[governance] SOPA or no SOPA

[Paul Lehto]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:

>
>
> On 15.12.11 01:18, Paul Lehto wrote:
>
> Some copying, as i see it, is legitimate (life-saving drugs) while some
> other copying is not.
>
>
> Legitimate?
>
> How legitimate it would be, if it causes loss of business for a major US
> corporation with strong lobby at the Government?
>

Fairly legitimate.  To claim this as a "loss" is to assume that US patent
laws for drugs should have worldwide reach absent an appropriate treaty
(i.e. "extraterritorial effect").   Balancing saving lives against
extraterritorial effect and additional profit, that's where I come down on
the issue.  I hope this is OK.   ;)

>
> If you say it is legitimate, would the US permit import of these life
> saving drugs from some other country. Why not?
>

As you suggest the pharmaceutical lobby is extremely powerful - in the USA,
especially.  We hear all the time rhetoric about the efficiency and wonder
of worldwide competition, with the glaring exception of drugs.  With drugs,
even Canadian sources are considered possibly dangerous, when it's hardly
different from the USA in this regard.

You suggest further down (and I'm saving my time and others' time by not
responding in detail) that the writers of regulations seem like they don't
know how to fly the airplane, and so they should not get in the cockpit.
As to purely technical matters, you would have a point - except that it is
also necessary for technical experts to testify in legislatures and
parliaments to inform the process.

You may not be considering the possibility in some cases that the writers
of regulations DO know how to fly the airplane, but that they are guided by
different stars for navigation than you are.  Often times when you get
behind the text of a regulation, there is method to the seeming madness.
OF COURSE, there's also lots of examples of ignorance and incompetence.
But it often occurs that big business will (quietly) get behind a
regulation that is burdensome on the whole, because the big business can
spread the costs of that regulation over a large operation, while small
businesses can not, and are thus hurt more by it.  This helps to weaken the
competition for the big business.  So when you see a "stupid" government
regulation, one should not assume that it is always ignorance and not
knowing how to fly the airplane that is going on.

*I guarantee you that pharmaceutical lobbyists know how to fly the airplane
of government VERY well indeed.*  Their flight patterns can easily look
crazy to many "common sense" perspectives because we don't have all the
information about the special interest agenda and motivations of big pharma
companies.  So, in looking at a "crazy" regulation you might assume is
based on ignorance, you may in fact be looking at a well-crafted piece of
legislation, *but one that serves a private special interest rather than
serving the public interest* as it should.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

>
>
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111215/19629117/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t