Slashdot Log In
Violating A Patent As Moral Choice
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Oct 22, 2005 06:52 PM
from the life-over-profit dept.
from the life-over-profit dept.
kuzmich writes "The Taiwanese government has announced that it will violate patent laws to manufacture a drug that can help fight bird flu virus. In doing so, they have spelled out their reasoning very clearly: 'We have tried our best to negotiate with Roche, it means we have shown our goodwill to Roche and we appreciate their patent. But to protect our people is the utmost important thing'. Not being in Taiwan, this makes me wonder how bad the situation would have to be for some of the other governments to follow a path of violating patent and copyright laws for the benefit of the general population. Are there precedents, procedures for doing so?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not right! (Score:5, Funny)
Just kidding, of course. Good for Taiwan. Patent laws should not cause the death of people.
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Tiwan is acting in the face of a pandemic. What about less widespread, but equally fatal diseases? For example, why isn't it equally ethical for a country to ignore patent laws for cancer drugs? Why hasn't this already been done for AIDS drugs?
I'm all for this, by the way. I hope this emboldens other countries to do the right thing for its citizens.
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Informative)
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=545
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Informative)
The issue here is complicated because of trade deals the US and other nations have set up. Essentially these deals set the USA up to pay for the research and development costs for drugs for the world. In return the US would bill its consumers very high rates for drugs in order to finance this and provide the "poor" nations of the world with "cheap" drugs. This funky set of deals set up the USA to fleese its sick and elderly as a secret way to assist the "poor" nations populations who by the theory could not afford to finance their own medicine.
The deals worked for a short time until the "poor" nations started generic production. This bloomed a "cheap" drug market for the world leaving US consumers paying 10 to 20 times the price paid by others in the world. The Big Pharma guys who were going to provide US workers with jobs under this scam promptly went of shore this is why the developments and owners are multinationals. This has shattered the underpenning of Social Security in the USA. It has also left drug development nearly 100% funded by the US Government under contract fictions that appear private or they would violate the trade deals. This is because the trade deals left the US with a "drug monopoly." Of course it is falling apart.
With all of this corporate and government con game going on, there is no Pandemic. It too is a fiction. Bird Flu is indegenous to the Americas. It in no way fits the profile of a "Pandemic." It is too lethal to be a viable pathogen. It kills itself off. What we are looking at is the last gasp of the Big Pharma guys trying to shake down the taxpayers of the USA for a pile of money while they run off shore with the money . All of this before the USA runs out of cash trying to pay for the retirement situation that is coming in 2015. They all know that any flu epidemic can be contained by a campaign to support hand washing. There is no threat except of stupid people. The fact that a foreign nation is now going to make large quantities of the drug Tamiflu threatens the money in this con game.
Tamiflu, assuming Bird Flu were to mutate into a dangerous flu "Pandemic", would be of no value. The disease kills in about 9 days. It is symptomatic only 2 of those days. By the time a person knew they were getting sick, getting a prescription would not save them. Its value is probably null anyway as it appears it is ineffective against the disease. Its only value would be prophalaxis and that is questionable. Taiwan is just raiding the money game here.
This is state sponsored terrorism using a "virus" as a mafia enforcer threat to shake its people down for money. This is because vaccination is also of no value against bird flu as it kills fertile eggs. (The place one would make a vaccine) In reality there is only one defense against the bird flu. It is nothing more nor less than a public campaign for good hygene and hand washing. That program would so devastate the healthcare industry by negating their profits that nobody is going to consider it. Sorry folks it is all about money. Thanks to Taiwan, the international floating crap game has been raided. Maybe the whole US monopoly will come down on this one and we all will be better off including those of us in the USA.
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Informative)
That logic is simply ridiculous, with the high population densities of cities and the speed and frequency with which people travel. You're seriously suggesting that a human-transmissible bird flu wouldn't be a "viable pathogen" because it would kill everyone in Taiwan too quickly to spread? Even if that were true, which is isn't, wouldn't you expect the Taiwanese to be concerned about that?
The idea that a human-transmissible bird flu would be dangerous has already been demonstrated by the 1918 flu epidemic that killed 20-50 million people. The 1918 virus was recently reconstructed, and it was found to be very similar to the bird flu viruses that are around in Asia today. The actual scientific paper, available here [sciencemag.org] states:
"Until now, the exceptional virulence of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus has been a question of historical curiosity. Herein, we demonstrate the successful reconstruction of the 1918 pandemic virus in order to understand more fully the virulence of this virus and possibly of other human influenza pandemic viruses. Because the emergence of another pandemic virus is considered likely, if not inevitable (25), characterization of the 1918 virus may enable us to recognize the potential threat posed by new influenza virus strains, and it will shed light on the prophylactic and therapeutic countermeasures that will be needed to control pandemic viruses."
Tamiflu, assuming Bird Flu were to mutate into a dangerous flu "Pandemic", would be of no value. The disease kills in about 9 days. It is symptomatic only 2 of those days. By the time a person knew they were getting sick, getting a prescription would not save them. Its value is probably null anyway as it appears it is ineffective against the disease. Its only value would be prophalaxis and that is questionable.
A scientific paper demonstrating Tamiflu's effectiveness against the H5N1 virus is here
A paper demonstrating Tamiflu's effectiveness against the 1918 flu virus (which is similar to the virus we fear will emerge) is here. [pnas.org]
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Insightful)
State monopolies are not about efficiency my good sir, they're about high-quality service and providing said service to everyone, even when it's completely inefficient to provide said service.
State monopolies are about making service available to the most people with the best QoS, they're about reaching 100% or as close as possible, not about reaching the 20% that lead to viable service economically and leaving 80% in the dust because you consider it costs too much to provide them said service.
State monopolies are about long-term vision, 10+ years when not 50+ years, when most private structures' "long term" is barely 5 years.
This is why most european rail service actually work at the moment even if they don't bring in much money, while UK rail service blows and is overpriced.
Now I don't mean that govt/state monopolies shouldn't try to be efficient, it's in fact one of their duties as users of public tax money, they owe it to the whole population of the country (said population more or less being their shareholders), but it's not and should never be their first goals. The first and most important goals of state monopolies should always be quality and reach.
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that Taiwan is doing the right thing, since the manufacturer of the bird flu drugs did not want to sell them the drugs for a price they were able/willing to pay.
I believe the rules for negotiating price are a bit different when one of the parties can write the law
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you saying that the government of other countries should be denied the same policy choice that the US made in the 1800s?
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Jerks like you will put a price in dollars on fucking anything, even your grandmother.
And you find nothing wrong with this.
Ever wondered why people are willing to die hurling airliners into your skyscrapers????
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Informative)
José Serra, the Health Minister in the previous administration in Brazil (he unsuccessfully ran for president in 2002, losing in the runoff election to the current president, Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, and is now mayor of the city of São Paulo), was responsible for Brazil's AIDS policy, which has been very successful and is recognized as a model for government AIDS policies worldwide. One major part of the policy included making the best AIDS drugs available to patients free. The problem is that the drug companies were jacking up the prices, and Brazil's AIDS budget was not going to be large enough to be able to continue this critical part of the policy that had been so successful in controlling the spread of AIDS and the number of AIDS-related deaths.
Serra tried to negotiate with the multinational pharmaceutical companies selling the AIDS drugs in Brazil, but they didn't want to negotiate. Serra showed them that he had the power, in the event of a national emergency, to make a declaration permitting Brazilian companies to break patents. He told them it would not be difficult to make the case of AIDS being a national emergency. One of the two companies decided to negotiate and rolled back some of its price increases. The other (Roche) balked, so Serra went ahead with the process of issuing the permission to break the patent.
The pharmaceutical companies got the US government to complain to the WTO, but the complaint was eventually dropped. The pharmaceutical companies negotiated with the Brazilian government (the negotiations continued through the change of administrations and are still ongoing, nearly three years after the change) and the Brazilian government continues to buy the drugs.
FWIW, Serra is very highly respected by health professionals in Brazil. In addition to standing up to the multinational pharmaceutical companies on the AIDS drugs, he also stood up to them on generic drugs. He helped push through a new policy permitting generic drugs in Brazil, greatly reducing the cost of medications for the Brazilian people. The pharmaceutical companies, for obvious (but shameful) reasons, opposed the introduction of generics in Brazil. Brave guy. Lula, the current president, is also man of exceptional bravery, having been one of the founders of Brazil's labor movement when the government of Brazil was a right-wing military dictatorship, but that's another story. In addition to the accomplishments mentioned above Serra was responsible for pushing through a modern organ donation law in Brazil.
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Informative)
In these licensing agreements, however, is a clause that allows the government, in an emergency, to manufacture the drug/vaccine/whatever, or give a license to another manufacturer to increase supply of the product. So they're not invoking eminent domain to seize IP, they're availing themselves of a contractual provision. Among other things, this means the gov't doesn't have to compensate the IP holder.
See, for example, section 5.04(b) of the Model PHS Patent License Aggreement--Exclusive, available here [nih.gov].
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't mean they have a right to profit, it's only to claim out of pocket expenses. In this case since it is virtual property that has already paid for it's own research, it has only cost the company potential profit. They should have sold the license for a reasonable amount but they refused, now they get nothing.
It's about time more goverments took this bargaining approach to make drugs available to those who need them and to stomp on those who see $$$ signs in other peoples misery. Sure we need profitable drug companies, it's not cheap to get a new drug to market. However in return for expenditure by the drug companies, taxpayers contribute serious money to police the quality (and patents) of the drugs.
Everyone is a victim of a disease at one time or another and lack of sanitation and quality medicines will turn a "simple" illness into a death sentence. In the interests of public health, governments should have an obligation to demand reasonable contributions from patients, taxpayers and drug companies. If patent law gets in the way, change it.
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:4, Interesting)
Tell that to all the people forced out of homes or businesses for amounts of money that are far below what their property is assesed at when they refuse to sell for the government's ridiculously low offers. They just say "well, tough luck, we're taking it anyway and that's all you're getting, assessments be damned".
Parent
Re:must be done carefully though, in both cases (Score:5, Informative)
Now that Roche have got themselves a nice protectionism program going with the patent system, they don't think any other company, or nation in this case, should do to them what they did to their UK competitors. If any of the founding bandits were still haunting the boardroom at Roche, they would recognize the supreme justice of the current situation.
Parent
Nothing new here.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't appear that Taiwan honors foreign patents via treaty: http://www.bpmlegal.com/pctco.html [bpmlegal.com] http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/plt/ [wipo.int] , but I may be wrong.
The US has done basically the same thing with US patents which have "national security" implications. In the US, the Constitutional authority for patents lies in Congress, so Congress is perfectly free to decide whether patent protection should/is offered for such things. I don't profess to know such specifics about Taiwan.
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:4, Insightful)
What about "Corporations are global citizens and have to look out for everyone, not just their already too huge profits."
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:4, Insightful)
Should a lack of patent laws cause the death of people? Imagine that the entire world declared that for "serious disease" no one had to respect patent laws. Let's say that AIDS was declared such a disease. Would any more private sector research money (by far the most research money spent) go into finding a cure or better treatment for AIDS? Would anyone be able to write a business case to get venture money to start a new bio-tech firm looking at AIDS treatment?
The problem with patent-law violation reasoning is that it seems to be without regard to the future. It's the same logic that leads to other poor policies (who cares about the environment! It's not messed up today).
If patent protection isn't required for drug development, where are the "open source" drugs? It only requires a few billion USD to develop drug lines... I'm sure there is plenty of non-profit, non-patent money to fund that, and so we can do away with the entire patent system.
Oh, and addressing this specifically: if this stands, and other countries follow, no more advances may be made in bird flu research since all private-sector motivation is removed.
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Interesting)
Talk about being nice..
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Informative)
There already is almost no motivation for private sector research into dealing with epidemics. The market for vaccines just isn't very lucrative compared to things like allergy treatments or impotency cures, and the market size is spotty and unpredictable. Without big profits to chase, major funding for significant advances in these areas will have to be driven by government funding anyway, so dropping the patent incentive would be no big loss.
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Informative)
Uhm, what incentive is there for a private company to find a cure for a disease? It's much more cost efficient when the patient has to buy the medication in regular intervals for the rest of his/her life (see diabetes, AIDS, asthma, etc etc).
This is not a theoretical statement, but current practice. I've heard of research projects getting their commercial fundings withdrawn, because they were about to develop a permanent cure instead of a temporal one.
Parent
You know, I actually asked this once. (Score:4, Informative)
But that's a rather weak case [csicop.org], so never mind.
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Interesting)
An editorial in a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, possibly the most authoritative source in the field, pointed out how drug companies spend far more money in marketing than they do in research. Also, drug companies often outsource the pure R&D to little-known laboratories, or buy patents from them, just to re-brand the products. I've been involved in research on levosimendan, created by Finnish Orion Corp., only to be licensed as Simdax® by Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
I figure that when push comes to shove, there's money to be made even from "open source" drugs. The so-called generic drugs, although not as profitable as your typical anti-depressant or branded statin, are a good, perfectly open source market for many companies.
Personally, I do believe in using "force" on private companies when emergencies arise. This might entail paying a forfeitary fee (kinda like compulsory licensing [wikipedia.org] in music.)
Force (of money) is what drug companies use to get (partially connivent) physicians to prescribe one expensive, proprietary drug over a generic one, even if the benefits of the former are unproven.
Force of marketing (as in "ad bombing") is what drug companies use to get unwitting patients to ask their doctors for Plavix®, even though saving one life with Plavix® may cost millions of dollars which could be spent elsewhere more usefully. That is, especially in countries where resources are limited and the health care system is public, that money could save more lives if used for screening programs and promotion of healthy lifestyle, for example.
Sheer force of money is also what gets people to buy Aleve (naproxene sodium) over, well... Naproxen sodium in its cheaper, unbranded, but otherwise perfectly equivalent form!
So be it: fsck them for Greater Good. Granted, a better definition for "Greater Good" would be useful.
Parent
Re:This oughta be good (Score:5, Insightful)
-
Taxpayers through university research
-
Private funds (look at all the money raised by fund-raising for AIDS, breast cancer, MS, etc)
-
Charities, philanthropy, etc.
The drug companies have a much lower efficiency in terms of money spent per researcher in their labs vis. the people doing research at universities for their post-docs, so when you factor that in, the inbalance is even greater towards the public sector.Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. People hate the USA because people like you are ignorant, and associate everything you don't like with the USA.
Roche is Swiss.
I would rather see the drug not manufactured than witheld from needy people.
That is certainly an option. If we tear down the patent system, perhaps we can insure that many, many drugs never get developed, and so never manufactured. We all die equally.
Btw, Tiawan can afford the drug. The amount of money in the corruption-fueled grey economy of corrupt officials is more than enough to buy the drugs. Just check out the world-wide corruption studies in The Economist for evidence. It's not about lack of money in Tiawan, but about priorities of spending (bribing MPs is more important than buying drugs - so break the patents).
Parent
Re:Not right! (Score:5, Insightful)
However:
That is certainly an option. If we tear down the patent system, perhaps we can insure that many, many drugs never get developed, and so never manufactured. We all die equally.
That is ridiculous. Are you suggesting that the fact that virtually all funding and support for military development comes from the public sector, that the US government is the patent-holder on important security technology patents, has led to a moribund pace of innovation in weapons technology? Hardly. There are many, many ways to fund research and distribution, and your belief that only a crude market model is effective is just that - a principle of faith.
Parent
We're dying under the current system (Score:5, Insightful)
We are now. I know many older Americans skipping or cutting down on their meds because they can't afford them. People without insurance can't afford brand name drugs as it is. The reality is people are dying now because they can't afford insurance and proper health care, including some of those 500 dollar prescriptions.
Perhaps you meant "many, many drugs for people who have insurance will never get developed." Which might be true. All in all, I think having fewer drugs more widely affordable would be a step ahead of where we are today.
If those windfall profits were actually going into R&D, I'd have more sympathy for the big name drug makers. But the bulk of those profits are going toward enhancing shareholder value, making rich people even more rich. Otherwise how can drug makers ship drugs to Canada who then sells them back to our own citizens for less than we can buy them here? Canadian pharmacies are still making a profit. The only way that math works is the certain knowledge that we're getting boned on drug prices.
What you say is true from one narrow perspective but not on the macro scale. Drugs are likely only to be the first patents ignored on the world market. Technology might be next. Perhaps you've noticed the really hot tech doesn't premiere here anymore. The new buzz phrase is "No word on when it will be available in the US." Maybe never.
As our patent system becomes ever more litigious and retarded more countries are going to be tempted to bust technology patents for use in their own country.
And, of course, we can't take on patent reform without first making sure all those people in bankruptcy because of catastrophic medical expenses go to credit counseling and pay back their credit card bills and that we shield those poor gun makers from legal liability. Those are obviously hugely important compared to poor people dying, and old people we're almost dead anyway, but I'm sure our Republican servants of the people will get to that patent thing just any day now.
Parent
I don't blame them. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't blame them. (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of the expenses associated with new drug discovery are actually made in the public sector - by Universities and so forth. In broad outline the story is very similar to the Internet, also developed at public expense.
Now, the private sector does contribute significant additional resources to drug development. HOWEVER, these additional resources are a *fraction* of the total increase in drug prices that result from the patents they are awarded (vs. what the same drugs would cost if prices were governed by a free market.)
The upshot is that if you look at it over the long run, we would be much better off if we violated all the patents, let the patent-dependent drug companies go out of business, and funded an equivalent amount of research in the public sector, making the results available to anyone who wished to sell the resulting drugs on the market.
The research I'm citing here was done by a fellow named Dean Baker [cepr.net]. I'll dig up an exact ref if you like.
Parent
Re:I don't blame them. (Score:5, Informative)
How were the mechanisms of blood pressure regulation discovered (picking a drug from that list at random)?
The techniques commonly used to perform high throughput screening of new drugs - who discovered those?
The synthetic organic chemistry required to actually *make* all these novel compounds? Where do you think that was developed?
The research in fundamental biology has been absolutely *essential* to the development of modern pharmaceuticals - every bit as vital as DARPAnet was to the creation of the internet.
Yes, it's true, the public sector does not develop drugs - because when public sector entities get close to developing a drug, they sell their data to a drug company to let the drug company finish the process. However, this is not a law of nature - or even of convenience. It's a massively inefficient mess, with huge amounts of wasted effort and redundant work, driven entirely by the patent system (and the desire by University administrations to secure the profit from those patents.)
Here are the refs:
(journal articles)
"Patent fiction," Health Letter (Washington, DC): vol. 20, iss. 6, Jun 2004; p. 1.
"A Free market solution to prescription drug crises," Challenge (Armonk, NY): vol. 46, iss. 5, Sep/Oct 2003; pg. 76
"Medicines and the New Economics Environment," Journal of Public Health Policy (South Burlington, VT): vol. 23, iss. 2, 2002; p. 245.
(also a policy paper you should read)
"Bird Flu Fears: Is There a Better Way to Develop Drugs?" Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research, October 2005
"Bigger Than the Social Security Crisis: Wasteful Spending on Prescription Drugs", Washington, D.C.: Center for Economic and Policy Research, April 2005
"The Benefits to State Governments from the Free Market Drug Act," Washington, D.C.: Center for Economic and Policy Research, November 2004
Parent
Re:I don't blame them. (Score:5, Insightful)
In many specific cases, corporate decision makers may make better choices than the public sector regarding allocation of resources, I don't want to get into a discussion of this as a general principle - however, you seem to have taken this as a religious creed.
I'll raise exactly one counter-example: Should fire departments be run as for-profit enterprises, and only purchase fire trucks in jurisdictions where they can make money charging for fire protection services? Drug research is high tech, but it is a question of public health and safety, and the fundamental decisions should be made with that in mind - so it is more like the fire department, and less like high end consumer electronics.
Beyond that, corporate decision makers are also very corrupt. For example, in the vioxx case, concealing the evidence of deaths, and so forth. In the case of ipods this really isn't a big deal - so the screen scratches now, so what? But when people like that make public health decisions, other people die.
Shifting all drug control resource allocation to the NIH (or a parallel body structured along the same lines) - would not only make better decisions than corporate power centers, it would also make them a transparent way, subject to the full force of peer review. This isn't a 100% guarantee against fraudulent research, but it's a good start!
So, we get better decisions and we get them at a huge costs savings - no need even to rock the boat, we can simply hire the entire existing research apparatus of the american drug industry, let them keep their current generous salaries, and we can spend a tiny fraction of the savings giving them government-employee retirement benefits.
To continue this discussion I'd have to get into the nitty gritty of decisions that pharmaceutical companies have made in the past, and why they have been so disastrous.
If it makes you feel any better, this is really capitalist solution.
Which is a greater distortion of the market: granting patents, or increasing (by about two fold) the money the government spends on life sciences research? Certainly, if the government is making free R&D available to anyone who wants it, that is a market distortion of a kind. In the past, similar market distortions have lead to epic disasters like the Internet, also the modern aerospace indudstry, sattelite communications, am I leaving out any other great mistakes of 20th century America? My god, what fools we where, to meddle with the market!
Anyway, the drugs would still be manufactured by for-profit companies, they'd just be manufactured in a true market, without the market distortions introduced by patents, which is actually a purer form of capitalism, isn't it?
Parent
Re:I don't blame them. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The system we've currently established is that drug manufacturers outlay a truly phenomenal amount of money to develop and test any particular drug. They do this on the assumption that they will, in the future, be able to charge good money for the results of their research. If they can't charge for it in the future, there's no incentive for them to develop new drugs today."
You're right that that's the rationale used to justify the state of things today. And if it had any relation to current practice I'd be prone to agree with you. Unfortunately, there are a few minor data points that tend to indicate the reasoning you outline above consists mostly of horse waste:
Drug research is expensive - nobody argues that. What is arguable, however, is how ethically pharmaceutical companies have acquitted their important social role. On that count, it seems that they've failed miserably, and, just as a criminal deserves to have his legal rights restricted, they deserve to have their patent rights restricted unless they demonstrate that they will not abuse this trust.
Parent
Re:I don't blame them. (Score:5, Insightful)
And regardless, Big Pharma is enormously profitable, for all their claimed "woes".
If the profit margin was slimmer, companies would still make pharmaceuticals. If nobody went into business if they weren't guaranteed pharma-class profits, there'd be a lot of industries that wouldn't exist. Grocery stores, for instance, are inherently low-margin businesses. Yet they haven't looked at their 1-2% profit margins and said, "Feh! I quit!"
Parent
A Simple Solution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:A Simple Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
At any rate, at the very least, the government can just take what it wants in the name of national security. It's what the US government did many times with new technologies that were needed for the war effort during World War II...
Parent
Obligatory Monty Python Quote... (Score:5, Funny)
No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, isn't it, eh? Beautiful plumage!
Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
This has happened before (Score:5, Informative)
Good luck to 'em all, I say; saving lives trumps patents.
Wikipedia sez... (Score:5, Informative)
"Eminent Domain" for "Intellectual Property" (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, the US Constitution guarantees reasonable compensation for seized property. This doesn't have to be cash. It can be some other equitable consideration.
For example, if Disney would surrender almost all of their old television cartoons and theatrical movies into the public domain (where they should have lapsed years ago), the US could reciprocate and give a *permanent* protection for a few of their most prized revenue source characters: Mickey Mouse and Disney's Ariel (the Little Mermaid). The population could make whatever artistic mashup they wanted from the footage, but they couldn't claim the Mouse as theirs or claim the Mouse speaks for them. If I understand, this is somewhat like the protection Britain has given Peter Pan: it's a special cultural treasure and is handled different from other properties.
Another example is for pharmaceuticals: break an effective AIDS drug patent, and we'll let you keep a certain lifestyle drug like Viagra for a longer period.
Unfortunately, Disney and Pfizer have bought enough Senators to choke the Panama Canal, and so the trade in all of their products will be protected nearly forever anyway, even without surrendering the cultural feedstock and the life-saving inventions to society as a whole.
allowed by WTO/TRIPS (Score:5, Informative)
This is a hot topic in the international trade community for developing countries, especially in relation to AIDS drugs.
USA also threatened to ignore patent (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yikes (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Government at its finest (Score:4, Interesting)
But you're confusing the Taiwanese government and the US. The above applies to the Americans- what the Taiwanese has done is perfectly understandable and akin to what people have said about AIDS drugs.
Some profit is acceptable. At what point do you tell a company to just fuck off? How much higher profit can they have before you start thinking they're asking just too much? They're already making much better margins than many other industries.
And morally/ethically: how much are you willing to give to a foreign company to potentially save your countrymen and women's lives?
Parent
Re:Government at its finest (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I Agree, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent