Enough! Can we stop the divisive anti-TPP @#$%-stirring?

[JDPriestly]

234. Really?

Krugman continues to admit that Obama is bargaining away the right of Congress to establish the rules on the monopolization of the rights to intellectual property including copyrights and patents.

What the T.P.P. would do, however, is increase the ability of certain corporations to assert control over intellectual property. Again, think drug patents and movie rights.

Is this a good thing from a global point of view? Doubtful. The kind of property rights we’re talking about here can alternatively be described as legal monopolies. True, temporary monopolies are, in fact, how we reward new ideas; but arguing that we need even more monopolization is very dubious — and has nothing at all to do with classical arguments for free trade.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

Now, the corporations benefiting from enhanced control over intellectual property would often be American. But this doesn’t mean that the T.P.P. is in our national interest. What’s good for Big Pharma is by no means always good for America.

In short, there isn’t a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view. Nor does there seem to be anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?_r=0

I realize that most people don't understand how mightier copyrights and patents that extend way beyond a reasonable period will do to economic progress. But let me tell you it will be devastating.

Article I, section 8 of our Constitution authorizes Congress to establish the rules about patents and copyrights in the US. We should not enter into agreements that freeze the rules on them because we need the flexibility in that are to accommodate new scientific or artistic developments. This is a really touchy area. Signing an agreement will bind us but will other countries really keep an agreement that might force them to buy necessary drugs at a higher price than the price at which they could copy them and produce them themselves?

Not only does this, yes, add to the numerous threats to our sovereignty and our Constitution that existing trade and other agreements have thrust upon us but it is just a dumb thing to agree to.

And having to defend America in these international trade, commercial courts is a big chore, costs lots of money. We just do not need more of these international trade agreements. We are mired in enough of them already as Krugman points out.

Of course, the law firms that get to pile up to represent this interest and that one in the international trade/commercial courts like the NAFTA court love these deals.