Why Is The Obama Administration Putting Billions Of People At Risk With Patent Pressure From The USTR?
from the what-a-shame dept
We've already noted what a complete joke the Special 301 report is. It's the process by which the White House, via the USTR, basically "launders" the complaints of industry lobbyists who want foreign countries to prevent competition by ratcheting up patent and copyright laws to better clear the market for American companies and their products. As people digest the details, it again is apparent what a corrupt society we live in. As Michael Geist notes, the US seems to be saying that 4.3 billion people live in countries without "adequate" copyright and patent laws. Many of those countries are poor, and almost everyone who has studied developing economies has noted that strict patent laws do significant harm both to the health of citizens in those countries and to their opportunities to develop. The US, of course, should know this. In order to help develop our own economy, we were quite good at ignoring the intellectual property of other countries.But the details are where it gets really disgusting. For all the talk about the vague and undefined language found in ACTA, it really comes through when you look at how the USTR names and shames some countries for trying to implement a patent plan that actually keeps their citizens healthier:
That said, it was a disappointment to read that USTR is pressing so hard on the pharmaceutical test data issue, including even for a Least Developed Country (LDC), and that the USTR cites the Philippines for tying patentability of certain chemical forms unless the applicant demonstrates increased efficacy, and complains that India does not patent "temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery." During the hearings, public health groups made it quite clear that it was important for developing countries to continue to have the flexibility to limit the evergreening of pharmaceutical products via these types of patents.In other words, lots of countries know that they need less expensive drugs to keep their populations healthy (and to make them economically productive). And yet the USTR is trying to clamp down and enforce stricter patent laws in those countries, which would force them to buy life-saving drugs from big pharma firms at massively inflated prices. That costs lives. Why does the White House want to put so many lives at risk?
It's really economically stupid as well. We want these countries to have healthy populations and growing economies, because they're future markets for other things that the US sells. The US government is so short-sighted on this that it's happy to have a bunch of poor people die if they can't buy some expensive drugs, not realizing how much that harms so many other US industries.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: healthcare, patents, special 301, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hate seeing people blame "the politicians" or "the corporations"; no, this is all on the voting populace. On us. Shirking blame onto someone else is only an excuse to avoid the truth: in a democracy the people get the government they deserve, and we have that government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Explain to me how George "W" Bush got re-elected then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They'll do it again in 2012 with Obama.
Certainly it's a fact that the Republicans probably won't have a better candidate, but that also is a problem with the voting public. Primaries are open, the public can help choose the next Republican candidate. So go vote for a moderate Republican in the primaries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's like the whole ISP issue in this country - which ISP do you give your business to? The crappy one, or the shitty one?
Because in either case, those are your only two choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to sound overly optimistic here. The general population who uncritically lap up all the politicians' bullshit vastly (vastly) outnumber the people who pay attention and care. Your vote will probably disappear into the abyss and a new corporate shill will get elected no matter what you do.
I'm not trying to spread hope, I just wish people would realize that the problems we continually face are not the fault of anyone but ourselves. We have control over our government and just because we wholeheartedly fail at wielding it doesn't shift the blame to anyone else. It's still our fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the main problem with US politics. Even if you vote as you know is right, the rules are heavily favored against anyone that might be able to make a difference. You vote liberal? Well, we have a Democrat that's something like that. But he believes in strong abortion laws to appease the Catholic crowd of voters and possibly take those votes away.
It doesn't make sense, but it's the detriment of a bunch of rules that are destroying the society of America, for no gain but the two party system itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
oh wait... you're serious....
let me laugh harder!!
Tell me, oh great and wise one... how do we get the less intelligent voters to stop believing the half-truths and misdirections spread by corporations with their fancy ads during election season? How do we, the lowly voters who actually take the time to understand the issues get our voices heard over the babble of idiocy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ask Mike Bloomberg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But all of this doesn't change the fact that the fault lies with the public who allow this to continue. The politicians and corporations can only do what we let them get away with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: voter power
In fact, the people who actually do all this aren't even appointed.
The President is elected.
USTR himself is appointed by the President.
But the bureaucrats in the Office of the TR have been there years longer than the figure-head USTR and President.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Too many politicians ONLY listen to lobbyists. Would your senator make time for you to listen to your problems if you called his office? Can you call your Congressman up and invite him to lunch? Or on an overseas 'factfinding' trip?
I didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the long term ...
Why worry about selling them consumer products later when you can bully them into buying expensive pharma now.
Short term profit FTW!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The simple answer is profits.
The complex answer is as follows.... Imagine if we allowed developing countries to have different pharmaceutical patent laws. If we did, pharmaceuticals would cost less in developing countries. Much less. Drastically less.
People in developed countries would take notice. People would ask,
Those people would start complaining to their elected officials to do "something" about the scandalous high prices of pharmaceuticals.
Those elected officials do not want such complaints because they do not want to take any action on the pharmaceutical gravy train. Heck, their campaigns are paid for in part by the pharmaceutical gravy train.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
United Corporations of America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USA
Citation requested for the "...couldn't stop it like he wanted to.".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pharma trade rip-offs
The pharmaceutical industry's response: the South African government is being terribly unreasonable & is guilty of playing dirty pool ...
See http://www.economist.com/node/529284?story_id=529284
[ link to this | view in chronology ]