Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter • Hacker News Board

Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

#81

Post by zanny » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 10:06 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #8

There is a very interesting podcast (LSE series about a year ago now), with the chair of the previous round of physical goods talks explaining what has gone wrong, and how to fix it. In essence the idea is a good one - set out worldwide standards of trade - like WTO - for intellectual goods as well as physical. If I remember it's things like having same standards of animal welfare innabbatoirs (the U.S. Think EU chic…

> In essence the idea is a good one - set out worldwide standards of trade - like WTO - for intellectual goods as well as physical.

You must play our game of pretend scarcity of information or face trade sanctions? Sounds like fun.

I am incredibly glad to know this has not happened yet, because it can easily be the death of innovation. IP, being a completely artificial market that can only exist through state power, has been abused so much and so often (be it software patents or Oracle v. Google or how the damn happy birthday song or Martin Luther Kings "I Have a Dream" recording is still copyrighted) and I have no doubts that any global IP regime would see the rise of a generation of IP lawyers and the death of a generation of ingenuity in intellectual pursuits.

That is how a lot of these countries can get ahead. China's ability to outright ignore US IP law means it can rapidly innovate on foreign or domestic ideas without having to be constrained by what US companies allow.

Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

#82

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 10:06 PM UTC

hellbanner wrote: post #60

TeMPOraL wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reminds me of the conclusion I reached after hanging out with NWO conspiracy folks for a while. If what they say is true, it seems to me that those Rockefellers and Bilderberg group folks are the only people out there with a reasonable, good idea for the future. I only wish I knew how to join them.

What is their reasonable, good idea for the future, TeMPOral?

According to those conspiracy theorists I mention? Some things that they attribute to NWO and therefore want to fight against are: GMOs, vaccines, (moving away from fossil fuels to) nuclear energy, carbon tax, unified global government. Implementation may be tricky, but if you skip the accusations that They want to depopulate the world using above means, it seems like a bunch of pretty decent ideas for the future.

Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

#83

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 10:07 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #69

gcb0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

don't know why you're down voted, but your irony is correct. pot is still very much illegal on the federal level... that's important because that's the level that handle your taxes.

Your income taxes, yeah. Your sales tax, highway tolls, certifications (state car inspection, state certifications to operate certain businesses, etc) and additional resource taxes (gas tax, tobacco tax) are going to your state, and your property / zoning taxes are going to your principality. The federal level matters because it supplants state law. The FBI and other federal agents can arrest anyone in any state wher…

> The FBI and other federal agents can arrest anyone in any state where pot is legal statewide under federal law. You just get out of having local PD arresting you for it.

Not necessarily, as state (including) local agents can generally arrest you for violations of federal criminal law, too.

States, or local authorities within states, may deprioritize such arrests, or prohibit their officers from them entirely, for certain acts that are permitted by state but not federal law, but this is by no means guaranteed (and many local law enforcement agencies have continued to at least selectively make arrests under federal drug laws for marijuana even when the act involved was permitted under state law.)

Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

#84

Post by vgfbdgfhkzsdrhh » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 10:08 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #48

vgfbdgfhkzsdrhh wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Guardian article is intentionally misleading. All it says is that some large companies support the TPP, and some employees of those large companies donate to politicians' campaigns. The data don't show anything other than standard fundraising.

Come on dude, was that statement really so controversial you had to use a green account to make it? If you think there's nothing wrong with the status quo pipeline of corruption from corporate interests to political pockets, then have the courage of your convictions!

I didn't have an account before. For some reason, misinformation about campaign finance triggers me to speak up and try to correct it.

Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

#85

Post by snowwrestler » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 10:08 PM UTC

fweespeech wrote: post #61

thedaveoflife wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the best way to ensure access to medicine is by providing economic opportunities to the worlds most impoverished citizens. In other words, if the trade off is say a 10% increase in per capita GDP in exchange for less access to generics, maybe the former is better than the latter?

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/05/16-us-tr... > Economic modeling estimates that the benefits to the U.S. from the TPP will be $5 billion in 2015, rising to $14 billion in 2025 Yeah, its not worth it. Btw US GDP is ~$16 trillion. This isn't going to move the meter at all. Its primarily about securing foreign IP rights for US companies, Obama's legacy, and strategic influence.

I think the parent meant 10% GDP growth in the other (non-U.S.) countries.

Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

#86

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 10:10 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #63

TeMPOraL wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you'd scale that up to the entire country. But maybe not even then. You vote for the candidate that can best convince you to vote for them. So this is the metric the system will optimize for. Politicians that make good decisions or stick to their principles get outcompeted by those who focus on marketing themselves and pandering to the public. Even if you make the electorate more educated and engaged, this wi…

It also does nothing to correct the apathetic public we have had for the past... sixty? Years. The incredible amount of gerrymandering done to rig the house of representatives is incredible, and the Senate is already inherently biased because its giving every voter in Wyoming 67 times the influence of a voter of California. Unsurprisingly, Wyoming has not elected a non-Republican senator in over fifty years. It shoul…

Apathy may be something that grows with time as well. It seems to me (though I don't have much evidence to back it up so I welcome being shown I'm wrong) that a lifespan of a functioning democracy is ~100 years. The people who shed blood for it care. Their children are taught to care as well. But the grand-grand-children, born into a working system, don't have any context of how it was before that would give them motivation to care and perform required maintenance. And then, the system starts to degrade.

Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

#87

Post by amirmc » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 10:10 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #74

themgt wrote: post #34

When the director of policy for Doctors Without Borders tells the public that "U.S. negotiators have basically functioned as drug lobbyists" and "We consider this the worst-ever agreement in terms of access to medicine", there's really little more that needs saying. I love that the best defense unnamed "U.S. officials" can offer is that "major compromises" will likely still be made. In other words: yes we're acting a…

I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-ending weight here. They do noble work, but their interest is the well-being of people outside the U.S. The best case scenario for them is U.S. companies doing all the expensive R&D, and their patients outside the U.S. getting the resulting drugs for free. The USTR, in contrast, has the sole responsibility of maximizing the benefit to the U…

Your comment seems to conflate 'our', 'us' and 'we' with the drug companies themselves. There should be more to such negotiations than just whatever is in the (self)interest of US-based drug companies.

That all this seems to be happening behind closed doors doesn't inspire confidence.

Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

#88

Post by biggerbob » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 10:11 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #62

jessaustin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, for one, am glad to learn that we can fix all this by voting more often, or better, or whatever. Now that I think back, my junior high civics class taught me the same thing!

I am sensing sarcasm, so I just want to point to the 2014 primary turnout numbers. Less than 18% [1] of total eligible voters cast a ballot in the 2014 primary elections. When you have that much apathy, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to sway elections with a few million dollars. [1] - http://humanevents.com/2014/10/08/republican-2014-primary-tu...

Maybe the low numbers don't indicate apathy, but a lack of appealing choices.

"Hey! Do you want to be shit on or pissed on?" "Um, neither." Not apathy.

Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

#89

Post by pdeuchler » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 10:12 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #74

themgt wrote: post #34

When the director of policy for Doctors Without Borders tells the public that "U.S. negotiators have basically functioned as drug lobbyists" and "We consider this the worst-ever agreement in terms of access to medicine", there's really little more that needs saying. I love that the best defense unnamed "U.S. officials" can offer is that "major compromises" will likely still be made. In other words: yes we're acting a…

I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-ending weight here. They do noble work, but their interest is the well-being of people outside the U.S. The best case scenario for them is U.S. companies doing all the expensive R&D, and their patients outside the U.S. getting the resulting drugs for free. The USTR, in contrast, has the sole responsibility of maximizing the benefit to the U…

Big fan of your comments usually, so it's disappointing to see such a specious argument. Not only is this a false dichotomy (free drugs vs getting paid fairly), it's dramatically removed from reality.

Currently, without the TPP, the large pharmaceutical companies make billions in profit every year even including the rampant "piracy" in countries like India and China.

Or, with the TPP, all of those generics go poof, billions lose legal access to modern drugs, and pharmaceutical companies increase profits by 30, maybe 40 percent?

Of course that slack will get taken up by USAID, like you said, which means that now American tax payers will be on the hook to provide medicine that is now more expensive because our own government made them so.

Doesn't really add up, does it?

Re: Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

#90

Post by gress » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 10:12 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #26

brudgers wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been several carefully crafted changes to the language of American politics over the past twenty-five years and "citizen" has been replaced by "taxpayer" [1] as the relevant political constituency. Since corporations ostensibly pay taxes, their personhood has been lifted. Likewise, since wealthy individuals tend to pay more taxes on an absolute basis (despite an increasingly regressive system) their interests…

I think you are letting the citizenry off the hook for their part in this. The only reason corporations gained this power is because they have more collective money (or at least are more willing to use that money) to lobby. The only reason lobbying works is because politicians need money to get elected. The only reason politicians need money to get elected is because people are so susceptible to political marketing.…

You make it sound as though being easily manipulated by people with a lot of resources is a character flaw, rather than a characteristic of all humans throughout history.

It is unlikely (and maybe even undesirable) that we are going to be able to easily overcome our inherent susceptibility to influence. Therefore if we are to improve things we must recognize that this is part of who we are, and design our institutions accordingly.