Trans Pacific Partnership - continuing the conservative assault on working people

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Aegon Spengler, Jun 25, 2015.

  1. Rod1

    Rod1 Titanium Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    41,929
    Likes Received:
    26,216
    Location:
    Sonora, Mexico.
    So 40 years it is now? based on what exactly?

    Where does it says "they are the ones that wrote the US parts of the TPP" and what do you mean with "we dictated the terms" and "We dictate where the negotiations go"?

    Yes, because they were the ones that the US wanted. I dont understand how that validates the notion that "US oligarchs wrote the TPP".

    The US was not going to benefit as much as Vietnam because the US already has good trade relations with most countries in the TPP.

    The US wanted some leverage on the smaller countries which still have not fully adopted international regulations on medicine and patents, and most likely as a way to curb patent violations in countries which are still under Chinese economic clout.

    Here

    You claimed that the US healthcare nightmare was going to be exported into other countries. The nightmare model where drugs get jacked to infinity and beyond, despite the fact

    You also failed to realize that a lot of the drugs that Valeant jacked up are also off-patent. You have not provided any evidence on how the TPP was going to increase prices elsewhere due to "patents" while showing complete ignorance on how other countries patent systems work.

    Assuming they find a new valid use for said medicine and assuming it gets approved, and assuming there are no valid alternatives.

    Glad we agree that the fucked up US drug prices have absolutely nothing to do with the TPP.

    You also used Valeant who jacked up a lot of pharmaceutics which were off-patent.

    It does, it was one of the provisions of NAFTA and patents in Mexico already last 20 years.

    http://www.mondaq.com/mexico/x/6221...cal+IP+And+Competition+Law+In+Mexico+Overview

    Not to mention that absolutely none of that applies to the examples you put forward.

    Which is what its fair for a patent protected medicine.

    TPP does nothing against the bulk (99%+) medicines that are already off-patent.
     
    IGIT likes this.
  2. mon

    mon Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,251
    Likes Received:
    1,665
    Location:
    everywhere
    This by 1000, absolutely mind boggling.
     
  3. Anung Un Rama

    Anung Un Rama The Right Hand of Doom Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    61,672
    Likes Received:
    45,307
    Location:
    22 Acacia Avenue
    mayne you should read up on this if you don’t know what you’re talking about, or just ask simple questions without the inaccurate assumptions and insults. If Drug a is approved for indication 1 and is patent protected for 20 years, but 15 years into that patent it is approved for a second indication, the patent could be extended. Also, if a patent is approved, but the drug isn’t released for x years do to other factors (which is actually the norm) the clock I’ll it’s patent is delayed, thereby extendknf it’s patent. Those are just 2 examples of how this would work.

    if you think this stuff works differently then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
    It means exactly that.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    and that leverage must have been more valuable in the long run.



    No. You are just jumping to conclusions like a maniac trying to win this argument and your fucking wrong. I didn fail to realize anything. Your failing to comprehend because you don’t know wtf you’re taking about. Remember what I said about dalaprim being practically an orphan drug? That is exactly what Valeant did. Making an orphan drug is not disimilar to having a patent on a new molecule. You essentially own that marketplace. this has nothing to do with the fda. The fda has no authority in Chile. The TPP would have been that authority.



    Yeah, let’s assume that....



    Glad you found an excuse to exercise your inferiority complex in this post.


    as an example of abuse. See above.


    Please quote and translate where it offers 20 year patent extensions for new indications.



    ]Which is what its fair for a patent protected medicine.

    Nobody said it did.
     
  4. Rod1

    Rod1 Titanium Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    41,929
    Likes Received:
    26,216
    Location:
    Sonora, Mexico.
    And that already exists in current treaties like NAFTA, but that doesn't happens as much as you would think because they need to provide evidence of a brand new invention for the same product.

    I know things work differently because I follow financial news and the TPP isn't anything nefarious of special at all.

    So you are indeed saying that US oligarchs are dictating healthcare policy for ALL nations of the TPP, but when pressed about it you deny it like a bitch and claim US hate?

    For the smaller upcoming nations? sure, for the rest of the nations with decades of established and developed international trade and treaties? not really.

    Orphan drugs which had already had their patents run out already.

    If they spent tons of research to create a new process or a new use for an existing drug, then they deserve to get their patent extended, at least for the new treatment, I don't see how it contravenes already existing patent legislation.

    It also doesn't means that the original treatment gets its patent extended.

    The evra patch for example already uses an existing medication but the delivery method is still patented, that doesn't means contraceptive pills are patented back again, merely the patches method is.

    The FDA doesn't has any authority on Chile and neither would the TPP, the Chilean health authorities would still hold the final word, the TPP only introduced guidelines in which such patents would be extended but that was it.

    Also Valeant was jacking up medicines that were already off-patent. So how would the TPP new guidelines prevent it?

    How come? are you saying that the US pharma industry isn't beyond fucked up?


    In theory, the life term of a patent can be extended under certain international treaties (for example, the North America Free Trade Association (NAFTA)), where the health authority has delayed the process to obtain a marketing authorisation for a patented product. However, in practice no-one has yet attempted this. We would suggest that anyone seeking to extend the life term of a patent on these grounds would need to argue that the international law has supremacy over Mexico's domestic legislation. In relation to data package exclusivity, COFEPRIS has recently provided some recognition of data package exclusivity according to international treaties.

    Where in the TPP does it says that drugs can have their patents extended up to 40 years?
     
  5. Anung Un Rama

    Anung Un Rama The Right Hand of Doom Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    61,672
    Likes Received:
    45,307
    Location:
    22 Acacia Avenue
    The TPP’s IP Chapter Imposes Longer, Broader, and Stronger Patent Monopolies on Medicines
    The TPP’s IP Chapter contains final provisions that (1) weaken standards of patentability, leading to more patents; (2) extend patent terms to compensate for delays in granting patents or registering marketing approval; (3) adopt new exclusive rights relating to undisclosed registration-related/clinical-trial data; (4) prevent or interfere with the registration of generics where patents are claimed; and (5) enhance patent infringement remedies.

    In general, weak standards of patentability, the criteria upon which patents are granted, make it easier to get initial patents—the first 20 years of exclusive rights; weak standards also encourage seeking multiple secondary patents that further extend the period of exclusivity. Using weak patent standards, drug companies can obtain “secondary,” 20-year patents on minor variations of an active ingredient, new formulations and dosages, new uses or methods of use (indications), and new processes of synthesis and manufacture. In the pharmaceutical industry, pursuit of secondary patents is positively framed as patent life-cycle management; in the access-to-medicines world it is criticized as manipulative evergreening [10].

    The TPP imposes weakened standard of patentability in two ways. First, it defines “obviousness,” the real meat of the inventiveness inquiry, to eliminate countries’ right to require that an invention have a significant technological advantage as assessed by persons “highly” skilled in the relevant arts. Second, the TPP mandates that countries allow patents on new uses or methods or process of use of known medicines, even though research and development costs are significantly lower for a medicine already known to be safe and even though the search for new indications is more a function of routine, plodding investigation than “inventive-step” science [11]. The consequences of weak standards of patentability can be quite significant. For example, there are over 800 different families of patents on the antiretroviral booster, ritonavir [12], and its period of exclusivity had been extended for decades [13]. Such extended periods of exclusivity can have significant cost implications [14].

    The TPP lengthens pharmaceutical monopolies in other ways. For example, if there is an unreasonable delay in the granting of a patent (within five years of the filing of a patent application or within three years after a request for patent examination) then the patent term must be adjusted to compensate for the delay. In addition, the TPP requires patent terms adjustments to compensate for delays in the marketing approval process. A study from the US on the impact of patent term extensions found that they add an average of 3.6 years to the period of exclusivity and might account for nearly 20% of pharmaceutical sales in the US [15].

    The TPP creates additional forms of monopoly protection by requiring countries to adopt data/marketing exclusivity restrictions like those applied in the US [16]. Accordingly, when a pharmaceutical product involving a new chemical entity receives marketing approval, the relevant drug regulatory authority and generic applicants cannot refer to or rely on the undisclosed regulatory data submitted by the originator, nor on the fact of the prior registration, to assess the therapeutic equivalence of the follow-on product for a minimum period of five years. This period of exclusivity can be extended by successive three-year periods each time the originator submits additional clinical information for a new use of the medicine. The TPP also imposes US-style patent-registration linkage (blockage of registration by the medicines regulatory authority), or requires notice to patent holders and timely access to judicial or administrative procedures for preventing market approval of a follow-on generic equivalent whenever a product patent is claimed.

    An even longer period of data/marketing exclusivity is required for biologics. Although there is no economic evidence justifying longer exclusivity for biologics [17], the US fought hard for twelve years of exclusivity. The parties settled on eight years of data exclusivity for biologics or five years followed by three years of equivalent market protection. Because biologics are a growing proportion of the market and are often significantly more expensive than small-molecule medicines, expanding exclusivity can have significant cost implications. There are several studies showing that data exclusivity raises prices and negatively impacts access to medicines [18].

    The Enforcement Section of the IP Chapter strengthens private enforcement of IP rights and imposes greater enforcement obligations on governments. It contains provisions requiring deterrent remedies, compelling the use of the rightholder’s retail price as a measure of damages, mandating injunctive relief, and banning reasonable royalties as an infringement remedy. Several of these proposals exceed US law [19]. TPP governments will also be required to adopt border control measures like those that interrupted lawful passage of generic medicines through Europe in 2008 and 2009 [20]. Fear of excess liability, injunctions, and border seizures can deter generics from marketing competing equivalents when there is even a slight risk of patent infringement enforcement.

    The Investment Chapter Grants Additional Enforcement Powers to IP Rightholders
    In the Investment Chapter, IP rights are defined as protected investments, and foreign IP investors are permitted to seek private arbitration through ISDS whenever they feel that their investments have been treated unfairly or inequitably, taken without compensation, or discriminated against. TPP member states can expect an avalanche of IP-related claims from disappointed pharmaceutical companies that think their legitimate expectations of future profits have been thwarted by foreign governments’ IP decisions or policies.

    The TPP’s Investment Chapter greatly expands the enforcement rights of foreign pharmaceutical companies, creating substantial risks to countries’ ability to set IP-related policy and to render IP decisions. The Investment Chapter unequivocally defines IP rights as “investments.” It prohibits the following: (1) discrimination against foreign IP investors, (2) unfair and inequitable treatment, and (3) indirect expropriation. More pointedly, it allows ISDS claims directly against governments before unreviewable three-person arbitration panels, even when judicial remedies have not been exhausted or when companies have lost on appeal. Foreign investors can bring ISDS claims that domestic investors cannot. Moreover, companies might claim—correctly or not—a lack of fair and equitable treatment that undermines their well-grounded expectations of profit with respect to many health-related regulatory and judicial decisions, including the following: denials or revocations of pharmaceutical patents; granting of compulsory licenses; denials or restrictions on marketing rights; refusals to list excessively priced, IP-protected products for reimbursement; decisions to establish price controls; and required disclosure of clinical trial data. Foreign companies might claim indirect expropriation following changes in regulatory environments, including changes designed to promote public health [21].

    The dangers of ISDS IP enforcement are highlighted in a US$500 million arbitration claim brought by Eli Lilly against the government of Canada under the North America Free Trade Agreement because it revoked patents on two medicines that Canada’s highest court had found failed to satisfy well-established standards of patentability in Canada [22]. Canada will have to spend millions of dollars to defend against this claim even if it ultimately wins, which is likely. The even greater danger is that other, poorer countries will be intimidated away from regulating or otherwise acting against the interests of foreign IP investors, even if they are doing so in a non-discriminatory fashion and in the interests of public health.

    Discussion
    Medical professionals, patients, and others concerned with access to medicines and enhanced generic competition might wonder whether there are justifications for a trade agreement that strengthens IP, investment, and regulatory-participation rights for the originator pharmaceutical industry. They might also wonder what alternative provisions should be in the TPP. The historic justification for longer, stronger, and broader IP protections for medicines is quite simple—they give rise to economic power to charge what the market will bear so that companies can earn extra profits that they thereafter invest to invent the next generation of life-enhancing medicines, including those for currently untreated or undertreated conditions [23]. As successful as the IP system might be for doing so—and this is highly disputed [24]—it surely comes at an enormous cost, one that is increasingly intolerable not only to US patients and payers but even more so to poorer populations and poor governments. This analysis concludes, at the very least, that the TPP should not require greater patent, data, and enforcement protections than those prescribed by TRIPS, and instead that it should clarify and endorse greater adoption and use of allowable flexibilities. An even more far-reaching approach, one that cannot be fully developed here, would encourage greater government investment in and regulation of research and development (R&D) with the aim of fully supporting innovation, including clinical trials, while at the same time preserving policy space to ensure competitive access to new medical technologies and their rapid dissemination throughout the world. If one regards medicines as global public goods [25] and agrees that access to the tools of health create both individual and communal benefits, then one might support trade policies that delink the need for R&D resources from monopoly protections that result in access-prohibitive prices [26], not only for developing countries but increasingly for rich countries as well.

    IP maximization in the TPP will harm access to more affordable medicines in both the US and its trading partners. Policy space on both sides of the Pacific will be reduced while opportunities for excessive pricing will increase dramatically with predictable adverse consequence for the right to health. Armed with knowledge about the details of the TPP’s anti-access provisions, there is still time for health advocates to convince the US Congress and TPP partners that the TPP’s monopoly-enhancing measures must be rejected.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783061/#pmed.1001970.ref015

    The Value of Patent Term Extensions to the Pharmaceutical Industry in the USA
    In the last 20 or so years various kinds of exclusivity have been introduced in the US, which go beyond the basic patent protection. The most important of these is patent term restoration, but other new incentives introduced include the paediatric extension, exclusivity for drugs with limited patient populations (orphan drugs) and data exclusivity. Since 1988 over 500 products have benefited from patent term restoration and over 130 from the paediatric extension. Of the 40 best selling products in the US in 2006, 26 benefited from patent term restoration and 19 from the paediatric extension, with 29 products benefiting from one or both. The overall impact on these 29 was to increase average effective patent life from 9.2 to 12.8 years, an increase of over three and a half years. About 39 per cent of the top 40 sales of over US$100bn were contributed by patent extensions. It is estimated that patent extensions could account for about 20 per cent of total US pharmaceutical sales in 2006. Although patent term extensions are currently a sizeable contributor to the gross sales revenues of pharmaceutical companies, the evidence suggests that this contribution will fall significantly in the future, principally as a result of the decline in the number of new chemical entities receiving marketing authorisation. The evidence suggests that the US legislation has been more successful in incentivising the generic market, and that while research-based manufacturers have benefited from patent term extensions, these have not prevented the difficulties they now face which derive from more fundamental economic and technological challenges.
    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1057/jgm.2008.6
     
  6. Rod1

    Rod1 Titanium Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    41,929
    Likes Received:
    26,216
    Location:
    Sonora, Mexico.
    Link to the TPP where it puts patent restoration to older existing treatments.

    Also as i said before, there is nothing wrong with patenting new applications of the same medicine, it helps innovation.
     
    IGIT likes this.
  7. Anung Un Rama

    Anung Un Rama The Right Hand of Doom Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    61,672
    Likes Received:
    45,307
    Location:
    22 Acacia Avenue
    TPP weakens that. See post above this.

    Sure. I'm sure there is no corruption at all. I'm sure the poor get just as much consideration as the rich...

    lol, you've made up my position on this and when I've clarified it several times you still deliberately misrepresent my position, so I'm not arguing this point anymore. I wasn't arguing it in that last post either.
    You can make up whatever you want and assume you won this part of the argument.
    .
    Then why did they sign it when the US was involved and drop it when they were out? It must not have benefitted them at all if they dropped it, but were willing to sign it when the US was involved.

    Nobody said anything to the contrary. Do you know what an orphan drug is?

    Because they don't have to spend tons to do so. They spend a fraction of the costs that got them the original patent, but get an extension as if they created a new molecule.

    You're right. But the drug is still patented due to new indications so a generis cannot be brought to market.


    Thats not how it works. For one, Ortho-Evra has already gone generic. Secondly, The drugs in Ortho-Evra are not new molecules. The hormones in this product are decades old and wouldn't apply.
    However, if Ortho-Evra held the original patent for this particular progestin/ estradiol combination then theoretically each subsequent indication and formulation change could result in an additional 20 year patent extension. Conversion to tablet - 20 years extension. Indicated for migraine prophylaxis: 20 year extension, endometriosis: 20 year extension.

    If Chile signed the TPP and they allowed a generic for Januvia to hit the market before its patent was up they would be sued to Bolivia by Merck in an ISDS tribunal and lose.

    I know you're not stupid, so why do you keep acting stupid?

    Valeant bough orphan drugs or drugs that were near orphan status. An orphan drug is a drug that is essential to treat diseases that don't effect that many people. Because they don't affect that many people, they are not financially attractive to pharmaceutical companies. So, the government gives them incentives to produce the medication. I can't think of 1 orphan drug that is produced by more than 1 company (I don't remember if its even legally possible). They hold a monopoly on that drug. Just like a pharmaceutical company that brings an innovative molecule to the market. They were able to jack up the price of that drug and insurance companies were forced to pay it, or patients without insurance or that kind of coverage were forced to into financial crisis or go without their medication. Other pharmaceutical companies are following suit, and not just with orphan drugs. Mylan CEO was brought in front of congress for price gouging on the epi-pen. I am a healthcare professional and I see these drugs, even very common, traditionally inexpensive drugs increasing exponentially in price. Its frightening.

    Well played. I retract my comment.




    Thank you. TPP would supercede this, just like it would supercede the WTO and TRIPS.

    Read post above this.[/quote]
     
  8. Anung Un Rama

    Anung Un Rama The Right Hand of Doom Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    61,672
    Likes Received:
    45,307
    Location:
    22 Acacia Avenue
    There is none. Link to where it was suggested TPP puts patent restoration to older existing treatments?
     
  9. Anung Un Rama

    Anung Un Rama The Right Hand of Doom Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    61,672
    Likes Received:
    45,307
    Location:
    22 Acacia Avenue
    So you no longer agree with this statement from page 6:
     
  10. IGIT

    IGIT Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,342
    Likes Received:
    2,151
    hi again AUR!

    sorry for the lag in response time. i had a murderous weekend and had gigs to shoot.

    yes.

    this is the problem, not the TPP.

    and that is what has to change, Anuung. wonks (of one political persuasion or another) and the elite (on both sides of the political spectrum) are always going to write the legislation.

    the people still have to vote on it.

    where will the gains in the TPP go? that is your concern. or at least, that should be your concern.

    tax policy.

    fiscal policy.

    not the TPP.

    but you cannot stop globalism. or progress. if the US textile industry hadn't of gone to Asia, one of two things would have happened;

    a) US textile mills stay in the US and retain US workers....and become tremendously handicapped, globally. c'est la vie, US textile mill.

    b) the US textile mill becomes almost completely automated, since its decided to stay in the US and wishes to remain in business.

    its a tangential fight to what? lol. a trade deal is unrelated to wealth distribution.

    the huge fight has actually been fought, as you noted. and its been lost.

    its a drag, really.

    - IGIT
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
  11. IGIT

    IGIT Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,342
    Likes Received:
    2,151
    hi mon,

    why is IP protection so mind boggling?

    like, why is the idea of patents and copyrights so insane to all of you?

    - IGIT
     
  12. VivaRevolution

    VivaRevolution Whoopin' Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    17,901
    Likes Received:
    16,521
    Hey IGIT

    I'm going to have to do a thread on this very topic here soon.

    Even I cede the ground that globalism is inevitable, but a conversation we recently had, has forced me to re-evaluate that. The conversation about how global trade is a major driver in carbon emissions.

    Isn't local production and delivery what is actually inevitable?

    Isn't efficiency the end goal, and therefore local production most efficient?

    3-D printers are a good example of this. As the means of production become more effficient and cheap, the end result is actually a very localized economy, not a global one. When you can produce 50% of consumer products with a 3-D printer, the means of production has become so cheap, it doesn't make sense to centralize production as our economy is built today.
     
  13. IGIT

    IGIT Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,342
    Likes Received:
    2,151
    hello VivaRevolution,

    if most of the production is done via some form of robotics? i think so, maybe.

    at that point it'll come down to the environmental costs, and which nation is willing to degrade its air and water the most.

    corporations are always going to seek the lowest cost of production, the same way you and i shop for the best price when we're buying something that we're enthused about.

    - IGIT
     
  14. mon

    mon Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,251
    Likes Received:
    1,665
    Location:
    everywhere
    On my phone so its painful...

    Old but still mostly relevant.
    mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-16/verrender-the-tpp-has-the-potential-for-real-harm/6321538?pfmredir=sm

    The irony is that a patent essentially limits free trade.

    The other major issue revolves around what is known as investor state dispute settlements. These clauses open the door to foreign companies to launch legal action against a democratically elected government, thereby undermining sovereign rights.


    Who the fuck sells away your countries own right to make its own laws? See below for an example with real implications now.

    "This has become a common inclusion in free trade agreements in recent years. The most celebrated case is being fought between tobacco giant Philip Morris and the Australian government over plain packaging of cigarettes.

    Should it win here, it will strengthen its case to continue selling tobacco - an addictive drug that kills vast numbers of people - around the globe."


    https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/03/new-apri-report-australias-skilled-migration-con/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily MacroBusiness&utm_content=Daily MacroBusiness+CID_865c74c694734c6479ebd9370720b261&utm_source=Email marketing software&utm_term=New APRI report Australias skilled migration is a con

    Late last year, the Peterson Institute for International Economics released modelling showing that the original TPP including the US would have boosted Australia’s national income by $19 billion (0.6%) and lifted exports by another $37 billion by 2030, whereas a TPP without the US would increase national income by 0.5% and exports by $29 billion by 2030.


    Given that Australia’s real gross national income has increased on average by 0.9% each quarter since 1959, we are talking about a boost to national income equivalent to only around 1.5 months of output over more than a decade. Whoopdee do.

    Moreover, separate modelling by the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University actually found that the TPP (including the US) “would lead to losses in employment and increases in inequality”, with employment in Australia estimated to contract by 39,000 jobs:



    There are also several potential costs that are unlikely to have been captured by the TPP modelling. These include Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions – which would open the door to multinational companies suing the Australian Government for implementing rules against their interests (e.g. on environmental, health and safety grounds) – as well as extensions to patent and copyright protections.

    Wont attempt to find it on my phone but our government paid for a study and its conclusion was it would cost us billions in lawsuits. I.e plain packaging on cigerettes.

    The TPP will also commit Australia to allowing the employment of workers from six new countries – namely Mexico, Chile, Japan, Canada, Malaysia and Vietnam – without requiring them to first check if there is an Australian that could do the same job.

    This in a time of record low wages growth for years while our housing market becomes nigh impossible for our children to enter.

    So, effectively Australia’s sovereignty and democracy is being sold down the river for tiny potential economic gains (and possible losses).


    Home
    Subscribe
    Already a member?
    Log in here

    MACROBUSINESS
    [paste:font size="5"]Unconventional Economist in Australian Economy

    at 11:30 am on March 6, 2018 | 10 comments

    By Leith van Onselen

    Australia’s trade minister, Steve Ciobo, will sign the revised Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in Chile this week, and preparation Ciobo is stepping-up the spin. From The Australian:

    “It’s a comprehensive high-quality deal. The more countries that join, the more momentum it will create, so you effectively get a feedback cycle. That is the intent of the TPP deal”…

    “On a sector-by-sector basis, some parts of our agricultural sector will enjoy more competitive and lower levels of tariff, and better access under TPP…

    Once signed, the TPP-11 will be examined by parliament’s joint standing committee on treaties, before going to the vote.

    Mr Ciobo challenged Labor to support the deal, saying freer trade was responsible for a significant slice of the 403,000 jobs created in Australia last year.

    “If they win government, they can seek to renegotiate any aspect they like. But they should not hold to ransom economic growth and future job growth by opposing what is a very good deal,” he said.

    Would Labor opposing the TPP really “hold to ransom economic growth and future job growth”?

    Late last year, the Peterson Institute for International Economics released modelling showing that the original TPP including the US would have boosted Australia’s national income by $19 billion (0.6%) and lifted exports by another $37 billion by 2030, whereas a TPP without the US would increase national income by 0.5% and exports by $29 billion by 2030.


    Given that Australia’s real gross national income has increased on average by 0.9% each quarter since 1959, we are talking about a boost to national income equivalent to only around 1.5 months of output over more than a decade. Whoopdee do.

    Moreover, separate modelling by the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University actually found that the TPP (including the US) “would lead to losses in employment and increases in inequality”, with employment in Australia estimated to contract by 39,000 jobs:

    [​IMG]

    There are also several potential costs that are unlikely to have been captured by the TPP modelling. These include Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions – which would open the door to multinational companies suing the Australian Government for implementing rules against their interests (e.g. on environmental, health and safety grounds) – as well as extensions to patent and copyright protections.

    The TPP will also commit Australia to allowing the employment of workers from six new countries – namely Mexico, Chile, Japan, Canada, Malaysia and Vietnam – without requiring them to first check if there is an Australian that could do the same job.

    So, effectively Australia’s sovereignty and democracy is being sold down the river for tiny potential economic gains (and possible losses).

    In any event, the Productivity Commission has previously called for greater oversight and scrutiny of FTAs before they are signed:

    The emerging and growing potential for trade preferences to impose net costs on the community presents a compelling case for the final text of an agreement to be rigorously analysed before signing. Analysis undertaken for the Japan-Australia agreement reveals a wide and concerning gap compared to the Commission’s view of rigorous assessment.

    Similarly, a Parliamentary committee slammed the lack of adequate “oversight and scrutiny” pertaining to the original TPP, and lamented that “parliament is faced with an all-or-nothing choice” on whether or not to approve trade agreements and can only officially review trade laws once they have officially passed


    This is too painful on a phone but I think you get the idea. Contary to the criticism I aim at the USA sometimes I support you as staunch allies. This does not mean I support being rogered by your various lobby groups hand puppets, presidents or by defacto the USA's australian hand puppets, our pm's

    Edit- sorry for the cluster fuck of a post
     
    Anung Un Rama likes this.
  15. IGIT

    IGIT Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,342
    Likes Received:
    2,151
    hi there mon,

    the US and China own the most intellectual property at the moment. the US spends almost half a trillion dollars per year on R&D, Australia spends 23 billion.

    i can understand why it would be great for many nations would just did away with the patents. i think it would also wonderful if the oil and natural gas that exists in Australia also belonged to everybody, and not just the Aussies.

    from a US perspective though, you could see why Americans would want their investment protected? afterall, not all R&D results in good fortune....very often, its money spent for naught, particularly for the final ailments that vex mankind.

    if you sign a trade agreement, and you violate that agreement - then the case goes before the WTO. what is the problem here?

    would you be surprised to know that Australia wins around 70% of their cases that come before the WTO - so what precisely is your complaint?

    i mean, lol, more often than not, the ISDS has protected Australia's economic interests.

    nothing sinister is going on.

    - IGIT
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  16. mon

    mon Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,251
    Likes Received:
    1,665
    Location:
    everywhere
    Being honest I couldnt care less about the patents its the other problems I pointed out that concern me.

    As for sinister, if you have nothing to hide why is it being hidden? Why isnt it on the table for us peasants to view?

    Dont take this the wrong way but spruke this rubbish to someone else, afterall if it wasnt rubbish you would have addressed any of the key points I raised. This trade agreement is a farce, just as its 1st installment was.
     
    Anung Un Rama likes this.
  17. IGIT

    IGIT Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,342
    Likes Received:
    2,151
    hi mon,

    my initial post to you asked why you are so outraged about patents and copyrights? you responded with a very long copy paste job.

    what "key points" are you referring to?

    Australians might not care too much about intellectual property - but then again, your country hardly has any compared to the United States.

    the ISDS has served your nation pretty well, so why are you complaining about it?

    - IGIT
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  18. mon

    mon Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,251
    Likes Received:
    1,665
    Location:
    everywhere
    I appologised for the cf of a post due to my phone but you cant appologise for not reading it or addressing any points bar IP? I'm time poor so instead of having a slow back and forth I where I point out why are you choosing IP out of the entire section of old mates post I quoted?

    Then in a phone limited way showed my concerns and you tell me in a round about way it was too long. In my defense I thought I bolded the copied information and italiced/underlined what where the key points within it where. My questions/problems that I wanted you to address were meant to be written like this.

    "This in a time of record low wages growth for years while our housing market becomes nigh impossible for our children to enter."

    "Wont attempt to find it on my phone butour government paid for a study and its conclusion was it would cost us billions inlawsuits. I.e plain packaging on cigerettes."

    "Who the fuck sells away your countries own right to make its own laws? See below for an example with real implications now."


    No country should ever sell its right to have its own laws. In my mind a politician who does is guilty of treason. When the government was warned about the first tpp and the potential and likelyhood to cost billions our politicians ignored it.

    The litigation against Australia by Phillip Morris highlights the risk, that we won is irrelevent. That one example is health, what is next safety? Australia has one of if not the safest construction industries in the world but its a constant battle to keep it that way.
    If Chevron could have sued us over our safety while building both the Barrow Island and Wheatstone projects they would have. This is going by the rude ignorant comments of the yank overseers ie Australians are white mexicans and we dont work fast enough(bring back the whip hey). Our pesky safety and environmental legislation interfering with an honest company trying to make an honest squillion.

    If we do touch on IP, (if I remember correctly) the countries most like to steal IP(3rd world economies) refused to incorporate the same agreements as was being forced onto Australians?


    Sorry mate got to go, normally I dont like posting half baked incomplete arguments but needs must when the devil drives.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    Anung Un Rama likes this.
  19. IGIT

    IGIT Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,342
    Likes Received:
    2,151
    hiya mon,

    i tried to read your article, though much (almost all of it) was unrelated to IP

    no need to apologize, mon. i wasn't vexed over how your post looked, i just felt it didn't address IP in any meaningful way.

    because my query to you related to IP only. your response to me seemed to wander far and wide (and that's fine) but didn't really seem related to my IP concerns.

    i'm concerned about IP because i am an commercial artist.

    i'm concerned about IP because i own stock in pharma.

    i'm concerned about IP because one of America's biggest investments is in R&D, and i am American.

    this issue relates to wealth distribution - not free trade, not the TPP.

    as i've said, Australia (and the US, for that matter) have fared really well in the WTO. that's because when the Australia (and the US) strike trade agreements, they usually abide by them pretty faithfully.

    if history is any indicator of the future, your anxiety on this point is much ado about nothing.

    nice to meet you matey!

    - IGIT
     
    PolishHeadlock likes this.
  20. Rod1

    Rod1 Titanium Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    41,929
    Likes Received:
    26,216
    Location:
    Sonora, Mexico.
    Dont know about the particular case of the smaller nations, like Vietnam but on the more developed ones the "weakening" is barely noticeable because these nations already possess strong patent protections when relative to what the US was asking.

    TPP is a trade deal, countries wouldnt surrender their local sovereignty over it.

    The international courts are still composed of members countries and at worst a country can simply pull off the TPP or ignore it altogether.

    Because your point wasnt that clear, in some places you claim that US corporations are dictating local politics for the rest of the countries and in other places you accuse me of misrepresenting it.

    Because that was what the US wanted, the rest of the countries without much in terms of pharma industry didnt cared much about.

    A drug for a rare disease.

    And that only applies to the specific treatment and form of the molecule, not the old one, and thus is not really as profitable.

    I cant think of an example, can you bring one up?

    Yes, but that wouldnt apply to the old one wouldnt it?

    Also it depends on the national governing body on whether the patent gets extended or not.

    Chile has a 20 years patent protection so Januvia will be protected until the next decade in Chile.

    Whether Merck would be able to extend the patent of Januvia after those 20 years, thats another matter entirely.

    Because the TPP doesnt enforces a monopoly on drugs that are off-patent, thats entirely 1,000% US domestic policy.

    As i said, what mechanism in the TPP allows or prevents off-patent orphan drugs from being jacked up?

    And in the end local law supercedes the above, its not like the countries involved will pass sanctions or invade a country in breach.
     

Share This Page