The U.S. approach to TPP negotiation was to try to attempt to protect the American jobs that are seen as high-value "jobs of the future," by exporting strong IP protections to our trading partners.
IP-heavy jobs in the U.S. tend to have higher salaries and better benefits. Think: software, pharmaceuticals, recorded entertainment, and complex machinery like cars, trucks, airplanes, turbines, etc. We hold competitive advantages in those industries, and export a lot of those things.
In industries with less IP, like textiles, hardware, food, and oil, the U.S. attempted to export some of its labor and environmental standards to other TPP nations. This was the right thing to do, but it also helps the U.S. competitive position because these are non-negotiable costs to U.S. companies.
Software jobs probably don't benefit from "intellectual property" all that much. If you risk treble damages for "willful" patent infringement (or whatever the extra damages are), you're not going to look at software patents. You're going to invent that wheel for yourself. There's also some evidence that Silicon Valley works better than the Boston area because programmers only produce company's "intellectual property" on the clock. After hours, whatever you do in California is yours. Also California doesn't enforce non-compete agreements.
So I don't think the situation is as simple as strong "IP" protections are thought to benefit the USA economy. Unless you're a big faith-based believer in "IP".
IP-heavy jobs in the U.S. tend to have higher salaries and better benefits. Think: software, pharmaceuticals, recorded entertainment, and complex machinery like cars, trucks, airplanes, turbines, etc. We hold competitive advantages in those industries, and export a lot of those things.
In industries with less IP, like textiles, hardware, food, and oil, the U.S. attempted to export some of its labor and environmental standards to other TPP nations. This was the right thing to do, but it also helps the U.S. competitive position because these are non-negotiable costs to U.S. companies.