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

151–160 of 181 posts

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

#151

Post by wfo »

hackuser wrote: post #45
fixxer wrote: post #2

Can a progressive democrat please explain to me why their hero is supporting this? PS To those trying to claim he isn't a progressive... Obama may not be the progressive you want, but he is the one you deserve.

Obama is not a progressive and I don't think he's been particularly supported by progressives (other than the fact that they tend to vote for Democrats). The possible exception is his initial campaign when he was an unknown quantity and, like all such politicians, everyone projected their "Hope" onto him.

The 'you projected your hope onto him' suggestion is popular but doesn't really hold water. He explicitly said things that he did a 180 on. Many of them. For some I'm sure they projected hope on him, but many others who voted for him were just straight up betrayed.

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

#152

Post by vacri »

brudgers wrote: post #20
dmitrygr wrote: post #11

I, for one, am glad to know that that interests of everyone important are well protected in this treaty. I just wish I knew how to join this class of people who are important. Apparently being a citizen is not enough anymore.

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carefully crafted changes to the language of American politics over the past twenty-five years and "citizen" has been replaced by "taxpayer" [1] as the relevant political constituency.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…

> "citizen" has been replaced by "taxpayer"

"When someone describes themselves as a taxpayer, they're about to be an asshole" - Demetri Martin

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

#153

Post by indrax »

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.

Payment for services.

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

#155

Post by ytdht »

ytdht wrote: post #93
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.

of course, that is a generalized statement... and doesn't always hold true, probably...

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

#156

Post by ScottBurson »

Animats wrote: post #79

The article missed some of the other giveaways to Big Pharma. One is a narrowing of the patent obviousness requirement for "me-too" drugs. Claritin (loratidine) is the classic example. Loratidine is a stereoisomer; there's a left handed and a right handed version of the molecule. One has an anti-allergy effect, and the other doesn't seem to do much. (That's very common; biology isn't symmetrical at the molecular leve…

Is it really clear that the draft TPP language quoted here would reverse the Clarinex decision? It seems to me that the phrase "involves an inventive step" would permit challenges based on obviousness. See for example [0]. While what is "obvious" and what is "inventive" can always be debated, I don't see that this language alters the ground on which that debate will play out.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...

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

#157

Post by pvg »

rayiner wrote: post #114
tomp wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's an orthogonal point. You could make a similar argument for private land ownership (why should someone be able to keep a parcel in his ownership for decades if he doesn't plan to use it?)

Wouldn't that argument just reinforce the comment's point? Land ownership is heavily regulated - taxes, zoning, easements, eminent domain and so on.

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

#158

Post by indrax »

tptacek wrote: post #149
dublinben wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>why should someone be able to keep a parcel in his ownership for decades if he doesn't plan to use it? He shouldn't. Next question?

My next question would be "what is a persuasive argument against intellectual property for those of us who don't reject the concept of private property altogether?"

Do you have a persuasive (to you) argument for it?

Is the structure of that argument the same as the structure of your argument for physical property? (in which case my argument would be that there are very relevant differences)

There are pragmatic arguments against it: The costs copyright and patents impose on the market are huge. Not the prices, but all the good things that become difficult or illegal to do.

On principle: even if an IP system has some practical benefit, we usually set a pretty high bar for restricting people's communication or creativity. Is copying properly up there with fraud and slander?

I think we can come up with much better ways to pay for art. (Kickstarter is one.)

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

#159

Post by kr4 »

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…

It seems that the TPP, TTIP and TiSA are not about the sort of “free trade” that would free local businesses to sell abroad. They are about freeing international corporations from the government regulation necessary to protect the economy, the people, and the environment. They are about preserving privatized monopolies and preventing competition from the public sector. And they are about moving litigation offshore into private arbitrary tribunals

What is going on was predicted by David Korten in his 1995 blockbuster, When Corporations Rule The World. Catherine Austin Fitts calls it a “corporate coup d’état.”

This corporate coup includes the privatization and offshoring of the judicial function [0] delegated to the US court system in the Constitution, through Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions that strengthen existing ISDS procedures.

As explained in The Economist [1], ISDS gives foreign firms a special right to apply to a secretive tribunal of highly paid corporate lawyers for compensation whenever the government passes a law to do things that hurt corporate profits — such things as discouraging smoking, protecting the environment or preventing a nuclear catastrophe. Arbitrators are paid $600-700 an hour, giving them little incentive to dismiss cases. The secretive nature of the arbitration process and the lack of any requirement to consider precedent give wide scope for creative judgments – the sort of arbitrary edicts satirized by Lewis Carroll in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

To date, the highest ISDS award has been for $2.3 billion to Occidental Oil Company against the government of Ecuador over its termination of an oil-concession contract, although the termination was apparently legal. Under the TPP, however, even larger and more unpredictable judgments can be anticipated, since the sort of “investment” it protects includes not just “the commitment of capital or other resources” but “the expectation of gain or profit.” That means the rights of corporations extend not merely to their factories and other “capital” but to the profits they expect to receive. Just the threat of a massive damage award for impairing “expected corporate profits” could be enough to discourage prospective legislation by lawmakers.

0]: http://ellenbrown.com/2015/04/24/the-trans-pacific-partnersh...

1]: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756...

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

#160

Post by Alupis »

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…

There's also the fact that the Executive branch (for current and all future Presidents) has just greatly expanded it's power, and snubbed out Congress' ability to stone-wall any trade deals they don't agree with (via amendments, etc...).

Obama likes to constantly state that he will act because Congress "refuses" to... which completely ignores the fact that Congress' "lack" of action is exactly what they are supposed to do when there is no agreement on an issue. Just because Congress doesn't execute the President's will doesn't mean Congress is wrong!

Now the Executive branch gets to unilaterally decide what trade agreements are good for the nation (and that usually means which big lobbying firm courted the Executive branch the best) -- that doesn't sound very democratic to me.

Post reply on HN