Brazil to Break Patents on U.S. Films, Books, Drugs

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Bloomberg

Brazil to Break Patents on U.S. Films, Books, Drugs
By Iuri Dantas

March 15 (Bloomberg) -- Brazil will seek to break intellectual property rights on U.S.-made prescription drugs, music, books, software and movies in a bid to force the U.S. government to end cotton subsidies that violate global trade rules.

Brazil’s government submitted a list of products that may have royalties, copyrights and patents suspended as part of $829 million in retaliatory sanctions authorized by the World Trade Organization, according to a statement published today in the country’s official gazette.

The Geneva-based WTO in August ruled that Brazil may impose annual sanctions on U.S. imports because the cotton subsidies violate trade regulations. Of the amount awarded, Brazil will adopt penalties on intellectual property rights totaling $239 million this year.

Brazil and U.S. still have room to negotiate an agreement to avoid the application of the sanctions, Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said last week. President Lula Inacio Lula da Silva blamed the “fighting” over the agricultural subsidies on the U.S.’s refusal to sign an accord during the Doha round of global trade talks.


Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.VF70UEOmVM

[begin_within]

1. Patents do not cover books, music and movies. Copyright does.

[Romulox]

3. The mistake appears to be Bloomberg's. It's all IP to me, anyhoo. nt

[Dhalgren]

5. There is no confusion in the article.

It is very clear "intellectual property rights" are what they are dealing with. Only the title/blurb is in error...

[Romulox]

2. There'll be a trade war before the US gov tells big Agra "no". nt

[yava]

34. I also think of a trade war, in an election year. Well...

It might just take that.

[damyank913]

4. Doesn't Brazil also have Agricultural subsidies?

Good point about the copyrights.

[Judi Lynn]

6. Brazil details retaliation on US copyright

Brazil details retaliation on US copyright
Published: 3:12AM Tuesday March 16, 2010
Source: Reuters

Brazil revealed a preliminary list of US patents and intellectual property rights it could restrict unless both countries settle a long-standing dispute over US cotton aid.

It is the second set of measures Brazil has unveiled in a week to pressure Washington to obey a ruling by the World Trade Organization that found the US cotton subsidies and export credit guarantee program illegal.

Diplomats, trade experts and business leaders are closely watching the case, one of a few in which the WTO has allowed cross-retaliation, in which the wronged party can retaliate against a sector not involved in the dispute.

Brazil would become the first country ever to apply cross retaliation under WTO rules.

The new measures, which are still subject to public hearings, would suspend for a limited time US patents on pharmaceuticals, chemicals and biotechnology.

They would allow Brazil to restrict copyrights in the music and audiovisual industry.

More:
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/brazil-details-retaliation-us-copyright-3417752

[madrchsod]

7. brazil just raised it`s key tariffs....

[yava]

35. Cotton for high tech!

Our Latin cousins are REALLY not stupid.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Another Criminal regime.

[Flaneur]

10. You mean the one in Washington?

The one that's violating WTO agreements?

[Ozymanithrax]

11. No I mean the theives who steal other peoples intelectual property...

Brazil, if the story was accurate.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

14. This is allowed by the WTO rules. You are, in effect, calling the WTO criminal.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. Yes...I oppose the World Trade Organization.

Theft of intellectual property tramples on the rights of individuals who hold those rights. The WTO, by allowing that theft, are Thieves and Thugs.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. Then campaign for your oh-so-honest country that never stole from anyone, ever, to get away from it.

And let me stress again: it's not theft. It's the LEGAL application of sanctions derived from an INTERNATIONAL TREATY. You may dislike it and say it's wrong all you like, but you can't call it "theft". At least, not without looking like an idiot.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. Looks a lot like what Libertarians think of taxes.

By the way, "those who benefit from support of the cotton industry" can be legitimately considered to be the entire country.

* Why did you use the nicer-looking term "support" instead of "subsidies"?

[mbperrin]

9. Oh, no! A sovereign country acting in the interests of its own citizens!

Instead of large US corporate interests! The horror!

[Ozymanithrax]

12. A sovereign country still does not have the right to steal from people...

even in the interest of their own citizens.

[mbperrin]

13. Let's work on that closer to home before we worry about others,

shouldn't we?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmicone]

17. It is being done legally. There is no "stealing."

If the American copyright owners want protection, they can make their government stop cotton subsidies. Simple.

How else can Brazil retaliate against the US? Start a war?

[paulsby]

29. it may not be stealing in the legal sense

if one agrees with WTO which i bet most people here DON'T ***unless*** it's being used against the US, in which case it's okey-dokey (see: situational ethics)...

but it's still stealing in the same sense that civilly forfeiting a person's house because of some bogus asset forfeiture clause related to a drug crime they are never convicted of is stealing.

legalized theft is still theft

hth

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. What about the cotton subsidies that started all this?

Are they a-OK?

[paulsby]

36. how is that remotely relevant?

is this one of those "two wrongs make a right" arguments?

the point is IT'S STEALING.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. Are you kidding? That's what the sanctions are retaliation FOR! Did you read the whole story?

The US refused to let go of the subsidies for years and years, even after they were declared irregular! That's WHY Brazil was given the right to retaliate.

[paulsby]

42. yes, i did

and the people who are being retaliated against are artists, musicians, etc. who took no part in the alleged initial incident

it's THEFT

hth

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. Do you work for a big-media company? Looks like.

Of course, even if you do, it's likely you'll deny that, alleging you're only a concerned upstanding citizen who doesn't like "theft".

[Judi Lynn]

18. Brazil announces it may break US patents on movies, music, drugs, chemicals in WTO dispute

Brazil announces it may break US patents on movies, music, drugs, chemicals in WTO dispute
By Associated Press
1:12 p.m. EDT, March 15, 2010

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — Brazil says it may let local companies break U.S. patents on products including movies, music, pharmaceutical products and chemicals.

The World Trade Organization says Brazil can take punitive action because the United States has failed to get rid of illegal subsidies provided to American cotton farmers.

The list of products targeted for patent breaks was released Monday in the Brazil's official gazette.

Brazil last week announced $591 million in possible sanctions against other U.S. products through higher tariffs. The WTO authorized Brazil a total of $829 million in sanctions.

Brazilian and U.S. officials say they will try to negotiate a deal so the sanctions are not imposed.

http://www.courant.com/technology/sns-ap-lt-brazil-us-cotton-dispute,0,1182469.story

(My emphasis.)

[JDPriestly]

24. This is the problem with "free trade."

The nation state is incompatible with "free trade."

Does that mean we get to copy Brazilian music free of copyright restrictions?

I bought a Brazilian CD as a gift at Christmas. Does that mean that the person who received it can copy it and sell it here for profit? Quid pro quo? Seems to me that if the Brazilians break our copyright laws, then we can break theirs.

I oppose free trade. I support permitting countries to govern themselves.

[pampango]

27. Indeed countries should govern themselves. And if a country decides to enter into agreements with

other countries that govern trade, pollution, passport/visa requirements for travelers, educational exchanges or anything else, that is its sovereign right. It is a sovereign right to decide which agreements it signs up for and which it stays away from.

But if a country does sign an international agreement that regulates behavior in some way and has a set of penalties for violating mutually agreed upon rules, it has given up a certain amount of sovereignty presumably for a benefit that the country deemed greater than the cost or it would not have signed the agreement. Surely a country has the right to make this decision. History is full of examples of countries agreeing to do or not do something in exchange for another country promising something. Some treaties have tough enforcement mechanisms, others don't and are pretty much just words on a piece of paper.

If a nation state agrees to "free trade" who is to say that it does not have the sovereign right to give up some of its sovereignty if it decides it is in the national interest. Germany's free trade with France does not destroy either's ability to govern itself. Our free trade with Canada does not destroy either's ability to govern itself.

If the concept of the nation state is incompatible with "free trade", would a 1% tariff on imports (so that trade would not be "free") restore a country's "sovereignty"? 25%? 100%? Or if not in terms of tariffs what kinds of restrictions on trade would a nation state need to satisfy those who value sovereignty over all. No trade at all so that each nation state is like an island.

[rschop]

28. There is no free trade with the current WTO treaty

Prior Post:

"But if a country does sign an international agreement that regulates behavior in some way and has a set of penalties for violating mutually agreed upon rules, it has given up a certain amount of sovereignty presumably for a benefit that the country deemed greater than the cost or it would not have signed the agreement. If a nation state agrees to "free trade" who is to say that it does not have the sovereign right to give up some of its sovereignty if it decides it is in the national interest."

But we have a major problemo!

Trade depends on the value of a countries currency and countries like China can manipulate their currency to increase their exports at the expense of every other country, a huge loophole in this WTO agreement. A real free trade agreement from the WTO has to also include the value of a counties currency, and not allow manipulation of a countries currency, without this there is no free trade.

[JDPriestly]

32. Real free trade would require that tradingr nations enforce the

same environmental and employment standards including pay. We should not be trading with countries like China and India in which the pay and environmental standards are so different from ours without making some kind of adjustment in the price at which the goods are imported that would encourage nations with which we trade to raise their standards.

[JDPriestly]

31. A tariff high enough to make up for the loss of tax revenue due to unemployment

and other lost taxes that result from importing an item and selling it here rather than manufacturing it here.

[howaboutme]

43. FreeTrade?

Free trade has been anything but free to most Americans. Yes we now get to buy cheap low quality shxt from China via Wal-mart for those who can still afford it. Most Americans under the age of 40 have little concept of the reduction in level of quality that typical Americans can now afford. It used to be that Americans could afford high quality Made in America tools, clothes and shoes and the people that made this stuff could afford them too. Now you need to be a lawyer or Goldman Sachs guy to afford US quality clothes, etc. The typical consumer stuff today gets used for a couple years and then goes into filling our landfills with more poisonous metals and additives.

I still make an effort to buy American when I can but it has become a losing battle, and the fault can be laid directly at the feet of every President and Congress since Carter and I include Bill Clinton as one of the worst. As a nation we've been losing our standard of living. The only thing keeping us going has been the increase in government and personal debt since Reagan. This slide didn't occur by accident; it was done by plan. Keeping Americans poor is the easiest way to keeping us manipulated. Middle class results in a politically involved people. Poverty results in the pied piper syndrome.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FarCenter]

25. Since the US depends on "service exports", this could be a big deal

The US has been a major proponent of draconian intellectual property rights agreements in the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization and in other international venues.

We have been very protective of copyrights to Hollywood's movies, etc. But the service exports in many cases involve license income from patents or from services which make use of patented technology.

On the other hand, there is no way to actually enforce the payment of economic rents on intellectual property if other countries decide not to do so.

In the longer run, it won't matter since other countries are rapidly gaining intellectual property assets that will dwarf the United States'.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. All the more reason not to flaunt WTO rulings.

Brazil has been hit before because of our own subsidies, but WE complied.

[Bacchus39]

41. so you are a free trade proponent now?? n/t

s

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

44. See #39. -nt

[The abyss]

33. Judi – thanks for this LBN story. Recommend

I recall Rabs broke a story last week detailing some of this

"Brazil Raises Tariffs on U.S. Goods, to Break Patents (Update3)"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4298351

[Judi Lynn]

38. Thanks for linking that thread, The abyss. It was a great one.

For some reason beyond understanding some people just start foaming at the mouth concerning anything Latin American. They've clearly not taken the time to get any grasp of US actions concerning everything south of our border for the last 100 years.
It's a pity when they get livid while still not knowing anything, isn't it?

That's what keeps propagandists in business, with such an easy job molding perception among the mentally lame. Lots and lotsa people willing to let the corporate media telling what to believe.

Glad you caught rabs' previous thread on the subject. :hi:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. And when we manage who land a punch under the rules THEY THEMSELVES set up...

...they cry foul. Like all bullies, they are cowards that can dish it but can't take it.

You only have to look upthread.

[Mudoria]

40. So basically Brazil is using a WTO ruling

to steal intellectual and copywrited property. Nice thievery when you get it I guess.

[Judi Lynn]

45. Any attempt to read the article would lead you to the awareness they haven't done it,

and the ball is in the U.S.'s court. The U.S. can prevent it easily by doing the RIGHT thing.