TPP Intelectual Property Chapter Leaked

[Centurius]

It has been much sought after but finally the secret intelectual property chapter has been leaked and it contains what many had feared. Regulations allowing such things as monopoly would severely affect human life in TPP Countries and more than a few provisions could potentially have significant impact

 

Concerns have also been raised over the effect it could have on the cost of medicines - by extending the intellectual property rights of certain branded drugs, delays in the development of cheaper, 'generic' versions of these drugs could ensue, potentially leading to poorer people having to wait much longer than the wealthy to get access to the newest medicines.

 

 

"The new monopoly rights for big pharmaceutical firms would compromise access to medicines in TPP countries. The TPP would cost lives."

 

 

The document, dated 5 October, was apparently produced on the day it was announced that the 12 member states to the treaty had reached an agreement after five and a half years of negotiations.

 

 

While, as Wikileaks says, there still needs to a be a final "legal scrub" of the document before it is finished, negotiations on the document between signatories have now ended.

 

 

 

All in all it doesn't contain much that the world didn't expect but its release is somewhat shocking nonetheless and could impact its chances to actually pass if people oppose it with enough strength. 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/tpp-leaked-wikileaks-releases-intellectual-property-chapter-of-controversial-internet-and-medicine-a6688226.html

 

Document: https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf

[Curufinwe_wins]

Snip

God I hate it when people are too lazy to actually read the real document instead of someone else's biased opinions on what it means. (This isn't a slight on you, but rather on general practice.) Actually try reading once in a while people, "lawyer speak" isn't difficult to understand whatsoever (just freaking try).

 

 

Article QQ.A.7: {Understandings Regarding Certain Public Health Measures}

 

1. The Parties affirm their commitment to the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2). In particular, the Parties have reached the following understandings regarding this Chapter:

 

(a) The obligations of this Chapter do not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health. Accordingly, while reiterating their commitment to this Chapter, the Parties affirm that this Chapter can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of each Party’s right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.

Taken straight from the leak. I'm sorry what was the concern again? (I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but clearly there is a proviso for this case.)

[Centurius]

God I hate it when people are too lazy to actually read the real document instead of someone else's biased opinions on what it means. (This isn't a slight on you, but rather on general practice.) Actually try reading once in a while people, "lawyer speak" isn't difficult to understand whatsoever (just freaking try).

 

Taken straight from the leak. I'm sorry what was the concern again? (I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but clearly there is a proviso for this case.)

Oh I've read the document, the problem with lawyer speak is that sometimes it leaves a lot up to interpretation. The part you cite has provisions for public health. This would cover some kind of epidemic or widespread health issue yes but when you go to more rare diseases which tend to have the most expensive medicine it becomes a tough case to make it as a matter of public health.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Oh I've read the document, the problem with lawyer speak is that sometimes it leaves a lot up to interpretation. The part you cite has provisions for public health. This would cover some kind of epidemic or widespread health issue yes but when you go to more rare diseases which tend to have the most expensive medicine it becomes a tough case to make it as a matter of public health.

"promote access to medicines for all" doesn't care how rare the disease is. Furthermore because of the way this is written, if one country decides a drug falls under that proviso then they can ignore IPP and not only allow it to be made for cheaper in their country, but also sell that abroad in the other abiding countries with those other countries being forced to treat that drug as a valid and non-infringing item.

 

AKA it (should a country be willing to do so) actually makes it EASIER to violate IPP and promote generics.

 

Which btw is it's own can of worms. But hey.

 

And again I wasn't saying you didn't read, but rather voicing my frustration with people who don't and being annoyed that you quote the interpretation instead of the actual document in question.

[Trik'Stari]

God I hate it when people are too lazy to actually read the real document instead of someone else's biased opinions on what it means. (This isn't a slight on you, but rather on general practice.) Actually try reading once in a while people, "lawyer speak" isn't difficult to understand whatsoever (just freaking try).

 

Taken straight from the leak. I'm sorry what was the concern again? (I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but clearly there is a proviso for this case.)

You say that as though corporations and politicians follow the laws, as opposed to passing them and then ignoring them or altering them as they need.

[Syntaxvgm]

I'm more mad about the fact that we can only learn what's in it right now via leaks over the actual text.

No legislation or international agreements should be made in secret. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

You say that as though corporations and politicians follow the laws, as opposed to passing them and then ignoring them or altering them as they need.

The logical conclusion to that statement leads to complete anarchy. Not a particularly helpful critique to any agreement.

[Trik'Stari]

The logical conclusion to that statement leads to complete anarchy. Not a particularly helpful critique to any agreement.

......do you not watch the news?

[Curufinwe_wins]

......do you not watch the news?

That has literally nothing to do with anything whatsoever. All laws regardless of what you believe of them fails that same assumption so it becomes completely useless in discrimating between them.

I should point out that "news" shows are so terrible in the US that even shows only designed for comedy like the Colbert report and the daily show (may they rest in pieces) had more informed audiences on actual going-ons than national news networks.

For the record, I mainly read my news (as it is easier to not get caught up in networks slants and misrepresentations with different sources) and every day I listen or watch the news I cringe with the utter sham US TV news has become (not that in many ways it ever was good, but the 24hr news cycle definitely hurt the quality of reporting).

[Zah]

I'm more mad about the fact that we can only learn what's in it right now via leaks over the actual text.

No legislation or international agreements should be made in secret. 

That and the fact that trade treaties override laws created by countries, generally cause a loss of blue collar/lower class jobs in the US, and are exploitative of developing nations/nations with a poorer economy.  This one is no different, and it forces our copyright law onto all 40 countries.

[Mushious]

There's actually some good stuff in here. Prevention of patenting life-saving medicine and surgery for example.