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.<p>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.<p>Fantastic stuff. "Thanks Obama" (and Hillary)
I, for one, am glad to know that that interests of everyone important are well protected in this treaty.<p>I just wish I knew how to join this class of people who are important. Apparently being a citizen is not enough anymore.
This interview with Assange that democracynow did sheds some light on this 'trade' agreement: <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_trans_pacific" rel="nofollow">http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_...</a><p>The whole interview is worth watching.
In Spam Nation<i>, 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.<p></i> <a href="http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/spam-nation/" rel="nofollow">http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/spam-nation/</a>
"The Obama administration often describes TPP as the most progressive free-trade deal in history"<p>Does anyone see stronger government enforced monopolies (patents) as the opposite of free trade?
There is a very interesting podcast (LSE series about a year ago now), with the chair of the previous round of <i>physical goods talks</i> 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.<p>If I remember it's things like having same standards of animal welfare innabbatoirs (the U.S. Think EU chickens are dirty IIRC).<p>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<p>- 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<p>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"<p>Contrary views welcomed...
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.
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.)<p>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.<p>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.<p>There's a clause in the TPP IP section to reverse that decision.[3] <i>"[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.]"</i> That's from last year's draft on Wikileaks; I haven't seen the new draft yet.<p>Incidentally, the TPP resolves the issue of patentablity for software and business methods: <i>"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."</i> 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.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/schering-plough-loses-patent-lawsuit-over-claritin-opening-door-for-cheaper-generic-versions-70880857.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/schering-plough-lose...</a>
[2] <a href="http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm122883.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInforma...</a>
[3] <a href="https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/" rel="nofollow">https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/</a>
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.
Can a progressive democrat please explain to me why their hero is supporting this?<p>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.
Going by rank of the top 10 pharma companies <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_compani...</a> we can see that 4 are American and 6 are European.<p>The total revenue of that top 10 is 60% European companies and 40% American.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.