Slashdot Mirror
Trans-Pacific Partnership May Endanger World Health, Newly Leaked Chapter Shows
blottsie writes WikiLeaks has released an updated version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) chapter on intellectual property. The new version of the texts, dated May 2014, show that little improvement has been made to sections critics say would hurt free speech online. Further, some of the TPP's stipulations could have dire consequences for healthcare in developing nations. The Daily Dot reports: "Nearly all of the changes proposed by the U.S. advantage corporate entities by expanding monopolies on knowledge goods, such as drug patents, and impose restrictive copyright policies worldwide. If it came into force, TPP would even allow pharmaceutical companies to sue the U.S. whenever changes to regulatory standards or judicial decisions affected their profits. Professor Brook K. Baker of Northeastern U. School of Law [said] that the latest version of the TPP will do nothing less than lengthen, broaden, and strengthen patent monopolies on vital medications."
The fact that all of these meetings are being held in secrecy and away from public discourse is very telling. Like NAFTA, this is being touted as something great for free trade, but in fact is intended to benefit an oligarchical subset of society. Worse, that same subset has no consideration for the remainder of the citizens of the USA.
Simple, write your Reps and get them to denounce this garbage legislation. Vote them out of office if they don't denounce this bill and distance themselves. If you have 2 candidates that both want the bill, petition your own candidate on the ballot and lose the cronies.
Be warned too, that just like SOPA this is going to continually be pushed behind the scenes under new names and false pretenses.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Who are the parties driving this agreement? The corporate lobbyist in China and the US who are secretly drafting this agreement for their own benefit.
As Thomas Jefferson once stated, "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
Listen to US billionaire Steve Wynn in his own words call the communist China, where most of his revenue comes from, "the most laissez-faire place on the planet at the moment". When I grew up communism was the evil empire but it appears if they start taking American Express those transgressions are quickly overlooked.
China has illuminated what the most successful government model is for economic growth as they have surpassed the US in global trade and will soon become the largest economy in the world. This secret treaty is an effort to codify the globalist's privileged trading status and would accelerate the vast income inequality that plagues both China and the US. Every American should remember that the revolutionary Boston Tea Party was a reaction to a tax imposed for the direct benefit of the East India corporation's monopoly. Any elected official that privately or publicly supports this travesty should be held accountable at the voting booth.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
And do you really believe a pharmaceutical company would invest years of lab time and millions of dollars developing a cure for X if the guys down the street would be allowed to immediately copy it and sell it at production cost + 1%? There's no way they would ever be able to recoup the development costs, so they wouldn't bother. Drug research funding would be restricted only to academia, government, and philanthropists. Granted, there's much to be said for such a system, there's some serious perverse incentives in the current arrangement - but there's also nothing stopping those other research avenues now, and yet they remain woefully neglected in comparison.
Now I'm definitely not saying our patent system doesn't have serious issues, but there's something to be said for giving inventors a chance to recoup their initial investment. Myself, I like the idea of simply going back to requiring the president to individually sign every approved patent - we'd almost instantly drop the rate of patent approvals to only a few per day, and the thousands of others that didn't make the cut would just have to be discarded. Are there really thousands of inventions per day that enrich humanity enough to justify granting a 20-year monopoly to recoup the development costs? I doubt it. I'd be surprised if there were five.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
While I can see the temptation, it isn't going to work so well. That war was of states verses states, with access to military hardware on both sides. A revolution in the US today would consist of semi-organised armies of volunteers with rifles verses a government with long-range artillery, bomber aircraft, advanced intelligence-gathering equipment and much more powerful fully-automatic assault rifles. No contest. The best you could hope for would be a long insurgency, fighting dirty and adopting terrorist tactics of hiding in the civilian population and keeping identities secret, French Resistance style - but that's not enough to overthrow a government. The idea of a violent uprising isn't realistic.
A better proposal would be to shift the rules a bit through technology. A sufficient investment in new forms of communication technology could effectively undermine a lot of commercially-based power - it doesn't matter how strict the copyright laws are if they can't be enforced, and if all communications are encrypted and avoid passing through any bottlenecks where control can be exerted then it becomes much harder for government to monitor or control them. Mass-piracy, properly exercised, could cripple the entertainment-media industry. It just has to be made into something which is near-universally accepted by the public, easy enough for anyone to take part with less effort than buying from legitimate channels, and safe from any form of copyright enforcement.
Patents in pharmacuticals work well...Their application to software has been a disaster.
Something the average software engineer might not appreciate is that patents for pharmaceuticals are a bit like copyright. They cover a specific molecule, which is basically an implementation. Anybody can tweak the molecule and if it works they can sell a competing product. Of course, doing so still costs hundreds of millions of dollars in testing/development costs, so that is why we tend to only have so many molecules in each class.
The patent office sometimes does issue very broad patents in pharmaceuticals, such as patents on a gene or molecular target, but for the most part they tend to get struck down by the courts, for all the same reasons that software patents cause so much trouble.
When applied to a single molecule patents work well in pharmaceuticals because they allow a company to be rewarded for its huge initial outlay in development costs despite their very low marginal cost of production. Now, companies do try to abuse patent law to extend their monopolies and this is something that I fully support punishing harshly. Society makes a deal - we'll pay $7/pill for about 10 years so that we have new pills, but after that anybody can get them for pennies - companies do not have some kind of right to profits - it is the offer society makes because it serves all of our collective interests.
I'm also for having the NIH actually fund more end-to-end drug development where the government bears all the risk of failure, but also owns the patents (which can then be freely licensed to US-based manufacturers, or those in countries who make similar investments and reciprocate). That would in theory lead to drugs that cost pennies from day one, while leaving the private pharma industry intact until such a time as the government-funded model is proven and ramps up and generally takes over (likely slowly hiring all the private pharma employees who actually do R&D/etc).
Patents in pharmacuticals work well.
I have worked for pharmaceutical companies. They work well if you want these companies to make a lot of money. If general health of your population is the goal, then they are a total disaster. You don't work on cures, you work on treatments, for example. Why sell someone a week of pills, when you could sell them pills for a lifetime? Even worse is that a lot of money for these treatments is not invested by the company that holds the patent. But often heavily supported by the state through universities and grants.
The free market, capitalism, fails with health care at every level.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?