Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
40 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
(Americans deserve a bit more than lofty words in the "Summary of Objectives" deemed suitable for public consumption.)
Intellectual Property and Drug Prices
One example of the way the intellectual property provisions favor giant, multinational corporations over smaller, innovative corporations and regular people around the world is in pharmaceutical prices.
A company with a drug patent is granted a monopoly to sell the drug at any price they choose with no competition. Currently a drug might be patented for a limited number of years in different countries. When the patent runs out other companies are able to manufacture the drug and the competition means the drug will sell at a lower cost.
Leaked documents appear to show that TPP will extend patent terms for drugs. Countries signing the agreement will scrap their own IP rules and instead follow those in TPP. So giant drug companies will have the same patent in all countries, for a longer period, and the patent will prevent competition that lowers drug prices.
Currently smaller, innovative companies can produce “generic” drugs after patents run out. Because of competition these drugs can be very inexpensive. Walmart, for example, sells a month’s supply of many generic drugs for $4, while drugs still under patent protection can cost hundreds or even thousands. This is of particular concern to poor countries that will be under TPP rules.
Please read Expose The TPP‘s section The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Public Health, which begins:
The TPP would provide large pharmaceutical firms with new rights and powers to increase medicine prices and limit consumers’ access to cheaper generic drugs. This would include extensions of monopoly drug patents that would allow drug companies to raise prices for more medicines and even allow monopoly rights over surgical procedures. For people in the developing countries involved in TPP, these rules could be deadly – denying consumers access to HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and cancer drugs.....
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/02/25/how-tpp-would-harm-you-drug-store-and-internet
(and this comes from an economist who generally favors free trade.)
Suspicious Nonsense on Trade Agreements
Tom Donohue, head of the US Chamber of Commerce, warns against economic populism, which he says is really a push to create a “state-run economy.” Yep — so much as mention rising inequality, and you’re Joseph Stalin (unless you’re Mitt Romney.) But what really gets me is the Chamber’s supposed agenda for growth. Topping the list — the number one priority — is completing those trade agreements.
This is absurd, and disturbing.
Think about it. The immediate problem facing much of the world is inadequate demand and the threat of deflation. Would trade liberalization help on that front? No, not at all. True, to the extent that trade becomes easier, world exports would rise, which is a net plus for demand. But world imports would rise by exactly the same amount, which is a net minus. Or to put it a bit differently, trade liberalization would change the composition of world expenditure, with each country spending more on foreign goods and less on its own, but there’s no reason to think it would raise total spending; so this is not a short-term economic boost.
..
Maybe you still think we should do this. But trade agreements as your top economic priority? Really? That’s so bizarre that it should make you wonder why, exactly, the likes of Tom Donohue want these deals. And you have to suspect that the reason is that some of his important clients think that the non-trade aspects of the deals — stuff like intellectual property protection — will yield them a lot of monopoly rents.
There are reasons to support these deals and reasons to oppose them. But my immediate take is that when the US Chamber of Commerce makes a huge priority out of complicated deals, and offers an obviously false rationale, you should strongly suspect that there’s bad stuff hidden in the fine print.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/suspicious-nonsense-on-trade-agreements/?_r=0
....is being pushed to Fast Track an agreement with no amendments, & when COC members have lobbyists that have input and knowledge denied to U. S. Senators, & when trade groups for these entrenched corporate interests are pushing for Fast Track, & when the terms of the agreement are that once it is passed and formed that changes require unanimous approval and are essentially impossible to fix, why does it make sense for us to shut up and wait for a bill to be passed before we see the fine print?
To take your advice that "it's silly to talk about what's in it" in view of the fact that of secret negotiations going on simultaneously with a push in Congress for "fast track" elimination of any democratic input, is a prescription for corporatocracy.
In fact, we know that what the corporate lobbyist are drooling for is NOT the tearing down of actual trade barriers (tariffs and duties, which are already minimal), but the radical extension of intellectual property monopoly power, and the ability to use sovereign investor-state stribunals exempt from judicial review to destroy environmental law, labor law, safety and labeling regulations.
So, in the name of a "trade deal" that should expand competition, we are seeing an attempt to pass radical extensions to already overectended patent/copyright laws, and the creation of corporate sovereignty.
And we are told that these draconian laws, which would be DOA in open debate on the issues, should be passed without amendment, and we should be happy to not see the details until after we've been screwed with a deal that is essentially impossibly to fix, as it would require unanimous consent of all parties to make changes.
No wonder all the evil forces in the corporate cartels, and the GOP crooks are lined up with smiles.
I also think that there has been ample evidence brought to our attention that this "trade" agreement contains many other things within it that has nothing to do with trade.
It seems like a work around to get certain policies implemented that can't get passed through Congress (or can't get passed through Congress without extremely negative repercussions and embarrassment), and we have been told that's what's happening by people I deem to be trustworthy. Therefore, I don't know how anyone could be inclined to support the TPP OR Fast Track (since in effect the TPP will pass if Fast Track is granted).
So, your support for the TPP certainly exists as far as I'm concerned. It might be weak support, but you definitely are not part of the movement to stop Fast Track (since you would be inclined to vote "Yes"
, and if by some miracle we are able to prevent Fast Track and the TPP from passing it does not appear to me that you will have been part of the movement to prevent its passage.
is support for Fast Track, in effect, support for the TPP?
I also think that there has been ample evidence brought to our attention that this "trade" agreement contains many other things within it that has nothing to do with trade.
What is this "ample evidence" of what is in the trade agreement, when THERE IS NO TRADE AGREEMENT.
It seems like a work around to get certain policies implemented that can't get passed through Congress (or can't get passed through Congress without extremely negative repercussions and embarrassment), and we have been told that's what's happening by people I deem to be trustworthy.
Fast-tracking wouldn't/doesn't remove the problematic stuff ... If the final agreement contains all/any of that embarrassing/repercussion producing stuff, then Congress just votes it down.
So, your support for the TPP certainly exists as far as I'm concerned. It might be weak support, but you definitely are not part of the movement to stop Fast Track (since you would be inclined to vote "Yes" , .
, .I support TPP because I want to actually see what's in it before I take a stand on it? That is laughably sad, especially for liberals that supposedly pride ourselves on holding informed opinions.
and if by some miracle we are able to prevent Fast Track and the TPP from passing it does not appear to me that you will have been part of the movement to prevent its passage.
If the agreement accomplishes the US government's objectives ... you are correct, I will not be part of the movement to prevent its passage. But on the other hand, should the final agreement contain the stuff that I find objectionable; then, I will join the anti-TPP movement ... but I try really hard to NOT join any un/mis-informed movements. That runs counter to my need to have my opinions/actions informed by fact, rather than, supposition.
In thread after thread, you pooh-pooh any leaked text as a mere proposal, with the implication that the final agreement may well be vastly different. As best I can tell, peering through the veil of secrecy surrounding the deal, that's not accurate.
These negotiations have been going on for more than four years. Leaks about drug patents and other chapters are not of any one side's negotiating proposals; they're of the current draft text. True, it's still subject to amendment -- but, as a practical matter, a draft that's emerged from four years of work is probably pretty close to what the final version will be.
You write:
First, I don't think this is "tin-foil-hattery combined with Obama Derangement Syndrome", so much as a fundamental (almost paranoid) distrust of government and business by many ... and that distrust is being fed by the nature of trade negotiations (i.e., done behind closed doors) and, possibly, being exploited by interests.
Should I take comfort that you wrote "almost paranoid" instead of straight-out "paranoid"?
As the saying goes, even a paranoid has some real enemies. (Variously attributed to Henry Kissinger or Golda Meir) The distrust that you correctly identify isn't based on some psychological disorder, or on the work of unspecified nefarious "interests" who are exploiting the public. It's based on the secrecy, as you note. It's based on the lopsided nature of the secrecy, where Big Pharma is in on the negotiations while the doors are closed to MSF and similar organizations. It's based, perhaps above all, on experience with similar agreements, such as NAFTA.
The TPP will include provisions for investor-state dispute settlement. (I'll put money on that assertion if you want to continue to pooh-pooh the leaks. Loser buys the winner a one-year Star membership?) Similar provisions in NAFTA have been used by big business to attack environmental protections and other laws that might impede their pursuit of profit. Here's one example, from the Wikipedia article about NAFTA:
In 1996, the gasoline additive MMT was brought into Canada by Ethyl Corporation, an American company. At the time, the Canadian federal government banned the importation of the additive. The American company brought a claim under NAFTA Chapter 11 seeking US$201 million,[32] from the Canadian government and the Canadian provinces under the Agreement on Internal Trade ("AIT" . The American company argued that their additive had not been conclusively linked to any health dangers, and that the prohibition was damaging to their company. Following a finding that the ban was a violation of the AIT,[33] the Canadian federal government repealed the ban and settled with the American company for US$13 million.[34] Studies by Health and Welfare Canada (now Health Canada) on the health effects of MMT in fuel found no significant health effects associated with exposure to these exhaust emissions. Other Canadian researchers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disagree with Health Canada, and cite studies that include possible nerve damage.[35]
. The American company argued that their additive had not been conclusively linked to any health dangers, and that the prohibition was damaging to their company. Following a finding that the ban was a violation of the AIT,[33] the Canadian federal government repealed the ban and settled with the American company for US$13 million.[34] Studies by Health and Welfare Canada (now Health Canada) on the health effects of MMT in fuel found no significant health effects associated with exposure to these exhaust emissions. Other Canadian researchers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disagree with Health Canada, and cite studies that include possible nerve damage.[35]We can safely predict that TPP, if adopted, would provide corporations with additional such opportunities to challenge democratically enacted laws. That's a bad idea regardless of which side is right on the particular issue of the health effects of MMT.
You conclude by arguing that MSF should have made specific constructive suggestions for changes. Even in the limited scope of the press release that MSF put out in response to the leak, we can see some specifics, in the form of provisions that should be removed from the agreement:
If signed in its current form, the TPP—a far-reaching trade agreement involving the US and 11 other Pacific-Rim countries—would force all countries to grant additional drug patents, extending monopolies on medicines beyond 20 years, a practice called patent "evergreening."
The agreement would also impose an unprecedented extended period of exclusivity for clinical data required to prove the safety and efficacy of drugs and vaccines that are “biologic” products, extending monopolies in TPP countries, which will delay lower-cost versions of these medicines from entering the market.
The agreement would also impose an unprecedented extended period of exclusivity for clinical data required to prove the safety and efficacy of drugs and vaccines that are “biologic” products, extending monopolies in TPP countries, which will delay lower-cost versions of these medicines from entering the market.
The MSF video accompanying its press release adds the point that TPP would require that surgical methods be made patentable.
Unfortunately, it's doubtful that MSF can be very "impactful" on the negotiations to which it wasn't invited. As George Carlin said in another context, there's a club and you ain't in it. The correct strategy for MSF and other excluded organizations (like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Sierra Club, and the AFL-CIO) is to publicize the issues in their particular fields of expertise, and to begin to mobilize opposition even without having the final agreement in hand. If Congress approves fast-track authority, there won't be enough time for that work if it's not even begun until the final proposal is released.
When the Doxycyline generic market was cornered, it went from $4 at WalMart to the $100 range.
Extension of patents will put the government in the roll of allowing cornered markets far longer that the optimal length of patent protection.
