With Both Presidential Candidates Claiming To Be Against The TPP, President Obama Kicks Off Campaign To Ratify It

Politics

from the so-that'll-be-interesting dept

Even as the candidate that President Obama is supporting, Hillary Clinton, has been increasingly insisting that she really (no, really) is against the TPP (despite being for it prior to this campaign) — and even as Donald Trump has been vehemently against it, despite trade agreements usually getting strong support from the GOP — President Obama is making a big push to get the TPP ratified by Congress. It needs a majority vote in both houses of Congress to be ratified in the US. Last week, we noted the weird situation where everyone’s position on the agreement appeared to be wishy-washy, though mostly for all the wrong reasons.

But that’s not stopping Obama from having his cabinet make a big push to get it approved by Congress:

Among those who will hit the road will be Secretary of State John F. Kerry; Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter; retired Admiral Michael G. Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama; Admiral Harry B. Harris Jr., commander of the United States Pacific Command; and William Cohen, a former Republican senator and defense secretary under President Bill Clinton.

Of course, everyone knows that it won’t be voted on until after the election.

Although the administration?s push will begin in September, no vote on the accord will occur before the election. Just as the White House and congressional Republican leaders mostly agree on the economic benefits of trade, they have parallel political interests in delaying debate.

Republicans do not want to provoke attacks from their presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, who called the trade accord ?a rape of our country,? or hurt other Republican candidates. Mr. Obama does not want to make trouble for the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, who has struggled to persuade voters of her sincerity in switching from support of the pact to opposition. This month, during an economic address in Michigan, she declared, ?I oppose it now, I?ll oppose it after the election and I?ll oppose it as president.?

But, of course, that seems like it could also make a so-called “lame duck” vote pretty damn awkward as well. Yes, after the charade of the election is over, perhaps politicians will revert to their previous positions supporting the deal, but even at their most cynical, it seems a bit crass to do so right after the election. It would just underscore how absolutely full of shit they were during the campaign season. Maybe that doesn’t have political consequences… but it should.

Filed Under: barack obama, congress, donald trump, hillary clinton, tpp, trade agreements

With Republicans Backing Away From TPP, Does It Still Have Any Chance?

Politics

from the what-a-weird-year dept

We’ve pointed out before how topsy turvy things have become with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement lately, and it seems to be getting even more weird, but not for any good reason. As we’ve pointed out dozens of times now, actual free trade is a good thing for the world — but the TPP agreement has very, very little to do with free trade. There are certainly some good things in the TPP when it comes to trade, including some stuff on helping protect the free flow of information on the internet, but it is significantly outweighed by numerous problems with the agreement that seem to have little to do with actual free trade and plenty to do with certain industries putting in place protectionist/mercantilist programs that are, in many ways, the opposite of free trade. The two areas that we’ve discussed at great length are the intellectual property section, which will force countries to ratchet up their laws (which runs against free trade) and the problematic corporate sovereignty provisions, that allow foreign companies to effectively block regulations that may make perfect sense for certain countries.

Historically, the way political support for trade deals in the US works breaks down as follows: Republicans support the deals strongly, with a simplistic mantra of “free trade is good, any free trade agreement must be good.” They don’t care much about the details (other than if a big company in their region wants some protectionist nugget in the agreement). Meanwhile, the majority of Democrats oppose the agreements, but again, often for simplistic and protectionist reasons. But, there are always a few “moderate” Democrats (i.e., Democrats who recognize free trade is actually a good thing overall) who support free trade and that’s enough to get the deals passed. That’s mostly how the TPP situation played out for the past few years.

Then the insanity of the 2016 Presidential election hit and everything went sideways.

On the Republican side, you’ve got Donald Trump, who is opposed to the TPP, but mainly because he doesn’t understand international trade at all, and ridiculously seems to believe that everything is a zero sum game, and any trade agreement that helps other countries means we’re “losing.” The TPP is bad, but not for the reasons Trump thinks. And then you have Hillary Clinton, who had always been in the Democratic clump that supported free trade agreements, and who has always supported the TPP, despite now pretending not to. That’s because Bernie Sanders was very much against it (also for mostly the wrong reasons!) and feeling pressure from the success of his campaign, she felt the need to come out against the TPP to avoid losing to Bernie.

So, you have both candidates claiming to be against TPP, but for weird reasons, and no one believing the Dem candidate, while no one quite understanding the GOP candidate. Meanwhile, the sitting President continues to push for the TPP even as the only two people likely to have his job in a few months insist they won’t support it.

Now, throw into this mix the fact that Trump’s railing against the TPP (again, for dumb reasons) is suddenly getting Republican voters to hate the TPP, and down ticket Republicans who have long supported the TPP are suddenly changing their tune. Senator Pat Toomey, a long time supporter of the TPP has now announced it’s a bad deal and he’s opposed to it. Of course, he actually spends most of his opinion piece (correctly!) lauding the benefits of free trade, but then says he’s opposing it for a few reasons. His reasons are silly, though. It’s mainly because the pharma industry has convinced him that the IP provisions in the TPP are too lax. Pharma pushed heavily for more ability to basically lock up their data and discoveries for a very long time, and thanks to Australia pushing back, there was a compromise here. So Toomey insists that’s why he’s now opposing:

About 46,000 Pennsylvanians have jobs in the life science and pharmaceutical sector, making it one of our state?s largest industries. TPP will make it too easy for other countries to steal innovations that we create in Pennsylvania and take the jobs tied to those innovations.

That’s not true at all. What the TPP will do is actually mean that pharma will have an exclusive monopoly on certain things for not quite as long as they’d like. It won’t make “stealing innovations” any easier.

Of course, the real reason for Toomey’s about-face may have more to do with his re-election campaign:

Toomey’s remarks arrive as public polls show him falling behind Democratic challenger Katie McGinty in one of the country’s most crucial Senate races. They also come after months of rage against international trade fueled support for Trump and Bernie Sanders, and forced Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to reverse course on the pending deal. McGinty has opposed the TPP and blasted Toomey over his stand on it.

“Pat Toomey has spent his entire career pushing bad trade deals and policies that ship Americans jobs overseas, so nobody is buying this ridiculous flip flop,” McGinty said in a statement.

So, this topsy turvy election year, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the TPP might not actually have the support it needs to get ratified in the US. If Republicans are bailing on it (and the top of the ticket screaming about how horrible it is), it’s difficult to see how it can gain enough support. There is the popular theory that no matter what happens, in the lame duck session after the election, everyone will revert to their earlier positions and push the damn thing through, but if trade continues to be an issue in the election, doing so will create a huge amount of public anger.

So, in the end, there are a lot of reasons why the TPP may die on the vine… even if all of the reasons for it doing so will be pretty bad.

Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, donald trump, free trade, gop, hillary clinton, intellectual property, isds, pat toomey, politics, tpp, trade agreements

Donald Trump On Intellectual Property: China Is Bad

Politics

from the huh? dept

As you may have heard, in an effort to refocus his Presidential campaign, this week, Donald Trump erased his original economic plan (literally, it just disappeared from his website) and launched a brand new plan with a speech in Detroit. The speech came across as a mishmash of semi-random ideas, pulled from whatever that crazy list of folks he’s calling his advisors are these days. However, for the folks around here, what may be interesting is that this is really the first time I can recall Trump even mentioning intellectual property, and his entire summary of it is basically “China bad, we need more protection.”

At the center of my plan is trade enforcement with China. This alone could return millions of jobs into our country. They break the rules in every way imaginable. China engages in illegal export subsidies, prohibited currency manipulation, and rampant theft of intellectual property. They also have no real environmental or labor protections, further undercutting American workers. Just enforcing intellectual property rules alone could save millions of American jobs. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, improved protection of America’s intellectual property in China would produce more than 2 million more jobs right here in the United States. Add to that the saved jobs from cracking down on currency cheating and product dumping, and we will bring trillions of dollars in new wealth and wages back to the United States.

These are kind of old and obsolete talking points. China has been ramping up its intellectual property enforcement over the past few years after many, many years of the US screaming about Chinese copycats. Except, as we’ve noted, our own government’s shortsighted focus on “stopping IP theft in China” actually handed China a fantastic tool to enable on-the-sly protectionism against foreign companies. China has begun “respecting” intellectual property in the form of building up a massive patent portfolio and then suing foreign companies (mainly American) and winning.

The trade deals that the US has been negotiating historically won’t help stop that. They’ll only encourage more of it. Of course, it’s doubtful that Trump really cares about or understands the policy implications of this. I doubt he cares at all about intellectual property. This was just a new speech for him to give in an effort to refocus the campaign from the non-stop ridiculous comments last week to try to sound more serious this week and to pretend there’s an actual plan.

Of course, Hillary Clinton’s intellectual property platform is a complete joke too, but it feels like War & Peace compared to what little Trump has said on the subject. And people wonder why our new t-shirt about the election is selling so well…

Filed Under: china, donald trump, intellectual property, tpp, trade agreements

Clinton Friend, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, Now Pretends Hillary Never Supported TPP

Politics

from the that's-just-wrong dept

The whole silliness around Hillary Clinton and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement just keeps getting sillier. She should admit what pretty much everyone already recognizes: she supports the deal. She could then explain why she supports it and perhaps the public could have an honest and open conversation about the nature of these agreements. As we’ve noted more than once, we tend to support free trade here at Techdirt, but the TPP agreement is barely about free trade. It’s mostly about investment and creating other regulatory/protectionist barriers. But Clinton’s constant flip flopping on the issue is silly. Back in 2012, she declared the TPP to be “the gold standard” in trade agreements. It was only last fall, after she started facing primary pressure from Bernie Sanders, who was against the agreement, that she flip flopped and said:

?As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it,? Clinton said, later adding, ?I don?t believe it?s going to meet the high bar I have set.?

It got so ridiculous that Clinton deleted the section of her memoir where she talks about her support of the TPP. That’s just literally trying to rewrite history.

Meanwhile, pretty much everyone has assumed that after the election, she’d flip flop right back into supporting the TPP. Back in February, the head of the US Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue, made it clear that he fully expected she’d flip back, and this week a US Chamber of Commerce employee who spoke at the Democratic Convention (officially as a member of “Republican Women for Hillary”) has also said she expects Hillary to flip back and support the agreement.

But, of course the bigger headlines came when the Clintons’ close family friend and advisor, current Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, admitted that he fully expected she’d support the TPP after the election. As we noted, this resulted in a bunch of other Clinton supporters to scream loudly about how this was crazy and Hillary was never going to support TPP. Apparently the message got back to McAuliffe, who when approached at a bar late at night by a Gawker reporter now claims not only that Hillary will never support the agreement, but that she never did in the past either.

She?s wrong. I support it. She doesn?t. She never supported it. I create jobs in Virginia, I always supported it. We?re best friends. She has never supported it.

Except, of course, she has supported it, quite clearly in the past. And almost certainly still is. I understand the political calculations here. Historically, Democrats (especially the progressive wing) have generally been against free trade. So these agreements (even when they’re actually good!) are usually a tough sell to Democratic voters. But this is a weird year. Because while these agreements have almost universally been supported by Republicans, this year Donald Trump suddenly hates them — not for all the legitimate reasons to hate them, but mainly because he doesn’t understand how international trade works.

But wouldn’t it be nice if Clinton could just come out and say what she really thought about the TPP and have an open conversation about it, rather than playing this “wink wink nod nod” game where basically everyone knows her true position, but she won’t say it?

Filed Under: hillary clinton, politics, terry mcauliffe, tpp, trade agreements

TAFTA/TTIP Just Got Harder: Brexit Is 'A Midsummer Night's Nightmare' Says EU Trade Commissioner

Legal Issues

from the massive-potential-win-for-humanity dept

After the dramatic and largely unexpected victory of the “Brexit” (Britain Exit) camp in the UK — those who want the country to leave the European Union — politicians around the world are trying to work out what the implications will be. For the UK, of course, it meant an immediate trashing of the UK pound against the US dollar; for the US, it meant the loss of a reliable ally within the EU camp. As The New York Times puts it:

As that mentions, trade is one area where the UK played a key role for the US, and its departure from the EU will make negotiations for the TAFTA/TTIP deal, now dragging on into their fourth year, even harder, since the UK was one of the main countries pushing for it. The European Commission is worried: after the results of the Brexit vote were known, the EU’s commissioner for trade, Cecilia Malmström, called it “A midsummer night’s nightmare,” (original in Swedish.) However, she also insisted that she would press on regardless:

But as Politico.eu points out, once the UK leaves the EU, TTIP won’t be such an attractive deal for the US:

Losing that leverage will make it harder to wring concessions out of the US, which was not particularly keen on offering any even before. The USTR’s lukewarm post-Brexit statement hardly gives the EU much hope of the US meeting its main demands:

The problem is that without some clear wins for the EU, it will be very hard to sell the TAFTA/TTIP deal to Europeans and the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who must ratify the deal once it is finished. A report on Reuters is already pessimistic about TTIP’s chances:

That view was backed up by the following new report:

Meanwhile, in an open letter to the EU heads of state and government, 240 European organizations have called for the TTIP negotiations to be abandoned now:

The UK probably does not care about the havoc Brexit is wreaking on TAFTA/TTIP, not least because it has its own huge problems in the area of trade. Once it leaves the EU, it will need to renegotiate all the trade deals that it currently enjoys as a result of being part of the European Union, as well as striking some new ones. Naturally, the most important of those would be with the US. Even if some kind of TAFTA/TTIP deal is achieved at some point — possibly years down the line — the UK will not be part of it. As a result, it needs to agree something with the US on its own.

That’s not going be easy. A spokesperson for President Obama confirmed that the UK would not be getting any preferential treatment when it came to trade deals, and that it would have to wait its turn. As people are already pointing out, the UK’s extremely weak negotiating position means that it is likely to end up with a really bad US deal:

As well as its inability to haggle, there’s another reason why the UK may sign up to something that is far worse than the current TAFTA/TTIP: the person seen as a likely successor to David Cameron as UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, thinks such a deal with the US would be an unalloyed boon. In 2014, he wrote a prophetic article in which he gushed as follows:

It now looks increasingly likely that the UK will do precisely that. The big question is: will the US care?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: brexit, eu, eu commission, trade agreements, ttip, uk, us

US Suddenly Discovers Why Supranational Tribunals Are A Problem, Just As It Starts Losing In Them

Legal Issues

from the probably-just-a-coincidence dept

There’s a bit of a battle going on in an obscure part of the World Trade Organization (WTO) called the Appellate Body, which has extremely wide-ranging powers within the WTO:

Here’s what’s been happening, as reported by Bloomberg:

As the article explains, that’s not going down too well with other WTO members, including Brazil, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, who are traditionally allies of the US in trade matters. So what exactly has Chang done to incur the wrath of the US?

Which seems to be a polite way of saying that Chang hasn’t been toeing the US line. That’s confirmed by the following section from a WTO news item about the DSB meeting where this argument took place:

Here’s one of those panel decisions that the US doesn’t like:

The interesting part is the bit at the end there, where the US complains that the WTO’s dispute settlement system is effectively overruling national law. Techdirt readers will recognize that as a common complaint about the tribunals that adjudicate on disputes between investors and governments — the so-called “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) system, aka corporate sovereignty. Until now, the US has been a solid supporter of these tribunals, so it’s rather significant to see it moaning about the problem of uppity adjudicators here. It raises the question why the US is unhappy with the DSB tribunal, but doesn’t seem to have a problem with those used in ISDS.

It might have something to do with the fact that the US has never lost a corporate sovereignty case — something it uses to justify the inclusion of ISDS in TPP and TAFTA/TTIP — but is increasingly on the wrong end of decisions at the WTO. As to why the US never loses ISDS cases, Ante Wessels, writing on the FFII.org blog, has a provocative theory: he says the “Investor-to-state dispute settlement is a rigged system” that is tilted in favor of the US. Whether or not you agree with his analysis, it’s certainly interesting to see how the US seems to be changing its mind on the value of supranational tribunals that can ride roughshod over domestic legal systems now that it finds itself on the losing side.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, isds, seung wha chang, trade agreements, tribunals, us, wto

Corporate Sovereignty Finally Enters The Political Mainstream

Legal Issues

from the yet-another-ratchet-clause dept

Techdirt has been writing about investor-state-dispute settlement (ISDS), aka corporate sovereignty, for more than three years now. During that time, we’ve published well over a hundred articles on the topic. Increasing numbers of people have become aware of the threat that ISDS represents to democracy because of the privileged access it grants companies to a parallel legal system. Now, it seems, it’s beginning to enter the political mainstream around the world.

A couple of weeks ago, the leader of the UK’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, promised to reject TAFTA/TTIP if he were in power, and to vote against it if he were in opposition. One reason for that, he said, was his concerns over:

The Labor Party in Australia has also started to make pronouncements about corporate sovereignty:

That comes at a time when the current Australian government is thinking about doing exactly the opposite:

Here’s why it’s taking that odd course of action:

In other words, this is yet another “ratchet” clause that ensures changes only ever move in one direction — to the benefit of companies, and against the interests of the public. It’s yet another reason never to include corporate sovereignty chapters in these so-called trade deals.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, isds, tpp, trade agreements, tribunals, ttip

Google Comes Down On The Wrong Side Of The TPP

News You Could Do Without

from the short-sighted dept

This is extremely unfortunate, but not surprising. Google has made some noise sounding supportive of the TPP over the past year or so, and now it’s put out a blog post strongly supporting the agreement, and claiming that it’s good for intellectual property and the internet. The company is wrong. The statement is right about a big problem on the internet — the growing restrictions and limitations on the internet in different jurisdictions:

But Internet restrictions — like censorship, site-blocking, and forced local storage of data — threaten the Internet?s open architecture. This can seriously harm established businesses, startups trying to reach a global audience, and Internet users seeking to communicate and collaborate across national borders.

Yes, absolutely. And the TPP only tackles a tiny part of that — and in some ways makes other aspects worse. But that’s not what Google says. Instead, it misrepresents what the TPP really does. The post is correct about the issue of cross-border data flows and localization — and I agree that these are good things — but they’re small parts of an agreement that has so many other problems:

The Internet has revolutionized how people can share and access information, and the TPP promotes the free flow of information in ways that are unprecedented for a binding international agreement. The TPP requires the 12 participating countries to allow cross-border transfers of information and prohibits them from requiring local storage of data. These provisions will support the Internet?s open architecture and make it more difficult for TPP countries to block Internet sites — so that users have access to a web that is global, not just local. 

It’s after that where the post goes off the rails:

The TPP provides strong copyright protections, while also requiring fair and reasonable copyright exceptions and limitations that protect the Internet. It balances the interests of copyright holders with the public?s interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works — enabling innovations like search engines, social networks, video recording, the iPod, cloud computing, and machine learning. The endorsement of balanced copyright is unprecedented for a trade agreement. The TPP similarly requires the kinds of copyright safe harbors that have been critical to the Internet?s success, with allowances for some variation to account for different legal systems. 

This is just wrong, and it’s the most frustrating part of the post. The TPP expands copyright rules to ridiculous levels in many countries, including extending copyright terms at a time when there is no sound basis for advocating for extending copyright terms. And the “requiring fair and reasonable copyright exceptions and limitations that protect the Internet” is just wrong. Yes, it’s true that for the first time the USTR actually acknowledges user rights in such an agreement. In the past, all such trade agreements only focused on expanding copyright holder rights. So you can argue that’s progress. But the details showed that it’s not creating “fair and reasonable copyright exceptions and limitations,” but instead pushing a misleading tool that will limit the way countries can explore fair use, and (even more important) makes the fair use stuff optional. Google claiming that it requires such things is just… wrong.

The TPP advances other important Internet policy goals. It prohibits discrimination against foreign Internet services, limits governments? ability to demand access to encryption keys or other cryptographic methods, requires pro-innovation telecom access policies, prohibits customs duties on digital products, requires proportionality in intellectual property remedies, and advances other key digital goals. 

Yes, this part is also a good thing that it’s in the TPP, but (1) it’s so outweighed by bad things that it’s really not that big of a deal and (2) the issues around encryption and telecom access policies are not nearly as clear cut in the TPP as this blog post implies, nor are they necessary to do via the TPP process.

As I’ve said before, I’m a supporter of free trade, generally (unlike many who oppose the TPP). But the TPP is not about free trade, other than at the margins. There’s so much in there that’s about blatant protectionism and supporting certain business models over others. Of course, that’s how the trade game is played these days. Companies get big enough to influence the USTR to advocate for closed room deals that favor them. And Google is big enough to play that game. This public support of the TPP is a part of that game, but it’s unfortunate. The company could have and should have taken a stand on this, noting the things that are important in the TPP, but also being honest about the disastrous IP section and other problems in the agreement (such as the corporate sovereignty provisions that will almost certainly come back to bite Google and others).
There are good trade agreements to be made. And they can focus on things like protecting a free and open internet, and creating important safe harbors for communication and innovation. But the TPP is not that agreement — and it’s disappointing that Google has decided to jump on board, rather than highlight the very clear and very real problems of the TPP.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, safe harbors, tpp, trade agreements, ustr
Companies: google

India Seeks To Renegotiate 47 Investment Treaties Because Of Their Corporate Sovereignty Clauses

Legal Issues

from the leading-the-way dept

Corporate sovereignty has become a big issue as a result of its inclusion in TPP and TAFTA/TTIP, but it’s present in hundreds of other trade and investment treaties.The heated discussion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) chapters in those negotiations has led some countries to realize that corporate sovereignty could prove very costly to them one day. As we’ve written, both South Africa and Bolivia have decided to dismantle the ISDS provisions by renegotiating treaties, and according to a new report in The Economic Times, India has decided to do the same on a large scale:

Forcing foreign investors to use domestic courts is designed to stop them circumventing Indian’s laws by going outside the system to arbitration tribunals. Among the 47 treaties that India wants to renegotiate are relatively new ones, as well as others that can be cancelled quite easily. The Economic Times provides some information on the growing magnitude of India’s ISDS problem:

This is a very sensible move by the Indian government, and a great signal to other countries exposed to the threat of costly corporate sovereignty claims in the future. It will be interesting to see who is next now that India has helped legitimize further the idea of renegotiating these deals.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, india, international trade, isds, renegotiate, trade agreements

At The Behest Of Big Pharma, US Threatens Colombia Over Compulsory Licensing Of Swiss Drug

News

from the destroying-lives,-destroying-peace dept

As Techdirt readers well know, Big Pharma really hates compulsory licensing of its patented drugs, where a country steps in and allows an expensive drug to be made more cheaply in order to provide wider access for its people. Such massive pressure is applied to nations contemplating this move, that even global giants like India quail. A new story is unfolding that reveals just how far companies are prepared to go in order to prevent it from happening. It concerns Colombia’s possible use of a compulsory license for the drug imatinib, sold under the name Glivec, and used to treat leukemia. Despite the fact that the company holding patents on the drug, Novartis, is Swiss, the US has started to lean heavily on Colombia in order to persuade it not to go ahead with the move.

KEI has obtained a copy of a letter from Andrés Floréz at the Embassy of Colombia in Washington, DC, to the Minister of Health in Colombia, reporting on a meeting between embassy officials and Everett Eissenstat. He’s the Chief International Trade Counsel for the US Senate Committee on Finance, under Senator Orrin Hatch. Apparently, Eissenstat conveyed quite forcefully his views on the negative consequences for Colombia if it decided to issue a compulsory license on the cancer drug Glivec:

Nice little country you have there — be a shame if something happened to it. Stat News mentioned a couple of forms that “special treatment” might take:

But the most extraordinary threat is the following, reported here by KEI:

The US is willing to jeopardize the entire “Paz Colombia” peace plan, all because Big Pharma is outraged a developing country might dare to use its international right to issue a compulsory license. As KEI Director James Love commented:

It can surely only be a matter of time before Colombia obediently toes the line, and recognizes that Big Pharma’s patents and profits are much more important than the health and lives of its people.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: colombia, compulsory licensing, everett eissenstat, glivec, health, orrin hatch, threats, trade agreements
Companies: novartis