In February 2016, Alfred de Zayas, a UN human rights expert, argued that the TPP was fundamentally flawed and based on an outdated model of trade pacts and that governments should not sign or ratify the TPP.  According to Mr. de Zayas, the international human rights regime imposes binding legal obligations on countries, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and trade must be governed by the human rights regime. Under ISDS at the TPP, investors can sue a government, while a government cannot sue investors. De Zayas argued that this asymmetry made the system unfair. He added that international law, including accountability and transparency, must prevail over trade pacts. In May 2015, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman expressed concern that the TPP would strengthen patent laws and that this would allow companies such as big pharmaceutical companies and Hollywood to gain benefits in terms of increasing rewards at the expense of consumers and that people in developing countries would not be able to access drugs under the TPP regulation.  However, Walter Park, professor of economics at American University, argues that when it comes to economic research, it is far from clear that this would necessarily happen: clarification of the intellectual property rights of drugs has not resulted in higher prices and access to drugs for some developing countries.  Park also argues, based on existing literature, that drug protection in the TPP could improve unskilled licensing in developing countries, lead to technology transfers that will contribute to local learning, stimulate new drug launches in more countries, develop marketing and distribution networks, and foster pharmaceutical innovation from the outset.  The Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative notes that the TPP is “consistent with the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health,” which allows developing countries to circumvent patent rights for better access to essential medicines.  Dean Baker argued that Article 18.78, which requires countries to ensure that they must protect trade secrets and impose criminal proceedings on offenders, could be used to enforce non-competition agreements.  Baker points out that California`s success is due in part to the state`s failure to authorize the application of non-compete agreements, which has allowed technology workers to give up their jobs and work for another company.  Other important provisions are transparency, restrictions on monopolies and state-owned enterprises, and the streamlining of rules to facilitate cross-border trade by small businesses. The TPP agreement establishes an Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism (ISDR)  that gives investors the right to sue foreign governments for infringement. For example, if an investor invests in country “A,” a member of a trade agreement, and in country A to violate that contract, the investor can sue country government A for infringement.  ISDS aims to protect foreign investors from foreign government actions such as “freedom of discrimination,” “protection against uncompensated expropriation of property,” “protection against denial of justice” and “right to transfer capital”:  In January 2016, the National Manufacturers` Association announced its support for the TPP and stated: “Without such an agreement , the United States would cede economic leadership to other world powers. to set the rules for economic engagement in the region.”  June 2015, U.S.