
Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter - ghosh
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/tpp-deal-leaked-pharma-000126
======
themgt
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 as
drug company lobbyists, but we expect some of these other countries to stand
up for their citizens enough to get a few concessions.

Fantastic stuff. "Thanks Obama" (and Hillary)

~~~
rayiner
I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-
ending weight here. They do noble work, but their interest is the well-being
of people outside the U.S. The best case scenario for them is U.S. companies
doing all the expensive R&D, and their patients outside the U.S. getting the
resulting drugs for free.

The USTR, in contrast, has the _sole_ responsibility of maximizing the benefit
to the U.S. It's in our interest if people outside the U.S. have to pay us a
bunch of money to get the drugs we invent.

That is not to say that we shouldn't be giving free drugs to people who need
it. But that's a policy decision decidedly outside the scope of the USTR. We
have agencies like USAID whose job it is to handle humanitarian aid.

~~~
Taniwha
I live in New Zealand - we've chosen to have socialised medicine - we buy
drugs in bulk, for the whole country - it gives the national drug buying
agency lots of market power - it doesn't force drug companies to sell to us
under cost - but it does pick and choose hich drugs it buys with its limited
budget - if they want our business they have to compete with other companies
in front of a knowledgable experienced buyer acting on our behalf.

No one here is getting drugs for free, just at reasonable prices that may not
be available in the US

TPP as currently written will neuter this advantage costing us billions that
will come out of my taxes

~~~
wirelesskarma
Same for us in Australia. Both Australia and New Zealand are getting the spiky
end of the stick in regards to pharmaceuticals, we have a similar system of
socialised medicine.

~~~
mcv
It's probably very similar for most industrialized countries to some extent.
In Netherland (which probably has the most expensive health care in Europe),
insurance companies negotiate about the prices, which means those companies
decide which medicine is and isn't covered, and while they still have a
reasonable amount of negotiating power, it's not as much as that of a more
centralized approach. Still better than the US approach, but certainly the
weakest of the EU.

------
dmitrygr
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.

~~~
brudgers
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 within the constituency of
taxpayers are also lifted.

[1]: The case for "taxpayers" has been assisted by the language of "victim's
rights" wherein people first accepted the idea that some citizens should have
higher status before the law than others. Using the idea that paying taxes is
a form of theft, taxpayers establish their victimhood and by an extension a
privileged interest over ordinary citizens in matters concerning taxation. The
obverse of the coin is "consumer rights" wherein buying "Little Plastic Shit"
is seen as a high form of social engagement and the primary civic duty of
ordinary Americans.

~~~
slg
I think you are letting the citizenry off the hook for their part in this. The
only reason corporations gained this power is because they have more
collective money (or at least are more willing to use that money) to lobby.
The only reason lobbying works is because politicians need money to get
elected. The only reason politicians need money to get elected is because
people are so susceptible to political marketing. Coporate personhood is
therefore just a symptom of a larger problem, a disinterested and easily
manipulated electorate.

~~~
jessaustin
I, for one, am glad to learn that we can fix all this by voting more often, or
better, or whatever. Now that I think back, my junior high civics class taught
me the same thing!

~~~
slg
I am sensing sarcasm, so I just want to point to the 2014 primary turnout
numbers. Less than 18% [1] of total eligible voters cast a ballot in the 2014
primary elections. When you have that much apathy, it suddenly becomes a lot
easier to sway elections with a few million dollars.

[1] - [http://humanevents.com/2014/10/08/republican-2014-primary-
tu...](http://humanevents.com/2014/10/08/republican-2014-primary-turnout-tops-
democrats-for-the-second-time-since-1930/)

------
trendroid
This interview with Assange that democracynow did sheds some light on this
'trade' agreement:
[http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_...](http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_trans_pacific)

The whole interview is worth watching.

------
hellbanner
In Spam Nation _, the primary reason spam is successful (why people click
those weird ads) is because they get working drugs for cheap that in many
cases are chemically indifferent to their expensive prescription counterparts.

_ [http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/spam-
nation/](http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/spam-nation/)

~~~
mcv
So if access to health care for the poor isn't a good enough reason to make
drugs cheaper, then surely finally killing spam is?

------
phkahler
"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?

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
indrax
Payment for services.

------
lifeisstillgood
There is a very interesting podcast (LSE series about a year ago now), with
the chair of the previous round of _physical goods talks_ explaining what has
gone wrong, and how to fix it. In essence the idea is a good one - set out
worldwide standards of trade - like WTO - for intellectual goods as well as
physical.

If I remember it's things like having same standards of animal welfare
innabbatoirs (the U.S. Think EU chickens are dirty IIRC).

But it has gone south because it was played badly politically - the heads of
the main negotiating countries should apparently have a summit, announce it
was crap and announce a new round that will be

\- public and open \- use a highest standard wins (ie if US rules on X are
more stringent than EU then the U.S. Rules are the standard for TIPP) \-
something else about timelines - I think not setting big deadlines \- being
more multilateral like WTO

It seems a sensible move and likely to take a lot of the sting out of "rules
made behind closed doors, race to the bottom etc"

Contrary views welcomed...

~~~
thomasahle
What about if one country wants to highen their standards in a certain area,
will all the countries that signed up then immediately have to follow? Won't
the other countries bully the first one to stay to the status quo?

Also, are there really always such a thing as 'highest standard'? Couldn't it
be that more often than not, the rules aim for opposing values?

~~~
justizin
> Won't the other countries bully the first one to stay to the status quo?

That is _precisely_ what all of these trade agreements are about, TPP, TiSA,
etc..

------
chx
Even The Atlantic which I found one of the better "mass media" sources
rejoices for TPP and lists none of the criticism. I am much afraid all this
doesn't reach the masses.

------
Animats
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 level.)

When the patent ran out on Claritin, the manufacturer came out with Clarinex,
which contains only the one isomer that does something useful. They then
pitched doctors hard to switch their patients to Clarinex, with considerable
success.

But the manufacturer lost a patent case, on the grounds that separating the
isomers and only keeping the useful one is obvious to anyone skilled in the
art.[1] Now that isomer separation is routine, although non-trivial, the FDA
requires it as a purification step if the non-useful isomer has any negative
effects.[2] You can't claim that a step required by existing regulation is a
new invention.

There's a clause in the TPP IP section to reverse that decision.[3] _" [US/JP
propose; CL/MY/PE/SG/VN/BN/AU/NZ/CA/MX oppose: For greater certainty, a Party
may not deny a patent solely on the basis that the product did not result in
an enhanced efficacy of the known product when the applicant has set forth
distinguishing features establishing that the invention is new, involves an
inventive step, and is capable of industrial application.]"_ That's from last
year's draft on Wikileaks; I haven't seen the new draft yet.

Incidentally, the TPP resolves the issue of patentablity for software and
business methods: _" Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 and 3 (which
relate mostly to plant and animal patents), each Party shall make patents
available for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of
technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step,
and is capable of industrial application."_ So software and business methods
must be made patentable in all TPP-signatory countries. This, again, is from
last year's draft. Check the new one once it gets published.

[1] [http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/schering-plough-
lose...](http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/schering-plough-loses-patent-
lawsuit-over-claritin-opening-door-for-cheaper-generic-versions-70880857.html)
[2]
[http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInforma...](http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm122883.htm)
[3] [https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/](https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/)

~~~
ScottBurson
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness)

~~~
Animats
It's intended to allow patents on "me too" drugs generally.[1][2][3]

[1] [http://www.healthline.com/health-news/would-the-trans-
partne...](http://www.healthline.com/health-news/would-the-trans-partnership-
boost-drug-prices-and-endanger-access-061215#3) [2]
[https://www.citizen.org/documents/specific%20provisions%20fi...](https://www.citizen.org/documents/specific%20provisions%20final%20draft%20w.o.pdf)
[3]
[http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/06/04/opinion/implicati...](http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/06/04/opinion/implications-
canada-fast-tracked-trans-pacific-partnership)

------
Rumford
At least they have avoided giving it an Orwellian name including the phrase
"free trade". Free trade can be described in a few sentences. These voluminous
inter-governmental managed trade agreements are just protectionism by another
name.

------
shmerl
TPP and any similar agreements should be totally opposed until they'll be
negotiated in public.

------
fixxer
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.

~~~
bediger4000
Indeed. I generally like Obama (except for Espionage Act prosecutions,
continued existence of Guantanamo detention centers, and drone wars), but this
one makes no sense.

Can a conservative republican explain why the Republican leadership is
supporting this? I can't really understand why free market people would be in
favor of state-granted and enforced-at-taxpayer-expense monopolies. Nor do I
understand why extreme patriots would be in favor of Investor-State Dispute
Systems. The latter seems like a sovereignty giveaway, to an unaccountable
international body. In a way, ISDS seems like big government gone wild, but
it's an unelected, unaccountable international government, which should offend
small government types, too.

~~~
hga
As a "conservative Republican" since the Nixon era (didn't know why it was
important that he beat HHH and George Wallace in '68, knew why it was and
still is important that he beat McGovern in '72), I can say in short that we
don't support these things.

Why does the Republican leadership support them? At the more reductionist
level, I've seen it best described as a "donor riot"; rather obviously the
interests of the wealthy who identify as Republican are different that the
base (and this is one reason why the Emmanuel Goldsteining of the
_libertarian_ Koch brothers strikes us as bizarre, then again they've got some
truly dangerous thoughts).

At a more general level, these "establishment" Republicans are, or aspire to
be, members of the ruling class. We of the base obviously aren't, and I don't
think many of us aspire to be.

"Offend" is a good word, we are mightily offended by all this. But there's
only so much we can do short of, say, starting a 3rd party that's successful
enough to either threaten the Republican party such that it adopts our
positions, or replace it like it replaced the Whigs (or there's a thesis that
the Democratic party will die since its war on arithmetic means it will
eventually fail to keep its promises, the Republican party will replace it as
the party of the state, and the 3rd party becomes the natural opposition).
Short of that, we can withdraw our votes, which has a strictly limited effect
in the Congress, and we can and have withheld our money, which gets us back to
that donor riot.

Ah, I should note there's always been a non-conservative faction in the
Republican party. Its abolitionist roots were in opposition to the
conservative nature of the Whigs, remember the trusting busting and
imperialism of Teddy Roosevelt, and the north-east wing in general is much
less conservative. Think of Nelson Rockefeller who opposed conservative
Goldwater, not so conservative Nixon, and was Ford's first VP. Or former
governor of Massachusetts and "severe conservative" Mitt Romney (hint, that's
the first and last time I've every heard someone use the word "severe" like
that).

------
Havoc
Don't even need to read it - the whole secrecy farce surrounding it guarantees
that its content is 100% rubber glove exam.

------
nfoz
Where can I see the leaked document?

~~~
jakeogh
[http://readthetpp.com](http://readthetpp.com)

------
Zenst
Going by rank of the top 10 pharma companies
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_compani...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies)
we can see that 4 are American and 6 are European.

The total revenue of that top 10 is 60% European companies and 40% American.

Now if this TTP chapter is two-way and with that equaly so for European
markets then if anything would it not favour Europe more. Though between the
two collectives involved. This only shuts out generics made outside of those
two markets more than currently.

As for doctors without borders, they operate outside this trade agreement
location wise and would not that open up for cheaper supplies from the
producers outside this trade agreement. I would of thought so.

Though would perhaps, once settle reduce production runs of generics in some
area's that depended upon this `sudo` gr[a¦e]y market. Then that may raise
production costs, though if mroe than one generic then it would become more a
price war without the more fruitful markets to utilise. Though always new
markets and myself not sure about medical drugs and Russia and how that works
at all.

But really such agreements need to be public before signing as about trade for
the people as a whole and not a niche area that impacts national security of
the people.

So the whole aspect not public just does not sit well, nor bode well for trust
or indeed any scrutinising and that which has and has leaked. Just hard to get
the full picture as hard to scale.

