Fredrik Erixon and Matthias Bauer of the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) write that the Tufts` analysis has such serious flaws “that their results should not be considered reliable or realistic.”  You write that the Tufts model “is, on the whole, an on-demand model that makes no effort to measure the impact of trade on supply, which are the main positive effects of trade liberalization. What is equally problematic is that the model is not designed to assess the impact of trade agreements on trade – in fact, the model is not really appropriate for such an exercise. No business economist, no matter what school of thought he or she comes from, has ever used this model to make estimates of trade. The reason is simple: if a model cannot predict the impact on trade flows and profile as a result of trade liberalization, it is useless.  They add: “In Capaldo`s analysis, structural changes and the emergence of new industries are of no importance. Capaldo implicitly assumes that an economy does not react with its labor and capital and that it adapts to new circumstances. New competition only creates new unemployment. In addition, the effects of reducing barriers on international trade on product and process innovation are overlooked. Finally, Capaldo does not take into account the impact of competition on production costs and prices to the final consumer.”  The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized the leak of a draft chapter on intellectual property that included copyright, trademark, and patents. . . .