General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAll of the copyright advisors to the admin on the TPP are from the industry. ALL of them.
Five key questions and answers about the leaked TPP text
Susan Sell is a professor of political science at George Washington University, who has carried out landmark research on international negotiations over intellectual property. Below is her response to five questions about the intellectual property chapter of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which the Obama administration has been negotiating with trading partners behind closed doors. A draft of the chapter was leaked to WikiLeaks two days ago.
The draft TPP text was kept secret from the general public. Who has seen it and why?
The United States Trade Representative and the Obama administration have kept the treaty texts secret from the public. However, they have shared texts with 700 or so cleared advisers, all of whom come from intellectual property rights holders industries. Members of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights have had access to texts all along. These members include representatives of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Entertainment Software Association, as well as firms such as Gilead Sciences, Johnson and Johnson, Verizon, Cisco Systems, and General Electric.
Select members of Congress have had very limited access to the draft treaty texts. After Thursdays leak of the intellectual property chapter it is obvious why the USTR and the Obama administration have insisted on secrecy. From this text it appears that the U.S. administration is negotiating for intellectual property provisions that it knows it could not achieve through an open democratic process. For example, it includes provisions similar to those of the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that the European Parliament ultimately rejected. The United States appears to be using the non-transparent Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations as a deliberate end run around Congress on intellectual property, to achieve a presumably unpopular set of policy goals.
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/15/five-key-questions-and-answers-about-the-leaked-tpp-text/
There is NO excuse for this. There is NO defense for this.
It's hard to argue that President Obama and this administration are doing anything but the heavy lifting for corporate interests.
And yes, the President and the administration and corporate assholes who are the USTR, deserve the harshest of criticism for selling out the people to benefit corporations. Oh, and fuck Hollywood bigwigs whose "wishlist" the admin is fulfilling.
cali
(114,904 posts)virtually all the advisors are from corporate interests.
It's so brazen it's almost unbelievable.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Warren 2016 2014? Lol
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)stakeholder means you have a company that trades goods.
The 2005 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) is a free trade agreement among Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore. It aims to further liberalise the economies of the Asia-Pacific region.
Since 2010, negotiations have been taking place for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposal for a significantly expanded version of TPSEP. The TPP is a proposed free trade agreement under negotiation by (as of August 2013) Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. From Wikipedia
cali
(114,904 posts)Most experts sure as shit do.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)now if you own stocks in those corps then you are a stakeholder through your stocks board.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Corporate Democrat is an oxymoron! Ask FDR.
I'm afraid that's not the answer in the short run for stopping this nightmare.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)PETRUS
(3,678 posts)US companies already trade with these countries. How does not passing the TPP put a stop to that, exactly?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Why would you want American Corps to be able to continue not paying any taxes?
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)Seriously.
Cali's objections are very specific, as are mine. The problem is THIS process and THIS agreement.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)so he was a corporate Democrat by your definition.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)President Roosevelt described the spirit of the NRA: "On this idea, the first part of the NIRA proposes to our industry a great spontaneous cooperation to put millions of men back in their regular jobs this summer."
Gee ...is that what's going on today?
Oh and "a corporate Democrat by your definition" uhm that was "oxymoron"
zeemike
(18,998 posts)They should watch this..
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)FDR was a capitalist, he was one of the 1%. He saved capitalism in the USA.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But no so consumed with greed that he would ignore the needs of the people of his country to protect the one percent and their wealth and power.
No one wants to destroy capitalism, they just want a fair deal...and so did FDR who is now considered a traitor to his class because of it.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)before we pass judgement on it.
I'm trying to think how the TPP ignores the needs of my fellow citizens when it doesn't yet exist.
cali
(114,904 posts)on legislation to cut Social Security.
the TPP is loaded with bad ideas and was crafted, in large part, by corporate interests.
We know more than a little about what is being proposed.
Please explain how this could be anything but ignoring the needs of of our fellow citizens?
<snip>
The United States Trade Representative and the Obama administration have kept the treaty texts secret from the public. However, they have shared texts with 700 or so cleared advisers, all of whom come from intellectual property rights holders industries. Members of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights have had access to texts all along. These members include representatives of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Entertainment Software Association, as well as firms such as Gilead Sciences, Johnson and Johnson, Verizon, Cisco Systems, and General Electric.
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/15/five-key-questions-and-answers-about-the-leaked-tpp-text/
You are employing one of the most intellectually bankrupt arguments ever when you claim that it's not bad because it hasn't been passed yet.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)cuts to social security. In order to actually cut them, they need a law. If the law passes, that means that both houses of congress passed it and the President signed it.
Who else would be asked for input on intellectual property if not those owning it. I have a lot bigger problem with the government not negotiating drug prices than I do with the concept (in the Constitution) of protecting intellectual property.
Anyway,There is no bill to not have been passed yet. It is an easy concept, if something is still being negotiated, then it is silly to oppose it.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)When something becomes legislation, it's usually too late to change, or at least to change without herculean effort and at the expense of political capital that could be better spent elsewhere.
As to who other than "those owning it" should be asked about how intellectual property laws are written, how about EVERYONE ELSE? The tradition of intellectual property eventually migrating to the public domain is long respected and a really good idea. These guys are trying to hold onto copywrights on material a full century after the author has died. That's flatly nuts.
As to not negotiating drug prices, that too is something that showed up in bills that people didn't pay enough attention to before they were signed, and now the pharmaceutical companies have just about crashed the healthcare system. I think looking at some of those bills before they were passed would have done us a world of good.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)usually has been "marked up" in numerous Congressional committees after extensive hearings. It seems to me that when a Democratic administration is attacked on a Democratic website over something that they haven't proposed to Congress, something that requires the consent of a Democratic controlled-60% needed- Senate, the Democratic party and what it stands for is losing.
The negotiating of drug prices is a perfect example of changes proposed by the Democratic administration that died in the Congress. In the ACA, it was given up in negotiations with the drug companies. The ACA does require the drug companies to provide a 50% discount to medicare recipients in the doughnut hole. No one failed to look at it before they signed it, when you "negotiate", you don't get everything you want.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And compared it, not me.
I was disputing that...it is not at all like TPP not even close...and it was not kept secret from the public.
And now you are trying to like me to the centrist defense of it?
Talk about running people around in circles...
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)Since all the posts are clearly visible, you should do a little review.
Anyway,TPP does not exist, so it has not been kept secret.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)saying, "Just wait. How do you know the bullet will kill you?"
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)they haven't gone in the water yet.
The TPP does not exist, it may never exist. The President cannot make his own laws. His negotiators have even less authority.
cali
(114,904 posts)absolutely unbelievable that anyone would claim it doesn't exist.
The TPP hasn't been ratified yet. It hasn't been voted on, but to declare that it doesn't exist is absurd.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)there is no TPP until negotiations are finished. Then it has to become law.
It does not exist until it is in final form.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)it's finalized. That's not the argument. When the TPP is finalized there is no logical reason to believe that it wont be damaging to the 99%. If there is such an argument, let us hear it.
We need to work to prevent it from ever becoming finalized.
Plez explain why you care that we are concerned.
tomp
(9,512 posts)i get the "dog" part, but the "progressive" part, not so much.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)makes me want to listen to the child.
The Congress did vote authorization for the Iraq war on October 16, 2002. The war began in March of 2003. So, to spell it out, there was no Iraq war until congress voted authorization. You might want to look stuff up before changing the subject to your area of expertise.
cali
(114,904 posts)and nothing is more startlingly childlike than your "arguments" in this thread.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)or care what my post was in reply to before posting your wisdom.
Let me explain, the previous poster implied that the Congress had not authorized the Iraq war to make a point. Then he wanted to make his ignorance an excuse for claiming that I was not a progressive. There are no Progressive facts, there are just facts.
Why don't you just admit that the poster was wrong about the Iraq war resolution and move on.
tomp
(9,512 posts)it is you who should brush up on your reading comprehension.
my statement was clear: the run up to the war (or whatever else is under discussion) is important and has to be addressed PREVENTATIVELY. to argue otherwise is absurd, though that seems to be your forte.
p.s.: your screen name is offensive.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)because it doesnt exist.
It does exist, they havent spent years working on it to not exist. It is just not in final form, but it's there. We may be able to stop it, but it's there.
The argument that it doesnt exist is wrong. Now maybe you want to argue that in its final form it wont cause us harm. I say crap because those working on it are not looking out for anyone but themselves.
Why are you trying to squelch concerns about the TPP?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)until they pull the trigger before we go running around with our hair on fire".
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I cna't believe how many people say that on here.
What else in life do you apply that to? Do you not think about consequences of any of your decisions before you make them?
Jesus fucking christ, that is one of the stupidest things people on here say, especially about something this importat. Have you not read even one thing about what will happen if this takes effect?
IF WE WAIT UNTIL IT HAPPENS IT WILL BE TOO FUCKING LATE. HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?????!!!!
I remember when this place was filled with people smarter than I. It's hard to read some of the posts here now.
Go ahead, hide this post, I don't care, this needs to be said.
Btw.... why do you have "Progressive" in your name? Must be to try to convince people you really are progressive. No really, see? It's in the name it must be so!
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)as we've heard so many times before.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)you not familiar with?
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)as you're the one who apparently thinks it's foolish to protest bad legislation until after it has passed and become law.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)at least a bill being written.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)In 2009 historians rated him the Third Greatest President (some said 'second') in American history,
following ONLY Washington and Lincoln.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)"For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peacebusiness and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for meand I welcome their hatred.
I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."
- Got to love that.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)We so need someone like him now.
May his memory never die.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Yes, I do want to destroy capitalism. It is the leftover swill of feudalism and slavery and was modeled after those 2 systems.
It offered more freedoms to the poor but it left intact the kingly powers of feudalism in the boss and the destructive powers of slave masters in the CEOs, boards of directors and shareholders. It should have been shed years ago. Humanity should have evolved away from it by now.
The TPP is merely the Enabling Act for total corporate Rule. It will solidify the royal powers of bosses and the death and life grip of corporate boardrooms.
The TPP will allow the dinosaur of capitalism to continue to trample the masses while a few greedy psychopaths, ride it's back.
tomp
(9,512 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to make a balance that worked. Hitler "saved capitalism" in Germany.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)the USSR was socialist and China used to be socialist. Our economic system is capitalism, FDR saved it by regulating it. It is capitalism. Since the Nazi's controlled all aspects of production, Hitler did not save "capitalism" in Germany. Socialist programs like universal health care and old age pensions existed before Hitler and continued under Hitler.
Don't confuse Nazi-ism with capitalism or socialism, it was neither.
cali
(114,904 posts)your name is funny as hell.
Do you seriously consider yourself a progressive? You certainly don't appear to be an economic progressive. You appear to support a corporate agenda.
I suppose you confuse being socially liberal as being progressive. It's only a piece of it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)capitalistic/socialistic system that worked until undone by the corporatists.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Looks like the person you replied to wants to re-write history. Anything to discredit our greatest Democratic president.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)and also set production. Kind of like one of those monopoly things.
Gee, how is what's going on today different. Oh, I get it, FDR actually implemented the NRA and the TPP is still under discussion.
cali
(114,904 posts)The TPP is a monstrosity and that we know for certain. The under discussion nonsense is just that. The evidence that the TPP is a corporate creation is overwhelming and much of that evidence has been posted here.
You can't actually defend it so you resort to this weak sauce.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)except in the posters imagination.
The TPP does not exist so it can't be a monstrosity.
The copyright stuff and patent stuff can be done separately by each country. The US already has pretty tough laws and we are paying higher prices because of them.
cali
(114,904 posts)it's not a monstrosity.
what a ridiculous argument. It's embarrassing to see anyone post such nonsense.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)He cant support the TPP if, by his own logic, doesnt exist. So why so adamant to get others to "not worry"? I am asking as a serious question. I have only one idea but want to see what you think first.
cali
(114,904 posts)What's your idea?
I find it shocking that so many DUers are defending this.
I'm disgusted that anyone who claims to be a liberal would do so.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)What upsets me, to a fault, is that they are not here to argue a side. They can not provide anything meaningful so they usually resort to the "you must be a racist" attacks or in this case, "Trust your President."
cali
(114,904 posts)they simply support the President no matter what. It's dangerous.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Family life, schools, religions, Boy Scouts, etc. It's a rare thing to find an authoritarian figure that teaches opened mindedness unless you get to college and even then you can find authoritarianism. There seems to be a need by many to find a leader and then give them blind faith.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)"It doesn't exist yet so how can you be against it." "You can't be against something that doesn't exist."
I've asked the question, how can they be for it then? And it's always let's wait and see what's in it before we criticize. Who do they think that flies with? Not any thinking person.
And the plan is there, the idea is there. It's written down somewhere. So the guts do, in fact exist. It simply hasn't been legislated/implemented yet which is something completely different.
By their logic, one can say the ACA doesn't exist yet since it goes into effect in January 2014, which isn't here yet.
I just went postal on this poster but I don't care. It's the stupidest argument ever and shouldn't be used on a political board because if everyone followed that logic there would be zero activists. ZERO.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that it doesnt exist, which has to be embarrassing because it clearly exists except by their idiotic definition. It's like saying not to worry about the hurricane until it makes landfall because it doesnt exist until then. And their logic fails also because they are essentially defending the president's involvement in something that, by their definition, does not exist.
Above I concluded that the intent was to completely support Pres Obama no matter what. But I've changed my mind. Even someone that blindly follows the President has to be smarter than to use "it doesnt exist" as an argument. Seriously. I believe it's just a disruption tactic.
RosettaStoned77
(53 posts)Maybe he's Dr.Dre or one of those Metallica guys! Either way, BIG fan here. I downloaded all your albums.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Have we seen this before? An individual bound and determined to make as many posts as possible with as many words as possible, no matter how illogical and unfounded. Somewhere in the funky neighborhood of Fremont in Seattle, a bridge is missing it's you-know-what.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)And the next one is the favorite to run for 2016.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)the corporate overlords find acceptable. All the other contenders will be denigrated by the corporate media until they are perceived to be "too liberal".
bemildred
(90,061 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)or that the TPP is largely a huge gift to those interests that supported the President- and Hollywood is at the top of that list.
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)and insulting everyone who dares speak the truth as you just did.
Rec'd.
cali
(114,904 posts)and I'll still be posting about the TPP.
Thanks
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)gtar100
(4,192 posts)and the cool kids are for corporate states? Like it's society's next evolutionary step? To me it seems that democracy is their true enemy. We're falling back into a new form of kings and queens, emperors and such except the new titles are CEO or president of this or that corporation. Human greed isn't satisfied with just having the most, it also desires complete power like a god. They will not be satisfied until we worship them.
Nothing new here. But what stands in the way is democracy. And this nasty concept that "all men are created equal".
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)aggiesal
(8,923 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)tethered into "Austerity" in the European Union as well as here in the USA...because of the F**ing BANKERS and Wall Street then one can Connect the Dots. It's not just the TPP but the TPIE that is the deal with the EU to also have the Conglomerates take over tying into the TPPP. So it will be a GLOBAL ECONOMY ruled by "Councils" who are "Panels of Judges" who decide in Secret when a country has a grievance with another country they no longer have sovereinty over their own population but to some damned Global Council (Secret Star Chamber) who will decide their fate.
They are not going to give up on this. It started with GAT, WTO,Nafta and has been in the works for a long while.
We have to keep on this. Monsanto and Nestle and the rest of the Global Giants will be deciding for the whole world.
I'm sorry to sound like I'm raving here...but, I'm tired and don't have time to make this post sound more "nuanced." Nobody reads much here on DU anymore...so one is forced to make statements that are short and sound inflammatory...yet are the TRUTH...from those of us who read diversified media which requires time and searching that most of us working folks have little ability to do these days because they are under Attack and so have to deal with their own homelife when they have a few moments of working either multiple jobs or a job that's in jeopardy.
Sorry... Just had to vent. And my spelling and typo's are there.....I think I even got the new European/American Trade acronym wrong...but, whatever. I'm tired.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you, KoKo, for saying it.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)The TPP is a coup, any way you look at it, but I never thought of it as a turn to fascism. I think that may be exactly what is so repulsive about it all. It's the "on" switch to fascism.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... enacted by congress is in fact written by the industry it applies to. This is nothing new. Our government is completely run from top to bottom by corporate interests.
I'm a bit surprised this isn't known by everyone - they don't really try to hide it and it is not remotely new.
cali
(114,904 posts)this really does take it to a new level and the proof of that is the end run around the defeat of SOPA
annabanana
(52,791 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Name the panel that should do the advising.
cali
(114,904 posts)should be in the mix.
Unbelievable that you think that corporations being the only advisors is just fine and dandy.
VERY Disturbing that anyone could claim that. And that's just what you're doing here.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Please stop putting words in my mouth. I would just like to know who else should be able to advise.
cali
(114,904 posts)The answer is beyond obvious.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)(putting words in you mouth) where you stand. That's easily remedied if you were to state your positions.
So here your chance to clear up your stance on the TPP. How do you feel about the TPP?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)of lots of groups that should be represented.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,049 posts)Consumer advocates, privacy advocates (ie IFF), union representation?
But mostly, how about a little more transparency?
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)not the same as the Libertarian one with the addition of a hood ornament middle man to rubber stamp their whims?
cali
(114,904 posts)a lot.
marmar
(77,090 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)(I thought it was pretty good about the Copyright Laws in addition to this latest info in your post)
DEBATE on TPP: between Bill Watson-Cato Institute & Lori Wallach, Public Citizen-Global Trade WatchTPP Exposed: WikiLeaks Publishes Secret Trade Text to Rewrite Copyright Laws, Limit Internet Freedom
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/14/tpp_exposed_wikileaks_publishes_secret_trade
cali
(114,904 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)rucky
(35,211 posts)I tried. If anybody could translate the beefy stuff into plain English...TIA
cali
(114,904 posts)EFF has extensive info on this
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/tpp-leak-confirms-worst-us-negotiators-still-trying-trade-away-internet-freedoms
Cleita
(75,480 posts)for profit medical interests and all the other experts locked out, I'm not surprised that this is the case for this anti-populist legislation. By anti-populist I mean legislation that favors special interests and at least does nothing for the population at large, and at most is detrimental to it.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Yahoo always does best for me. Found many links there, two links on it with wonderful informatin (excerpts below). I am learning a lot that I don't like knowing. If anyone wants to brush up on it who knows as little as I do, I recommend:
http://www.cwa-union.org/issues/entry/c/trans-pacific_free_trade_agreement
The TPP is much more than a free-trade agreement. It is part of the overall corporate and Wall Street agenda to make the world safe for corporate investment and profits by reducing labor costs and undercutting workers rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health and financial laws and regulations that could impact profits; and setting up a process to resolve any disputes by going through special international tribunals rather than our own court system.(*)
http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPPThe AFL-CIO has provided the administration with ideas about how to improve the U.S. trade positions so they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle; the global corporate agenda has infused trade policy with its demands for deregulation, privatization, tax breaks and other financial advantages for Big Business while shrinking the social safety net in the name of labor flexibility.
pa28
(6,145 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)like you!
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)The article claims "be using the non-transparent Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations as a deliberate end run around Congress on intellectual property, to achieve a presumably unpopular set of policy goals."
I would like to know how it can be an end run around Congress if Congress has to pass it into law, presumably after it is no longer a draft (they might even want a bill first). They can hold hearings and are supposed to debate bills before voting on them. The problem is this, there is no TPP to debate in Congress.
cali
(114,904 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Lodestar
(2,388 posts)government. There IS NO REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT anymore unless you include the caveat that they represent
the elite and corporate Americans to the exclusion of everyone else.
reACTIONary
(5,771 posts)... stopping on-line piracy, protecting intellectual property and impeding the counterfeiting of trade marked goods?
cali
(114,904 posts)reACTIONary
(5,771 posts)... that expresses a lot of summary negative judgment without any explanation or analysis... and nothing about what the positive affects might be.
For instance, there is the provision listed that would require countries to provide patent protection for new surgical techniques, and to respect such patents issued in other countries. This is just stated as if it were a self evident truth that this would be bad and against the public interest. American physicians, however, already can patent their procedures under American law, so this is nothing new. Being able to extend that protection to other countries seems like a win for American doctors.
Being able to patent such procedures is in the public interest. If a physician does come up with an innovative procedure, and there is no patent protection, keeping it as a trade secrete is in her best interest. Patent protection, however, requires public disclosure - it becomes public knowledge. Its also possible for her to license use of the procedure, which then can become wide spread - something that doesn't happen with trade secretes. Then, when the patent expires, everyone already knows the procedure, and there are already experienced practitioners who have been making regular use of it.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Academic researchers essentially give away their results. Why would anyone with technical gifts be more interested in speinding time blocking access to his or her results than in going on to the next groundbreaking project?
reACTIONary
(5,771 posts)... but many others, my guess is most others, do. And the reason they are working away developing new vaccines is, to a great extent, the fact that it is profitable to do so. That is how they earn their living.
It is true that academics who are involved in basic, fundamental research don't patent their results, and, actually, they can't, because fundamental facts can't be patented. They do, however, copyright their research reports (if allowed by law, and it generally is) and particularly their text books.
I work for a university research department (a university well known for medical advances) and we have patent lawyers on staff and intellectual disclosure policies to protect and develop our intellectual property. And a department that focuses on commercial development and technical transfer.
Why would anyone be interested in doing all that? Because we stand to profit by it - it's part of our motivation - and it is only fair that those who spend their time and creative energy advancing our knowledge and capabilities be rewarded for their efforts.
eridani
(51,907 posts)This patent bullshit is an inadequate attempt to compensate for not treating scientific research as a public good.
reACTIONary
(5,771 posts)... there is a distinction between fundamental scientific research, that is pure science, and "applied research and development" which tends more towards economic development and applies, rather than originates, much of the research.
Fundamental scientific research, while having very important economic consequences, is not driven by immediate economic concerns, needs or potential. It has never been possible to paten fundamental research, so there has never been a direct economic motivation of that sort to engage in it, either now or in the past. Fundamental research has always been a government supported activity, since the early origins of science (e.g., the Royal Society). The nature of fundamental research makes it unlikely to be funded through market mechanisms and makes it feasible to fund through non-market mechanisms. Since it has great, but non-specific, potential, it makes sense to treat it as a public good and fund it as part of the general welfare.
Applied R&D and engineering, however, is a different game with different motivations. The purpose is to apply scientific research in order to solve more or less immediate economic concerns and to improve the quality of life in the hear-and-now, not in the distant and unforeseeable future. Like any economic activity a large part of the motivation is the profit motive. And this helps to direct and shape R&D towards the actual concerns and problems that people are facing in real life - because addressing those concerns in an effective manner is how you earn a profit. The application of research and economic development have, since the beginning of our country, been motivated and protected by patent law - even in the 50's and 60's.
Especially in the 50's and 60's - take the invention of the transistor, patented in 1948, as an example.
Patents and the profit motive is very important to the activity of translating fundamental scientific research and principles into useful and practical applications that enhance the quality of life. I support both funding of fundamental research as a public good and support for scientists, engineers and inventors through patent protection. I support patent protection because:
* It's simply fair. People who spend time, effort and creative energy finding new ways to improve the quality of life deserve to be rewarded for their accomplishments and giving them a (limited) property right in their creations is an appropriate way to ensure they are.
* As an economic activity, applied research, development and engineering benefits from an economic motive. The profit motive, enhanced by patent protection, helps to direct this activity towards real world problems, solutions and improvements that make a difference in people's lives.
* Patents encourage, in fact require, public disclosure of new and useful inventions and improvement. Without patents the only way to differentially profit by a new discovery is to keep it a secret and prevent others from finding out about it. Patents require public disclosure in exchange for time-limited protection, which quickly and efficiently moves new discoveries and inventions into the public realm. It discourages secrecy and encourages wide-spread adoption through licensing before expiration and makes the discovery public property after expiration.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--which just happened to coincide with maximum funding from the government. Can we get back to TPP? Patenting surgical techniques? Patent life extending 100 fucking YEARS beyond the death of the inventor? (Fuck grandchildren--being a member of the lucky sperm/ovum club adds nothing to the public good.)
You are arguing that patent protection is a public good, which is not a matter of dispute at all. TPP takes the notion and perverts it to establishing a corporate dictatorship over all innovation. Even now, engineers working for a company sign over all their patent rights to their employers as a condition of employment. If TPP had been in effect during WW II, the entire programming industry would have been shut down before it started. Even now programmers can be sued for writing subroutines similar to those in patented software. This is hard to avoid because programming protocol dictates few options for best practices. If two programmers think of the same subroutine for this reason, they should be able to sue each other? Bullshit sez I.
reACTIONary
(5,771 posts).... which is not a matter of dispute at all.
I'm glad we agree. Unfortunately, there is a growing movement that is hostile to intellectual property rights in principle and wants to do away with them altogether and I'm on the defensive about it.
I think your post contains some good points - for instance, the limited duration of a patent is essential for the privilege to serve the public good, and 100 years way too long. I would be glad to continue discussing this with you if you would be open to hearing my opinion about some of the topics you raise... but right now I've got to get to bed! G'nite!
eridani
(51,907 posts)--and tightening of corporate control. If employees have to sign over any patent rights to their employers before they even make practical application discoveries, how then do the people who actually do the work of discovery benefit?
Conium
(119 posts)Why should foreign corporations be allowed to steal from American corporations, then undercut them?
It is true that many life-saving drugs are overpriced because of the the existing patent system. Changes are overdue.
I support and trust President Obama. He is much smarter than many people want to believe. Save the pitchforks, tar, and feathers for the ones who deserve it (i.e. Boehner's boys).
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)You have shown me the light. The true path!
fasttense
(17,301 posts)And he needed lost of money to become president so he took it from the only people who have lots of money - the corporate rulers.
So, he has made a very bad decision with the TPP.
The TPP clearly states (and their are no plans to change this portion of it) that it does NOT address American corporations any differently than Chinese corporations. But it does Make corporations kings and slave masters over our entire economic system. And if you control a person's means of obtaining necessities, you control the person.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)He's a politician. He keeps his options open ... I hope.
-Laelth
cali
(114,904 posts)it's one of his top priorities.
Why hope for something when all the evidence is against something being a possibility?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I admit that I am finding it difficult to do so in this case, however, because I don't see the kind of energy and determination that I saw when he was pushing to get the ACA passed quickly. That leads me to suspect that he secretly opposes the TPP. Perhaps.
I certainly appreciate your agitating on this subject and keeping it open as a subject for discussion, but I also note that, even if he has made up his mind about the TPP, Obama can change his mind and change course, as he did with Syria. Perhaps with enough pressure, he can be encouraged to back down from the TPP.
-Laelth
cali
(114,904 posts)I just think you're being unrealistic in this case.
Obama has and always has had close corporate ties. If he didn't want the TPP, he could have shelved it. He could have appointed people to the USTR who weren't total corporate creatures. He could have appointed advisors who weren't ALL corporate ones.
And on and on.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)But it's just hard to read this President. I took him at his word when he implied that the individual mandate was an idea he did not support.
Yet, as we all know, that's exactly what he pushed for with the ACA. It's quite frustrating, but I find myself second-guessing his motives and intentions regularly, and I am just not sure what he's thinking regarding the TPP.
Still, I greatly appreciate your keeping the TPP front-and-center on DU.
-Laelth
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Intelligence can also be used to bammboozle people
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It only deals with the rights of the corporations...why should people have a say in it?
Letting the little voices into this would be like letting pedestrians have a say in traffic laws for gawd sake