Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 181 posts

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

#91

Post by bediger4000 »

rayiner wrote: post #77
phkahler wrote: post #59

"The Obama administration often describes TPP as the most progressive free-trade deal in history" Does anyone see stronger government enforced monopolies (patents) as the opposite of free trade?

All property is a government enforced monopoly. Without property there is no trade. There is no reason to transact when you can just take or copy.

You've written this, or something similar, before. It's kind of disingenuous.

For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine.

Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it. Is my fantastic new way of rigging sails being infringed upon by some "pirate" on Lake Michigan? I can't tell. My sailboat still have the fantastic new way of rigging, so I'm fat dumb and happy. I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me.

I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly". Yes, some laws around property need to be in place, and governments need to enforce them. There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist.

As far as "just copy", well, I'm using my capital (expensive computer) to manufacture those copies myself, should I actually do that. The enforcers now need to keep me from using my capital in a way that I control. That's another significant difference you're glossing over.

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

#92

Post by vgfbdgfhkzsdrhh »

gcb0 wrote: post #15
thisisdallas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm by no means a progressive democrat and I am certainly no fan of Obama. In saying that, it's absolutely necessary to understand republicans are pushing for this just as much as democrats. It's not a red vs. blue issue, it's a red and blue issue. To answer your question, there are probably many reasons, but one reason is because corporations are paying politicians. Here is a story from The Guardian that explains th…

no matter how much you care. if politicians can only run a campaign with millions of dollars, and that amount only come from corporations, and the corporations can see who voted on what it wanted, then the public is largely removed from politics.

It is illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians. 61% of raised funds come from individuals donating up to $2600 each. 23% come from PACs (which themselves may only raise money from individuals, not corporations), and the rest comes from self-funding and political party committees.

Edit: These numbers are from 2010 congressional elections. Also it's illegal for federal elections. State elections have their own rules.

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

#93

Post by ytdht »

phkahler wrote: post #59

"The Obama administration often describes TPP as the most progressive free-trade deal in history" Does anyone see stronger government enforced monopolies (patents) as the opposite of free trade?

You can insert a logical not in front of anything important that Obama says and only then, you get the intended meaning.

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

#94

Post by tomp »

rayiner wrote: post #77
phkahler wrote: post #59

"The Obama administration often describes TPP as the most progressive free-trade deal in history" Does anyone see stronger government enforced monopolies (patents) as the opposite of free trade?

All property is a government enforced monopoly. Without property there is no trade. There is no reason to transact when you can just take or copy.

That's a rather empty argument. Sure, protection intellectual "property" is important for encouraging innovation, but the length of protection must be carefully balanced to prevent rent-seeking (resting on laurels of past innovation). Currently, the terms are ridiculous for many categories (software patents, copyright). In particular, there's nothing that "encourages innovation" when terms get extended retroactively (for existing innovations).

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

#95

Post by vacri »

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…

> is U.S. companies doing all the expensive R&D

And they're certainly not struggling despite that; not sure why they need a treaty to 'protect' them.

> It's in our interest if people outside the U.S. have to pay us a bunch of money to get the drugs we invent.

Only if you think dollars are the only important thing. Plenty of people see welfare (including foreigners) as being a worthy thing in its own right.

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

#96

Post by fixxer »

zanny wrote: post #75
fixxer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not poor and I'm against the TPP. My opinion has nothing to do with how it treats the poor. I don't like how it empowers corporate interests at the expense of individual rights.

Poor is relative. The rich at war with everyone are not the 6 figure developers, or even the one-time cashout millionaires who sell their startup to Google. Its the billionaires who control entire swathes of global industry and are ego tripping power maniacs who are addicted to it. Its the Waltons and Kochs, not the Carmacks and Grams. Its even more the dynasties whose names are not national news because they own eve…

My point is that the narrative for my dissent from a bill with strong GOP support is that it violates individual freedom. You might argue semantics, but I claim my motivation has nothing to do with social justice in the progressive sense and everything to do with freedom.

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

#97

Post by Taniwha »

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…

I live in New Zealand - we've chosen to have socialised medicine - we buy drugs in bulk, for the whole country - it gives the national drug buying agency lots of market power - it doesn't force drug companies to sell to us under cost - but it does pick and choose hich drugs it buys with its limited budget - if they want our business they have to compete with other companies in front of a knowledgable experienced buyer acting on our behalf.

No one here is getting drugs for free, just at reasonable prices that may not be available in the US

TPP as currently written will neuter this advantage costing us billions that will come out of my taxes

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

#98

Post by jameshart »

aqme28 wrote: post #27
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…

More noticeably, "people" has been replaced with "citizen." The bill of rights specifically delineates protections that apply to "people" and protections that apply to "citizens." The dialogue is often about civil rights violations of American citizens, but the original language is more often "people." From Yick Wo v. Hopkins The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are no…

As a non-citizen residing in the US, I find this phenomenon particularly noticeable. Like when Dzhokar Tsarnaev was arrested for the Boston bombing and the question of whether he should have his Miranda rights read to him was discussed in the media, the argument seemed to generally hinge on 'but he's a US citizen', as if, if he weren't, obviously this conversation wouldn't be worth having; or when the nature of US drone strikes comes up, and people express specific outrage that drone strikes have been used to assassinate "US Citizens abroad", as if that somehow changes things.

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

#99

Post by harryh »

Taniwha wrote: post #97
rayiner wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I live in New Zealand - we've chosen to have socialised medicine - we buy drugs in bulk, for the whole country - it gives the national drug buying agency lots of market power - it doesn't force drug companies to sell to us under cost - but it does pick and choose hich drugs it buys with its limited budget - if they want our business they have to compete with other companies in front of a knowledgable experienced buye…

That sounds like a great reason for New Zealand to not enter the partnership. I don't see why it's a reason for the US to object?

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

#100

Post by dragonwriter »

bediger4000 wrote: post #91
rayiner wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All property is a government enforced monopoly. Without property there is no trade. There is no reason to transact when you can just take or copy.

You've written this, or something similar, before. It's kind of disingenuous. For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine. Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it. Is my fantastic new wa…

> For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine.

You've confused possession with ownership. If you loan it to someone -- or someone steals it -- you won't find it in your pocket, you won't possess it, but you will still own it.

Ownership is a relation created in law. It is different than possession. In fact, its a meaningful concept only because it can differ from possession.

> Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it.

That's very much true of lots of real property (and even of tangible personal property that you don't keep in your possession). If I have real property spread around the different states -- and tangible personal property on the grounds of each of those real properties -- it takes a considerable policing effort to tell if the exclusive legal rights I have to those items which make them property are being infringed.

> I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me.

That's true, again, of all kinds of property in general, real property, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property other than intellectual property in general.

The tangible personal property you happen to keep in your immediate possession is actually the exception here, not the norm with property. Largely, the whole point of ownership existing as a legal relationship beyond mere possession is to enable people to have control of things that aren't under their immediate supervision all the time.

> I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement

And, in general, you are wrong. What you are pointing to is just largely true of physical property (real and tangible personal property) as of intangible personal property in general and intellectual property in particular.

> I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly".

Government enforced monopoly is exactly the defining characteristic of all property. So, its not a bad term to use for intellectual property, its just a mistake to use that to indicate something that is supposedly distinct about intellectual property as opposed to true of all property.

> There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist.

There are differences in the steps taken to for enforcement between every pair of categories of property (this is just as true between tangible personal property and real property as between tangible personal property and intellectual property.)

Its these kind of distinctions that are a big part of the reason that we name different categories of property in the first place; if they were all identical, rather than subcategories of a common higher-level categories, we wouldn't need named types.

Post reply on HN