Article 16.9.1: "Each Party shall make patents available for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application. …"

This is word by word equal to TRIPS Art 27.1.

Article 16.9.1 (continued): "… For the purposes of this Article, a Party may treat the terms “inventive step” and “capable of industrial application” as being synonymous with the terms “non-obvious” and “useful,” respectively."

It seems here the USA don't want to force their interpretation of "inventive step" and "capable of industrial application" on Peru.

There is also a footnote on Article 16.9.11, which has been left out by zoobab:

Article 16.9.11: "Each Party shall provide that a claimed invention is industrially applicable if it has a specific, substantial, and credible utility.,¹⁶," […]
"¹⁶ For greater certainty, this paragraph is without prejudice to paragraphs 1 and 2."

I am confused. What does this mean? If something is simply of use it may be regarded as industrially applicable, but if it is of specific, substantial and credible use than it must be regarded as industrially applicable?

I have found nothing that would restrict the meaning of "technology".

The whole FTA seems very similar to CAFTA. I can see that it would make it harder to reject software patents but I can't see why it would require software patents.

I haven't looked, is there also a clause that restricts the way in which the "technology" and "invention" concepts can be interpreted?

http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Final_Texts/Section_Index.html

11. Each Party shall provide that a claimed invention is industrially applicable if it has a specific, substantial, and credible utility.

They try to redefine industrial application with broad terms, like the Commission was doing during the software patent directive:

Why clarify industrial ?

It's normally interpreted by the patent office, and by the courts in the member states, as meaning that it is susceptible to be used in a way, if we like, if I can put it like this, which, in a way which makes money. — Anthony Howard, DG Internal Market, JURI debate of 16th June 2003

Everyone in the US: phone your senators' offices at 202-224-3121 to oppose the US-Peru "Free Trade" Treaty. It requires software patents and something like the DMCA. (Not to mention other harmful effects on other areas of life.)

Does someone has a copy of the FTA text?