EU-Japan FTA. Japan now also protects for 25 years. So no need to write 20 into an FTA.
This change is thus negligible. Let's move on.

The UK FTA contains a provision on technical protection measures. Namely this one. It is not in the EU one.

In fact, the UK FTA then has a provision on rights management (14.19). Also not in the EU one.

Are these provisions good or bad? Do they change anything? What are they even about?

The concern measures used to protect authors (e.g. copy protection, digital rights management) and make stuff used to break them illegal.

These provisions have been enormously contentious when the US adopted them in domestic law. The EU has provisions in that regard too in its laws with some exceptions. I think. Haven't looked at it in depth.

But the thing is: this is important for domestic regulation. Should the UK have such rules? To what extent? Are we happy / unhappy with them? Do we already have this? Will this prevent exceptions that are needed?

In short: This deserves debate. In which we might well be convinced that this does not change anything domestically. But it's relevant. And deserves discussion.