TRIPS: The Story of How Intellectual Property Became Linked to Trade (1/7)

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 27 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 20

  • @DeanHarringtonimages
    @DeanHarringtonimages 8 років тому +3

    'Intellectual Property rights' has traditionally been granted to creators of such so that they may benefit from that creation. It has been limited to allow for expansion of their uses throughout both production and wealth creation. To even think or support the concept that corporations should be able to' privatize knowledge' is nothing but a move to enhance the wealth of the elite owners of corporations and that will stop the spreed and use of of knowledge and eventually limit societies in their attempts to advance their economies and social structures.
    Intellectual endeavors are engaged in by men and women who are the original creators of such and the corporations that hire them to do so are the beneficiaries ... that's good for companies but we must remember the greater good that the spread of creations advances and benefits everyone sooner or later. To limit 'Intellectual Property rights' to the private sector is simply a method to control the expansion of knowledge and that cannot be left in the hands of corporate owners.
    We now have a situation whereby DNA has been designated an 'Intellectual Property' and only those organizations who have defined and manipulated them can do so ... this is going to do great harm to people, life on the planet in general and societies. Corporation may manipulate DNA in all aspects of production ... Monsanto comes to mind ... that do not enhance their creations for the public good. Time limits on 'Intellectual Property Rights' of any kind is a must regardless of what the property is as that is the only way for changes to occur that benefits everyone. It is also the only way to clarify and control the dangers such manipulation brings to the public.

  • @Kinkle_Z
    @Kinkle_Z 8 років тому +5

    Where are Parts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7? Can't find them.

    • @user-sp8sw1xc4k
      @user-sp8sw1xc4k 8 років тому +1

      this link works
      therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=832&Itemid=74&jumival=1561

  • @jossfitzsimons
    @jossfitzsimons 8 років тому +6

    Peter Drahos argument from the outset is false, wrong, and misleading. Patents last a maximum of about 20 years. They give a monopoly for a short period so that people have an incentive to invent, design and develop. These stages take years or even decades.. Why would anyone do all this, if anyone can just copy you as you are becoming commercially viable and drive you out of business along with all the debts you incurred in getting the product developed?

    • @mattfm101
      @mattfm101 8 років тому +1

      I think trade agreements renew these patents so then it lasts another 20 years or until the next trade agreement is made. So instead of being about trade these agreements are a way to continue to seek rent from people!

    • @jossfitzsimons
      @jossfitzsimons 8 років тому +3

      + No mattfm, you do not think that....you WISH to think that. And you are incorrect. The only way you can extend a patent term is by a "patent term extension" . These are rare, and given only when you can show that the development is taking so long you will never be able to finish development within the 20 year patent term. Now reflect on the dishonesty of the man that started this. He pretended that we would still be paying for arrithmic developed millennia ago if patent law was accepted worldwide. Barefaced dishonesty.

    • @mattfm101
      @mattfm101 8 років тому +1

      After failing to promote “free” trade on hemispheric and global levels, the US has embarked on an aggressive campaign to liberalize trade through bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements (Box 1). These agreements have conditioned liberalized trade upon the expansion of IP law for multinational pharmaceutical companies holding patents for ARVs, among other essential medicines. Specifically, these agreements extend the protection of patents beyond the 20-year period (Box 2), freeze generic manufacturing of ARVs, protect the manufacturers' drug testing data for five years (a practice known as data exclusivity), and limit options for compulsory licensing. Additional measures include a reduction in the number of inventions, such as “diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods,” that can be excluded from patent law, the allowance of known substances to be patented again for each new use, and provisions requiring national drug regulatory authorities to block registration of generic medications. Such broadened IP rules beyond those negotiated in the WTO TRIPS agreement are now referred to as “TRIPS-plus” measures [45].

    • @jossfitzsimons
      @jossfitzsimons 8 років тому +1

      mattfm101 . Let me start by saying I am delighted TTip and the recent Canadian EU trade deal are in trouble. But inventing &, patent law are things I happen to know about. In particular I have been trying to get West European countries to adopt the US "Patent Term Extension" idea to apply to Ocean Wave -Energy development in Europe. Some things like ocean wave energy and pharmaceuticals just happen to take longer to develop. So a patent has lost its validity and value before development can be completed. The developer goes bust along with all the work. This is what is happening repeatedl in ocean wave energy. What a waste. The adoption of "Patent term extension" would make it worth trying....unlike at present. There would be far fewer new drugs coming available without "patent term extension".

    • @ramonalejandrosuare
      @ramonalejandrosuare 8 років тому

      Which drugs wouldn't have been available without patent term extensions?

  • @CatfishSkinner
    @CatfishSkinner 8 років тому

    #Fukushima