There's a background story for this: developing countries are very wary of international trade agreements. Here's why.
In the last decades the WTO created a new open and global economy. But an often untold story is that the European Union, U.S. and Japan deliberately left agriculture out of it, purely for internal political reasons (farmers=votes). Agriculture markets in rich countries are still very fiercely fenced by protectionism (hight taxes, fat subsidies, restrictive legislation, etc). For us (I live in Brazil) this is really a big deal because agriculture is precisely where our main competitive advantages are. We end up being only customers, not sellers.
The prevailing thinking here is that most trade agreements are a set-up by rich countries. Until agriculture is fixed in the WTO, our best strategy is to bomb any trade agreement.
"The prevailing thinking here is that most trade agreements are a set-up by rich countries. Until agriculture is fixed in the WTO, our best strategy is to bomb any trade agreement."
i have to kind of agree with that. I remember the case of Bastmati rice in India. It has been grown in India for yonks without any patents or any IP. Suddenly there were companies from the west patenting Basmati (under the name Kasmati) and trying to prevent indian farmers from growing Bastmati. Ofcourse it didnt hold for long but was a clear less then for India. Same happend to the "neem" tree/plant.
Glad to see India stand up against some of the hypocratic regulations imposed on it.
Overturned or not, the notion that a big powerful entity with irresistible weapons can suddenly show up and demand impossible payment for things you've been doing for 1000's of years based simply on a bit of paper written in a language unintelligible to you should be terrifying.
It sounds like a science fiction writers dream, however. Sounds like a fabulous "District 9" sequel. The aliens return not for vengeance, but royalties!
actually regarding the effectiveness of the patent office.. i think it sort of comes down to (dis)incentives.. rejecting a patent on any ground requires explanation by the patent clerk.. and to make it worse, some of the compensation is actually proportional to how many patents they approve (some how indicating that they have gone through it)... combine the two (hard work to explain a rejection, and reward for number of acceptances) you have no regard of prior art or novelty or worse obviousness. I dont see why developing countries (or any entity) has to put up with and accept such shoddy practices purely because they benefit the entities with powerful lobbies (patent attorneys and large companies with enough resources to pursue litigation)...
"But an often untold story is that the European Union, U.S. and Japan deliberately left agriculture out of it, purely for internal political reasons (farmers=votes)."
Which is true, but quite odd. Remember when people playing Farmville surpassed the number of actual farmers in the U.S.? The number of people employed in farming in wealthy countries has steadily decreased, with no indication that the trend will change in the for-seeable future.
It seems to be yet another case of a large, established industry purchasing government regulation that benefits only the profits of those companies.
Agriculture is strategic to a country, I would say like military is. And you don't let strategic market in the hands of international trade agreements.
It can be argued that any industry is strategic to a country.
And it's funny you should mention military, I know serveral companies in Denmark that are sub-contractors to various branches of foreign, including the US, military. Countries do indeed let the international free market supply their militaries..
True, but we still don't have enough independence yet (in France). If Agriculture were really seen as the strategic asset it actually is, we could instantly stop importations without starving.
In the last decades the WTO created a new open and global economy. But an often untold story is that the European Union, U.S. and Japan deliberately left agriculture out of it, purely for internal political reasons (farmers=votes). Agriculture markets in rich countries are still very fiercely fenced by protectionism (hight taxes, fat subsidies, restrictive legislation, etc). For us (I live in Brazil) this is really a big deal because agriculture is precisely where our main competitive advantages are. We end up being only customers, not sellers.
The prevailing thinking here is that most trade agreements are a set-up by rich countries. Until agriculture is fixed in the WTO, our best strategy is to bomb any trade agreement.