I've been watching C-Span for the last half hour and Orin Hatch..

[whistle]

...is on as chairman of the subcommittee on patents and intellectual property rights. There has been a stream of witnesses who have been giving testimony in favor of "harmonizing" and "shortening" the patient application and research process with the rest of the world (more globalization), reducing dispute rights, allowing more first apply rights and just generally making it far easier for major corporations and large groups with the specialized capabilities to claim intellectual property rights far easier than it has been to this point.

What is interesting is that only Orin Hatch seems to be on the committee and asking all of the questions, while the witnesses are going right along and ramming their points home with no opposition. Is this the future of legislative change in Washington DC? That is, will future committees be comprised of a single republican chairperson who will give issues a public hearing unopposed like this committee seems to be doing?

I see this as yet another concession to the pharmaceutical giants to seat even more ideas.

<snip>
Next Steps in Intellectual Property Protection

The wish list of the panelists for The Pfizer Journal ® for intellectual property protection contained items to plug the gaps in current policies. The most often expressed wish was to establish a full adherence to those IP standards for pharmaceuticals already negotiated with the TRIPs Agreement, and to extend these protections further. Establishing fairness and encouraging innovation by spreading the best traditions of patents in international trade dealings were the themes expressed for future negotiations.
Among the many opportunities to strengthen patent protection for pharmaceuticals and to encourage the research process, the panelists emphasized these six:

Expedite adherence to the TRIPs standards to minimize the delays of the transition period. “The TRIPs transition period for developing countries is very long, and whatever can be done to expedite the transitions and assure adherence, the better for all,” stressed Dr Noehrenberg.

Rein in patent abuses. Dr Freire said that NIHfunded investigators are being restricted access to patented research tools through refusals to license, onerous royalty obligations, restrictions on dissemination of information, restrictions on the ability to collaborate, and advance commitments regarding rights in future discoveries. “Also, the fact that the gene-related patents can be issued with a very low threshold of utility is of concern to us,” she said. “No one expects research tools to be given away,” remarked Dr Richardson. “But the terms must be reasonable and not block progress.”

Restrict compulsory licensing. When patent holders are forced to license their products to others, it erodes revenues and, therefore, directly affects the ability to research the next discovery. Such licenses considerably undermine the value of patent protection and serve as disincentives to research for problems in that country or disease area, and assume that the local company can manufacture an equally safe and effective product as the originator. <3>
Prohibit parallel imports. In the gray market, both the buyer and the seller abandon their commitment to support future research. “The profits are made by the middlemen, but they are not plowed back into research,” said Dr Richardson. Dr Bale observed: “Parallel trade and compulsory licensing are quick-fix schemes that have the effect of discouraging innovation.”

Improve enforcement procedures both internationally in the resolution of trade disputes and within nations to ensure speedy action in litigation; and

Provide pipeline protection for products in development and provide protection for confidential information used in regulatory applications and limit its use by second applicants. “There must be some minimal measure of fairness,” said Ms Bennett. “There must be an emphasis on enforcement of the TRIPs Agreement in preventing unfair commercial use of data required to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceuticals.”

<more>
<link> http://www.thepfizerjournal.com/default.asp?a=article&j=tpj13&t=Next%20Steps%20in%20Intellectual%20Property%20Protection

[cestpaspossible]

1. a thousand words

[Mojambo]

2. About a year or so ago

I watched two hours of a Senate Judiciary Hearing chaired by Orrin Hatch. It was a chilling couple of hours.

Hatch showed unbelievable and unrestrained contempt for the rules of procedure, at one point simply asserting that the minority no longer could invoke some kind of rule that prevented a vote. Even though a few years earlier Hatch himself had routinely invoked that same rule. For about 30 minutes straight, the Democrats on the committee would rise and say "you have no authority to proceed in this manner." Hatch would angrily gavel them quiet and again call for a vote. Over and over and over...

I came away from that viewing with very little hope for our present form of governance.

Now, we get to see this battle on the grandest of stages.