when did intellect become property?

 TRIPS and  it's ill effects
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND PUBLIC HEALTH IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD
How come I can not patent a surgical procedure but a psychologist can copyright a survey instrument?

Did Chinese get royalties on paper and Gunpowder

Did Indians get rich on the invention of Zero and the decimal system?

"more restrictive intellectual property clauses were often accepted in exchange for foreign direct investment and technology transfers, as well as better trade balances, but in fact “they may allow right-holders to block competition and charge high prices in monopolistically controlled markets.”


“This may lead to particularly serious effects in the area of public health, where unsustainably high prices have become an issue of global concern.”

“Early in the AIDS epidemic, the US badly damaged its international credibility by standing with prescription corporations against people living with HIV and AIDS. Millions of people died for lack of access to existing treatment. We must learn from our mistakes,”



The establishment of the WTO has been an important exercise in a number of ways. First, it represents an entirely new chapter in the jurisprudence of post-World War II international organizations through the establishment of a multilateral trading system that provides a binding dispute settlement mechanism for its members.u Second, the WTO has also undertaken the onerous task of evolving a binding law of international trade among the member countries.u Third, the WTO has in many ways replaced the internal sovereignty of the member countriesæ This is because every member is required to adjust its domestic laws to conform to the WTO agreements.æ Indeed, as a founding member, Bangladesh's legal system has been subject to reorganization to satisfy the requirements Of the W TO.Z-Q The TRIPS Agreement is one of the most controversial agreements of the Uruguay Round in terms of its objectives and consequences, which established global minimum standards of IPR protection. It represents a major departure from previous international IPR treaties and agreements, which aimed not to standardize IPR legislation between countries but to guarantee non-discrimination under
to earlier international IPR agreements in three important ways. First, TRIPS makes it mandatory for WTO members to provide existing types of IPR protection that include patents, copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, industrial designs, layout designs for integrated circuits, and geographical indications, which removed the flexibilities in previous IPR agreements regarding the granting of [PRs based on the stage Of development Of a particular countryæ Second, it specifies the minimum standards for national IPR legislation, such as the extent of coverage, the terms of protection and the mechanisms for enforcement. Third, it brings national IPR legislation under the coverage of the WTO's dispute settlement procedures, which include the option of cross-retaliation in cases of non-compliance.
The TRIPS Agreement was the brainchild of an industry coalition of developed nations including the US, the European Union (EU) and Japan. The main impetus for the agreement came from the pharmaceutical, software and entertainment industries, with the chief executive officer (CEO) of Pfizer playing a lead role as chair of the Intellectual Property Rights Committee (IPC).2 The IPC was created during the Uruguay Round of negotiations with the goal of putting IPRs firmly on the agendaæ The pharmaceutical industry was primarily interested in eliminating what it felt was unfair discrimination against the patenting Of medicines, but it was also motivated to try to gain control over uses Of its clinical and regulatory data to delay registration of generic equivalents—in essence seeking another form of exclusive rights. One of the arguments advanced by the developed countries for including IPRs in the negotiations was that stronger IPRs would create an incentive for innovation and would stimulate the development of new technologies, such as patent protection for pharmaceuticals.æ This incentive for innovation would consequently encourage greater domestic and foreign investment in research into new pharmaceuticals and tropical The argument propounded was that foreign investment and technology transfer would, in turn, benefit developing
increase in research and development (R&D) investment by enterprises in developing countries because Of the non-existence Of technical infrastructure and financial and human resources. That is why "the non-patentability Of pharmaceutical products existing prior to the TRIPS Agreement gave developing countries the opportunity to progress and to acquire basic technology through reverse engineering before being able to invest in Consequently, almost 50 developing countries, which were not granted patent protection for pharmaceuticals during the Uruguay Round, fiercely resisted including pharmaceuticals under the patent regime, claiming that vastly higher drug prices would be associated with such patents.E Therefore, developing countries and the LDCs are apprehensive Of strong patent protection as it may be harmful to their pharmaceutical industries and may have 


Historically, product patent protection was excluded in most developed countries as well. 37 For example, in France, product patent protection was prohibited under the law of 5 July 1844 and limited patent protection was only permitted on 2 January 1966.± In Germany, product patents were explicitly excluded under the law of 25 May 1877, but were then introduced from 4 September 1967.2 In Switzerland, product patents for pharmaceuticals were prohibited by the constitution and were only introduced in 1977.-u In Italy, pharmaceutical patents were prohibited until 1978.iL In Spain, product patents were introduced in 1986 just after its accession to the European Economic Community, and the relevant laws came into effect from 1992.2 The rationale behind the non-granting of product patent protection for pharmaceuticals in each of these example countries was to allow local pharmaceutical companies to imitate and produce patented medicines by using new processes.— Over the years, these developed countries gained self-sufficiency in pharmaceutical manufacturing and invested in which enabled and facilitated the transformation of their pharmaceutical industries into innovative and research-based industries by using imitated technology.± Now, given the advent Of TRIPS, the argument being mounted is that these countries are acting in a hypocritical way:they are supporting the implementation of IP protection for pharmaceuticals only after experiencing maturity for their own pharmaceutical industries.Lé For LDCs, the freedom to rely on imitated technology until such time as pharmaceutical production is at a similar stage of development—before the implementation of pharmaceutical patent protection—is no longer an option,E given the immediate obligation of WTO member countries to implement the TRIPS Agreement. In that context, the transitional period to implement the TRIPS Agreement or to implement the pharmaceutical patent provisions is quite meaningless for those countries that do not have the technological capabilities to produce generic pharmaceuticals.± Although Bangladesh is an LDC, it is in a somewhat unique position. Bangladesh has a considerable number Of generic producers who can reduce the price Of pharmaceuticals by utilizing the freedom Of imitation. Bangladesh 
Bangladesh has a considerable number Of generic producers who can reduce the price of pharmaceuticals by utilising the freedom of imitation. Bangladesh also exports to the less regulated markets of Asia and Africa and to some countries in Europe. However, the apprehension is that after the introduction of pharmaceutical patents, as required by TRIPS, the local pharmaceutical industry will face the issue of survival. If the industry fails, there will be an effect on access to pharmaceuticals. Thus, multinationals and other large pharmaceutical companies in Bangladesh believe that by lowering protection for pharmaceuticals, Bangladesh has missed out on the opportunity to encourage an innovative and R&D-based Industry  pharmaceutical emergencies and ensuring better access to medicines. In particular, three conflicting situations urgently raised the need to address ambiguity and inconsistency in the TRIPS agreement in the context of public health. First, in 1997 the South African government introduced the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act to ensure the availability and affordability of HIV/AIDS-related medicines. This law employed parallel imports and compulsory license, which triggered a legal battle between South Africa and 39 pharmaceutical companies, and involved strong pressure from the US government and trade bodies.±-é Second, in 2001 disputes erupted between the U.S. and Brazil regarding the compatibility Of the working requirements in the national patent law, in which the US government argued that the provision for granting compulsory licenses in case of the patent's non-working in Brazil within
the U.S. and Brazil regarding the compatibility Of the working requirements in the national patent law, in which the US government argued that the provision for granting compulsory licenses in case of the patent's non-working in Brazil within 3 years of its issuance was tantamount to a protective measure and hence inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement.i-! Third, the anthrax scare after the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attack in New York had created a potential health threat, which caused developed countries like the U.S. and Canada to threaten to use compulsory licenses to stockpile an adequate supply of Cipro (an antibiotic used in the treatment of These measures by the US and Canada revealed "a hypocritical behavior [by them] in its eagerness to use the threat Of a compulsory license for what it perceived as a health emergency while on the other hand forcing developing countries to stick to restrictive patent laws in the face Of increasingly dire health crises" Considering the inconsistency and ambiguity Of how to define a national public health emergency, and on what grounds it might be permissible for a national v rnm n h TRIP A m n h
anthrax scare created an impetus to clarify TRIPS flexibilities. The African countries had a strong conviction that the TRIPS Agreement should not prevent them from using measures vital to ensure access to medicines and to fulfill


 public health needsæ That is why the African group requested the TRIPS Council to arrange a special discussion on intellectual property and access to medicines.— During the discussion, the developing countries not only sought clarity through a declaration but support for their efforts to use the flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement to deal with national public health needs.± But the meeting triggered strong protest from the U.S., which argued, along with Japan, Switzerland, Australia and Canada, that strict patent protection for pharmaceuticals was an important incentive for pharmaceutical innovation and hence vital for public health.± However, on 14 November 2001, the WTO Doha Ministerial Conference adopted a declaration on TRIPS and Public Health which offered a much-needed clarification, confirming that "the TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health. Accordingly, the Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO 

you Americans have been eating your future yesterday and today

“And there is a trade imbalance today because we’ve been investing in our future and you Americans have been eating yours,”

Chinese President Xi Jinping need not worry about trifling matters such as elections. He is trade negotiator for life.

If all Western luxury car makers jointly boycotted China, then this would be the equivalent to acting as if a Chinese market didn’t exist. Clearly, profits would take a hit in the short run, but the long-term objective of ensuring that Western companies do business on a level playing field would be met. By AMITRAJEET A. BATABYAL MAY 6, 2018 4:08 PM (UTC+8)
 I am not a professor of economics but 
 I am giving a prediction this will never happen.
Europeans grabbed the Pie in Iran why will they toe the USA line on a billion + market?

Amitrajeet A. Batabyal, Arthur J. Gosnell Professor of Economics, Rochester Institute of Technology

Artificial Organs: Hearts ,Lungs, kidneys,Pancreas, ears,eyes, joints,Muscles,Skin

In 2018
Artificial hearts are part of the therapeutic armamentarium in specialized heart centers—alongside pacemakers, defibrillators, artificial valves, stents, and other devices—in the broader fight against cardiac disease. Smaller, more durable artificial hearts are under development, which, along with improved clinical management of heart failure patients, will almost certainly contribute to the greater use of these devices in the future.

Neo liberalism the root of all evil why Indians are falling to it?

 

It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'

After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatization, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty, and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, “it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realized.”



Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.

Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating “investor-state dispute settlement”: offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.

Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.

The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.

Those who own and run the UK’s privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world’s richest man.

Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can’t Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. “Like rent,” he argues, “interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort”. As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.

Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.

Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.

The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.

Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.

Chris Hedges remarks that “fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the ‘losers’ who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment”. When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.

Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to “cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey them”.

***

Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities.

The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that “in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised”.

 

The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Today, the relationship has been reversed

The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. “The market” sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What “the market wants” tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. “Investment”, as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities “camouflages the sources of wealth”, leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.

A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.

These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.

The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman’s classic work, Capitalism and Freedom.

***

For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.

Neoliberalism, Locke and the Green party

Read more

Neoliberalism’s triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.

Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental destruction.

What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it’s not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century.

• George Monbiot’s How Did We Get into This Mess? is published this month by Verso. To order a copy for £12.99 (RRP £16.99) ) go to bookshop.theguardian.comor call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.

American Diabetes Association Diabetic management Guidelines

you can get the book  PDf file from  here

one more Hill billy revenge ,Port Authority commissioner's rant at cops at NJ traffic stop

have you ever experienced the following ?you are driving along a highway listening to some music or having a conversation with your companion. The road is fairly populated with cars going  5 to 10 miles over the speed limit and you are keeping a safe distance.
and suddenly hear a siren and flashing lights and you are pulled over.

Gotcha!
another white majority European ancestry  Hillbilly town trying to fill its coffers with fines from unsuspecting motorists.

   I  experienced this in Cleveland  OH during my residency in 1994 as a new immigrant I was terrified to see these  2 Burly white men walking over to my second hand toyota corolla.
at least this was before 911
similar was  my experience  in HONDO and Castroville between  San Antonio and   Del Rio

it took 24 years of harassment by this pisspot town sitting on the side of this highway to harass innumerable motorists to fill the coffers of its police department and the infamous REDLIGHT CAMERA company. before  the  redlight camera was taken down 

""Linndale has always been the burr up somebody's ass, ever since I can remember," former Linndale mayor Mike Toczek says in the episode called "Expect Delays." 

The portion of I-71 that's in the tiny Village of Linndale, is 400 yards long and takes less than half a minute to drive it."

"For decades, it's been the most aggressively policed stretch of I-71 around," Producer Sean Cole said. 

The village has 179 people, 35 houses and 11 businesses and almost a million dollars in speeding violations. 

For at least a decade, Linndale has defended its minuscule existence and won political battles to stay open for business. 

"Ohio legislature treats [Linndale] as a parasite living off the lead-footedness of Ohioans," Cole said.

I suspect the same thing from these 2 cops who leaked their dash camera footage after getting an earful from another white female.

At the beginning of the  Fox video, I see a respectful concerned mother asking simple questions.

I would be equally pissed but possibly not show my position to browbeat them .but all the trailer park trash trump supporters (TPTTS)are giving themselves high fives for defeating another Liberal.

Well done  Arseholes!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pDzKthVIT8

Another  is Hopewell in Virginia

Common Mistakes in English Usage 003

Prepositions after certain words
Note carefully the prepositions used after the following words:
accuse of
guilty of
accustomed to
independent of
afraid of
indifferent to
aim at insist
angry with, at
 interested in
arrive at.
in jealous of
ashamed of
 look at
believe in
married to
boast of
no doubt of or about
careful of,
 with, about pleased with it
complain about
 prefer to
composed of
proud of
conform to
 related to
congratulate on
  repent of
consist of
 satisfied with
cure of
similar to
depend on
succeed in
deprive of
superior to
die of
sure of
different from
surprised at, by
dressed in
suspect of
fail in
 tired of
full of
translate into
good at
 warn of, about
guard against