New North American Trade Deal Keeps Useful (But Limited) Liability Protections, Dumps Bad Biologics Data Protection

from the not-bad dept

When the NAFTA replacement "USMCA" agreement was first announced last year, we noted that it included a mix of good and bad ideas. The key good idea was that the USMCA contained a bit of language establishing a requirement for strong intermediary liability protections, similar to (but not exactly the same as) Section 230's protections in the US. Among the really bad ideas was expanding the data protection term for biologics -- which, we've noted, is really dangerous for basic science and innovation for new drugs -- but was supported by big pharmaceuticals to increase their monopoly power and ability to extract monopoly rents.

So it seems like good news that the latest version of the agreement keeps the intermediary liability protections and drops the biologics piece, which has the big pharma companies screaming angrily.

The intermediary liability protections for tech also have lots of people complaining -- including from both parties, but it's all ridiculous. First of all, most of the people freaking out about this are the very same people who originally loved the idea of sneaking ideas like longer copyright terms and anti-circumvention provisions into trade deals, and are now mad that internet companies are realizing that other ideas, that are better for the internet and free speech, can be put into those deals as well.

Perhaps more importantly -- as you hear more people whining about the inclusion of intermediary liability protections in USMCA -- is that these protections aren't even that strong, and Canada is already talking about ways to put more liability on internet services, despite what it's about to agree to in the USMCA. In other words, while it's good to see this language in the agreement, which will, at the margins, help keep the internet more open for free speech, the actual impact of this provision may be limited by creative efforts to write around the agreement -- and now just becomes a stick for those pushing the whole "techlash" narrative to beat against a wall.

Filed Under: biologics, canada, free trade, intermediary liability, mexico, nafta, nancy pelosi, section 230, trade, us, usmca, ustr

A Mix Of Good And Bad Ideas In NAFTA Replacement

from the not-great,-but-some-useful-concepts dept

Let's start with the simple concept that it's not at all clear why intellectual property and intermediary liability issues should even be in various free trade agreements, other than to acknowledge that the legacy copyright industry has spent decades demanding that they be included in those agreements. I've mentioned it many times in the past, but the book Information Feudalism should be required reading on this subject, showing how copyright interests effectively hijacked the international trade agreement process to force through domestic policies they wished to have. The internet community mostly ignored the trade agreement process for years, allowing the RIAAs and MPAAs of the world to run rampant and get more or less whatever they wanted in smokey backrooms, before running home to Congress demanding that we pass new laws to "live up to our international obligations."

When NAFTA was originally passed, this practice wasn't as common. Nowadays, it's more or less considered mandatory to include these issues in trade agreements. This is unfortunate for a large number of reasons, but it does mean that if these issues are going to show up in trade agreements, at least they ought to come out in a way that isn't harmful.

And that takes us to NAFTA, which our current president demanded be renegotiated for no clear reason other than he was sure it was bad and we were being ripped off. And, voila, we now have a new agreement called the USMCA agreement designed to replace NAFTA (though I agree that we really missed a huge opportunity in not calling it the CAMUS agreement (or at least *something* that is pronounceable). And, because the RIAA and MPAAs of the world forced these issues into trade agreements, this new USMCA has a bunch of issues that have literally zero to do with "trade" but could have pretty widespread impacts on innovation and the internet.

Michael Geist has the best overview I've seen of the agreement, highlighting both the good and bad aspects of the agreement. On the bad side of the ledger, it forces Canada to extend its copyright terms from "life plus 50" to "life plus 70." Thankfully, it appears the weird USTR confusion over the earlier idea that it was going to require life plus 75 years is now gone. But requiring life plus 70 is already problematic. It's especially bad for Canada in that it will involve a massive taking of the public domain, and locking it up for two extra decades for no good reason. But it's also bad for the US and Mexico in that it effectively blocks any chance of rolling back copyright terms to more reasonable levels (a proposal that even the US Copyright Office appeared to support in years' past).

Also bad: expanding the data protection term of biologics. This is something that the US has pushed for in other agreements over the years and it's really dangerous for basic science and innovation in the drug space. Big pharma companies want it because it allows them to extract monopoly rents, but it harms our ability to actually understand the efficacy of drugs and to make better drugs. We've also discussed how this can lead to real harm in silencing people pointing out health risks of certain drugs.

We also remain concerned about the vague "anti-counterfeiting" language that has been used in the past to justify some truly draconian policies that could create huge problems for innovation and privacy.

On the more neutral-to-possibly-bad side of the ledger, the agreement does allow Canada to retain its current "notice-and-notice" copyright policy, as opposed to a "notice-and-takedown" policy for copyright infringement that both the US and Mexico have. This is good, because Canada's notice-and-notice policy was the result of many years of difficult negotiations and an attempt to do something not as draconian and problematic on questions of free speech than the notice-and-takedown system that we see abused nearly every day here in the US and elsewhere. Unfortunately, what puts this in the "neutral-to-possibly-bad" category is that Canada is only allowed to keep notice-and-notice because it's effectively grandfathered in. The agreement more or less blocks the US or Mexico from moving to such a system.

This is ridiculous. Just as we're getting evidence of how much better a system notice-and-notice is compared to notice-and-takedown, suddenly the US and Mexico will be barred from moving to such a system, even if the evidence shows that it's better for everyone? That makes no sense at all.

On the neutral-to-possibly good side of the ledger, despite concerns that it was missing in earlier drafts and reports, the agreement does include a provision on what they refer to as "limitations and exceptions," but which we note are really user rights such as fair use. It's good that this is there. But... it's less good that it uses the traditional "three steps test" found in Berne Convention. That's concerning because at least some interpret the three step test to limit fair use (and some even argue -- incorrectly -- that US fair use is not permitted under the three step test). So, the "good" part is that the agreement includes something on user rights, but the bad part is that it defaults to the three step test which could be used to significantly limit just how fair use is applied.

Finally, on the "good" side of the ledger, the USMCA does provide language establishing strong intermediary liability protections:

no Party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed, or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has, in whole or in part, created, or developed the information.

This is useful, especially as CDA 230 and DMCA 512 are under attack. Again, I'm disappointed that we should need to use "trade agreements" to argue this point, but since others are trying to undermine intermediary liability through trade agreements, there needs to be some pushback, and this does establish that in a clear manner. Hilariously, a former RIAA exec who was instrumental in getting copyright expansions placed into trade agreements around the globe is now whining about how awful it is that intermediary liability protections are found in this new agreement, citing concerns raised by plenty of people who support these protections, but who in the past protested efforts to expand copyright rules through those trade agreements. What a hypocritical position for him to take. Dude, you were the one who forced these issues into trade agreements: don't freak out and cry about it when you face some level of pushback in the form of policies you dislike. You made your bed.

In the end, again, it's disappointing that these issues should be in a trade agreement at all. None of this really has anything to do with "trade" in the traditional sense. But they are in this agreement, and thus we should hope that they get the various issues right. The inclusion of intermediary liability protections is clearly a good result if you must include these kinds of provisions, but the copyright and biologic expansions are still incredibly problematic. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the response from the USTR or anyone else will be "well, you win some, you lose some" rather than fixing the problems.

Filed Under: biologics, canada, cda 230, copyright, copyright term, intermediary liability, mexico, nafta, notice and notice, notice and takedown, section 230, trade agreements, usmca

Hatch Still Trying To Change The Finalized TPP Deal To Make It Even Worse For Other Nations

from the two-edged-sword dept

As Techdirt noted in 2014, by agreeing to the "fast track" procedure for trade deals, Congress has essentially given up its power to change them. That's a two-edged sword. Although it makes the ratification process simpler, because things like TPP and TTIP must be accepted or rejected in their entirety, it also means that political bosses have no ability to tweak the text to make it more likely the deals will be ratified. That's coming back to bite one of the people who introduced the fast track bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch.

He has been trying for a while to get TPP to require the same 12 years' monopoly of drug safety data that the US provides for so-called "biologic drugs," in addition to the normal patent protection they enjoy. The final TPP text specifies eight years, and because of the fast track authority that he worked so hard to put in place, there is no way for Hatch to get the text changed now that it has been finalized. According to a report from Bloomberg, Hatch is apparently hoping that "binding side agreements" with the other TPP nations might do the trick, but there's a problem with that or any similar approach:

Australia, New Zealand and Peru have all indicated at various points during the last six months that they will not change their positions concerning biologics and stand by the agreed-upon language contained in the TPP.

"I don't know what they're going to offer, but they know I'm at 12 years of data exclusivity,” he said of the administration. "They're going to have to find a way of having the countries agree to change that formality in the TPP to 12 years or come up with something that will be acceptable."

That's really pretty extraordinary. After nearly eight years of tough negotiations, concessions were made and a final text agreed by all the countries involved. And now Hatch says it's not good enough, that the US has some special right to ask for yet more, and that countries refusing to up their protection for biologics data to 12 years won't be part of the TPP deal. Understandably, some in those nations at risk of being thrown out of TPP are unhappy about this threat. For example, Dr. Patricia Ranald, Convener of the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network, said:

"The extra three years of monopoly [beyond current Australian regulations] in the current TPP text is already unacceptable. It is outrageous that the US is demanding an even greater increase from 8 to 12 years. We call on the Australian and other governments to reject this proposal."

In fact, it's even worse than that. As we pointed out a year ago, granting any protection to the clinical trial data used to gain approval for biologics seriously undermines one of the fundamental principles of science: that basic facts cannot be owned, and that progress is made by building on the results of others. Hatch is right that the eight-year term of protection for biologics data in TPP is unacceptable, but he's wrong about what the right term would be: it's not 12 years, but zero.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: australia, biologics, data exclusivity, orrin hatch, tpp

Health Canada Threatens To Sue Doctor If He Reveals Whether Clinical Trials Data Shows A Drug Is Safe Or Effective

from the nothing-to-hide dept

As Techdirt readers know, one of the final sticking points of the TPP negotiations was the issue of data exclusivity for the class of drugs known as biologics. We've pointed out that the very idea of giving any monopoly on what amounts to facts is fundamentally anti-science, but that's a rather abstract way of looking at it. A recent case in Canada makes plain what data exclusivity means in practice. As reported by CBC News, it concerns unpublished clinical trial data about a popular morning sickness drug:

Dr. Navindra Persaud has been fighting for four years to get access to thousands of pages of drug industry documents being held by Health Canada.

He finally received the material a few weeks ago, but now he's being prevented from revealing what he has discovered.

That's because Health Canada required him to sign a confidentiality agreement, and has threatened him with legal action if he breaks it.

The clinical trials data is so secret that he's been told that he must destroy the documents once he's read them, and notify Health Canada in writing that he has done so. And just to concentrate his mind a little, there's this:

The confidentiality agreement also contains an indemnity clause that states Dr. Persaud, at his own cost, shall "save harmless Health Canada from and against all claims," including lawsuits, that arise out of any breach in the agreement.

Against this absurd background, it's easy to forget what we are talkling about here: basic scientific information relating to a drug that is widely taken by pregnant women -- a group where unexpected side-effects can have devastating consequences on the developing foetus. You would think Health Canada would be offering Dr Persaud every possible support for his work:

"I'm trying to find out if the medication is safe and effective and Health Canada is the regulator. So they might actually want to facilitate this sort of research that I am doing. Instead, Health Canada has threatened me with legal action if I share the information."

Persaud says that he is more concerned about the drug's efficacy than its safety, but that's clearly still an important issue, not least because having seen the clinical trials data, he has changed his opinion:

"I've gone on the record questioning how effective the medication was before," he said. "I think it's fair for me to say today that I'm concerned the medication is not effective at all."

Isn't that something fundamental that pregnant women have a right to know before taking the drug in question? And yet the pharmaceutical industry has somehow achieved the astonishing trick of normalizing the practice of withholding vital safety information, and turning national health agencies into enforcers of their data monopolies. As Duff Conacher, coordinator of Democracy Watch, a watchdog on open government, is quoted in the CBC News report as saying:

"Health Canada is setting up a system to silence critics of drug companies and protect big company profits and protect them from accountability, instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing, which is protecting the public from harm," he said.

And, if ratified, TPP will entrench that system even further.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: big pharma, biologics, clinical trials, data, drug data, exclusivity, health canada, navindra persaud, research, tpp

Wikileaks Releases Final Intellectual Property Chapter Of TPP Before Official Release

from the and-it-sucks dept

Last weekend, negotiators finally completed negotiations on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. However, as we noted, there was no timetable for the release of the text (though some are now saying it may come out next week). Once again, it was ridiculous that the negotiating positions of the various countries was secret all along, and that the whole thing had been done behind closed doors. And to have them not be ready to release the text after completion of the negotiations was even more of a travesty. Wikileaks, however, got hold of the Intellectual Property Chapter and has released it online.

Much of what's in there is (not surprisingly) the same as the previous leaked version, which was from May of this year. The newly leaked version, of course, confirms what New Zealand's announcement had revealed earlier this week: multiple countries caved in so that TPP requires signatories to extend copyright to life plus 70 years -- even though the US itself had been exploring reducing copyright terms (that now won't be allowed). Similarly, it locks in dangerous anti-circumvention rules that have hindered innovation and freedom.

The final report shows that many of the problems we found in the May draft are still in this document. This includes the fact that while the agreement does at least make a nod to the public's rights such as fair use (which it calls "limitations and exceptions") it does so in a ridiculous way. All of the moves to make copyright stricter are mandatory in the TPP. They require signing countries to do things like extend terms and ratchet up punishment. But when it comes to fair use? Then it just says countries should explore the issue:

Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions that are consistent with Article QQ.G.16, including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes; and facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled.

Shall endeavor? Every other clause is a flat out "shall." But when it comes to fair use it's "eh, maybe consider it." That's ridiculous, given just how important the public's rights are and how things like fair use protect those rights.

There's also the issue of the public domain. As we noted in the May draft, the US and Japan actively opposed including "acknowledging the importance of preserving the public domain" in the section for "Understandings in respect of this Chapter." And it looks like the US won -- as that phrase is no longer in that section -- though there was a compromise. Further down in the document, a new section has been added acknowledging the public domain:

Article QQ.B.x: {Public Domain}

1. The Parties recognize the importance of a rich and accessible public domain.

2. The Parties also acknowledge the importance of informational materials, such as publicly accessible databases of registered intellectual property rights that assist in the identification of subject matter that has fallen into the public domain.

That's better than nothing, but it is notable that this is no longer included in the section of "objectives." Because, of course, this document has no objective to celebrate the public domain. The copyright extension terms show that the objective is to destroy the public domain. And, as the EFF notes in its analysis, by moving where this discussion of the public domain occurs, the negotiators made it a happy platitude rather than a required part of any intellectual property policy:

That paragraph on the public domain, for example, used to be much stronger in the first leaked draft, with specific obligations to identify, preserve and promote access to public domain material. All of that has now been lost in favor of a feeble, feel-good platitude that imposes no concrete obligations on the TPP parties whatsoever.

Also, with the May release, we noted that the US and Japan, in particular, opposed any language that allowed for punishment for abusing patents. Australia had proposed some language that said that a country could cancel, revoke or nullify a patent if "the patent is used in a manner determined to be anti-competitive, or abusive..." The US and Japan vehemently opposed this language and guess what is nowhere to be found in the document? You guessed it... The US and Japan also opposed a pretty simple statement that "Each Party may adopt or maintain measures to discourage vexatious or unreasonable proceedings as a result of the use of the exclusive rights of a patent."

And yet, in the final document, the only time "unreasonable" appears is in relation to "unreasonable" delays in granting patents. It really makes you wonder, why is the US so against a simple clause allowing countries to stop the abuse of patents? What possible rationale could they have other than knowing that they're helping companies abuse patents.

It also appears that negotiators did not heed the warnings from KEI and others that the last draft would go against a number of US laws that include exceptions for damages for infringement, including orphan works and sovereign immunity by state governments. In short, this would completely undermine the US's plans for dealing with the orphan works problem, because the TPP requires there be damages for infringement, even as the proposal to solve orphan works is to create an exception for damages if the work is an orphan work and certain conditions have been met.

The good folks at KEI have been listing out many other problems with the final text, some of which we'll explore as well. For example, the TPP says that patents can be available for "new uses of a known product, new methods of using a known product, or new processes of using a known product" which of course can lead to perfectly common products getting extra patent protection and limiting competition, and driving up prices. There is significant concern over this issue in the drug space.

On the question of extra protection for "biologics" (which was apparently the final sticking point), the agreement says 8 years or something that can deliver a "comparable outcome in the market" via "other measures." This is problematic and will drive up healthcare costs and will almost certainly mean that people will die because they can't afford these medicines. Australia had been holding out for five years, but apparently lost. As we noted a few months ago, this also undermines some fundamental principles of science in locking up important data.

The other tidbit that is potentially a big deal is that it appears that the Intellectual Property Chapter may not be subject to the corporate sovereignty chapter, meaning that companies would not be able to make use of the special "ISDS" (investor-state dispute settlement) tribunals to argue that new IP regulations somehow deprived them of expected profits from investment in those countries. If that's true that would be quite interesting, but the details of the corporate sovereignty chapter have not yet leaked...

All in all the document is pretty much what was expected, which means... it's problematic. The USTR should not have negotiated this, as it directly harms the interests of the American public as well as the entire internet sector. Congress should not pass this. This is a bad agreement, which is basically what you'd expect for something negotiated behind closed doors where only large industry lobbyists had full direct access to the text and the negotiators.

Filed Under: biologics, copyright, data, fair use, intellectual property, patents, public domain, tpp, ustr

Why TPP Threatens To Undermine One Of The Fundamental Principles Of Science

from the and-that's-a-fact dept

Last week, we wrote that among the final obstacles to completing the TPP agreement was the issue of enhanced protection for drugs. More specifically, the fight is over an important new class of medicines called "biologics," which are produced from living organisms, and tend to be more complex and expensive to devise. The Conversation has a good feature looking at this issue in more detail. The central problem with biologics in TPP is "data exclusivity," which the article explains as follows:

Data exclusivity refers to the protection of clinical trial data submitted to regulatory agencies from use by competitors. It's a different type of monopoly protection to patents. While a product is covered by data exclusivity, manufacturers of cheaper follow-on versions of the product can't rely on the clinical trial data produced by the originator of the drug to support the marketing approval of their product.

Section 25a of Australia's Therapeutic Goods Act provides for five years of data exclusivity for all medicines. It makes no distinction between biologics and other drugs. Data exclusivity provides an absolute monopoly that, unlike a patent, can't be revoked or challenged in court.

As that makes clear, data exclusivity is a kind of super-patent in that it can't be challenged or revoked: if a drug company has run clinical trials to establish the safety of its new drug, it has an absolute and irrevocable monopoly on the use of that data -- for five years in the case of Australia, Chile, Singapore and New Zealand. This is obviously an incredibly powerful form of monopoly, so perhaps it's no surprise that US pharmaceutical companies want TPP to require signatories to grant an even longer period -- 12 years of data exclusivity -- for biologics.

That's useful for them, because even after drug patents have expired, and generic manufacturers can theoretically offer the same products without paying licensing fees, there remains the barrier of clinical testing. If the generic manufacturers can't point to the original clinical trials as proof that the drug is safe, they will need to carry out their own, which will take time and cost money. In practice, they are more likely to wait until the period of data exclusivity is over, effectively extending the original manufacturer's monopoly beyond that provided by patents alone.

So what? You might ask. Surely it's only fair that generic manufacturers cannot piggy-back on the work of the original drug companies? Although that argument sounds plausible, it overlooks the fact that what clinical trials produce is safety data about a drug, which is simply a certain kind of scientific fact concerning a particular complex compound, as unchanging as all its other features. It is not something that depends on the ingenuity of the person measuring it, because it represents intrinsic information about a substance. Granting data exclusivity is thus nothing less than giving a monopoly on knowledge itself, since it forbids any other company from being able to use that newly-established scientific fact.

That is a profoundly retrogressive step. Although dressed up in terms of fairness and recouping investments, the very notion of data exclusivity is an attack on the key idea that no one can own a scientific fact, and that science advances by building on existing knowledge. Arguments about whether the length of that monopoly should be five, eight or even twelve years, are not just pointless, they are pernicious, because any of them would lock the TPP countries into a system that allows basic facts to be owned, and would forbid them from exiting from it. The only acceptable length for data exclusivity is zero years; anything longer turns TPP into an attack on science itself.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: biologics, data, data exclusivity, science, sharing, tpp

New Zealand Prime Minister Admits Drug Prices Will Rise Under TPP -- Leaves Out The Part About More People Dying

from the gotta-help-out-those-corporate-interests dept

As we're in the middle of crunch time for the final TPP negotiations, New Zealand's Prime Minister John Key has finally admitted what many experts have been saying for years -- that under the TPP, drug prices will undoubtedly rise, because it extends monopoly protections on important medicines. Key tries to play this off as no big deal, because it's the government paying for the medicine so the public won't notice (leaving aside the fact that it's their tax dollars). However, folks who actually understand basic economics note that, when the price goes up, access to drugs gets more difficult even in New Zealand, where it's noted that some key life saving drugs have not been made available because they're too expensive. One doctor in New Zealand talked about how other expensive drugs are not available:

He said 300 people died of malignant melanoma each year. Patients would benefit from using the new drug but it cost $100,000 to $200,000 annually for each person. In total that would cost the drug-buying agency Pharmac $30 million to $60 million a year.

Dr Fitzharris said that under TPP it was likely getting access to these new, more effective drugs would be delayed even further.

Medicines New Zealand says the most recent OECD report shows New Zealand comes last out of 20 countries when it comes to access to new medicines.

Back in the US, even a bunch of Congresscritters who voted in favor of giving the USTR fast track authority appear to be having a bit of buyer's remorse as they've asked the USTR to explain why it appears the current draft of the TPP will make drugs more expensive rather than less.

We are concerned that the TPP would fail this scrutiny if it does not meet or exceed the standards set under the May 10th Agreement, reached by House Democrats and the Bush White House in 2007, with respect to timely access to affordable medicines in developing countries.

And even the AARP has stepped in to point out that it appears the TPP is going to make it more difficult for the US elderly to afford drugs:

Specifically, AARP objects to intellectual property provisions in the draft TPP agreement that unduly restrict competition by delaying consumers’ access to lower-cost generic drugs. These anticompetitive provisions include extending brand drug patent protections through “evergreening” drug products that provide little to no new value and prolong high prescription drug costs for consumers, linking approval to market generic or biosimilar drugs to existing patents in a way that protects only brand drugs, and increasing data exclusivity periods for biologics that further delays access by other companies to develop generic versions of these extremely high-cost drugs. These provisions are all designed to ensure monopoly control by brand-name drug companies.

How can the USTR and the Obama administration continue to insist that the TPP is in the public interest when it's abundantly clear that it's in the pharmaceutical companies' interests instead?

Filed Under: access to medicine, biologics, drugs, medicine, new zealand, prices, tpp, trade agreements

Biologic Drugs Likely To Get Separate 12-Year Monopoly Protection Beyond Patents

from the and-for-that,-we-all-suffer dept

A few weeks ago, we noted that some biotech firms were pushing hard to get a separate monopoly on biologic drugs, that went beyond patent protection, as if that wasn't enough. While we had some thoughtful comments from some industry insiders, claiming that the issue could be more about liability. If that's the case, then deal with the liability question, not the monopoly protections. Either way, Robert McClelland alerts us to the unfortunate news that our elected officials have caved in to what the big pharma companies wanted and agreed to a new plan that would give a twelve-year monopoly on these sorts of "biosimilars." It's still not clear why this is needed at all, other than to wipe out competition and make drugs much more expensive. The two congressional reps who pushed this through were Representatives Anna Eshoo and Joe Barton. This is no surprise from Barton, but Eshoo, who represents part of Silicon Valley should know better than to be increasing monopoly protections.

Oh wait... a quick look over at OpenSecrets.org shows that (take a guess...) the single largest contributor to Eshoo's election campaigns has been (yup) pharmaceutical companies. Oh, and they've already been the largest contributors to her 2010 re-election campaign. And people wonder why Larry Lessig's Change Congress movement is getting attention. Even if she's being totally sincere in her position, how else can you look on this without saying it smacks of corruption with bought-and-paid-for legislation that gives pharma companies an extra monopoly to gain significant monopoly rents at the expense of the public?

Filed Under: anna eshoo, biologics, biosimilars, corruption, drugs, joe barton, monopoly rights, patents, politics