● 09.11.11
●● Cablegate: US Reaction to Minister Ewa Bjorling Pushing for EU Patent, Pressure on Slovenia to Jump Along
Posted in Cablegate, Europe, Patents at 4:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Eva Bjorling, photo by http://politik.in2pic.com
Summary: The EU Patent and ACTA are talked about in a year and a half old cable, Slovenia is also pushed to step into alignment
AS we continue to unearth cables about the EU Patent, we discover who played what role exactly. We also see the US politicians acting as cheerleaders for the change, which can in due course give more power to the USPTO and by inference to US-based corporations working in Europe. There is a price to pay and the payer is every citizen who buys stuff, ranging from medicine to food or even electronic gadgets. The patent system simply makes the rich even richer.
The following Cablegate cable speaks about EU Patent “breakthrough” and ACTA. Well, this does not necessarily suggest that one is used to promote the other, but a correlation is drawn and the two are brought into alignment in the same cable which shows US sentiments towards Sweden’s behaviour, commending the country for becoming more of a so-called ‘IPR’ maximalist, i.e. supporting monopolies as cornerstone doctrine. Here it is in full:
VZCZCXRO5503
PP RUEHIK
DE RUEHSM #0776/01 3481349
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 141349Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4979
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 STOCKHOLM 000776
STATE FOR JOELLEN URBAN
STATE PASS TO USTR FOR DAVID WEINER AND KIRA ALVAREZ
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE PLEASE PROTECT
TAGS: KIPR [Intellectual Property Rights],
EINT [Economic and Commercial Internet],
ETRD [Foreign Trade], ECON [Economic Conditions],
PGOV [Internal Governmental Affairs], SW [Sweden]
SUBJECT: EU PATENT BREAKTHROUGH DURING SWEDISH PRESIDENCY AND
GENERAL IPR/INTERNET PIRACY UPDATE
Ref: A) STOCKHOLM 736, B) STOCKHOLM 733, B) STOCKHOLM 676
STOCKHOLM 00000776 001.2 OF 003
¶1. (U) Summary: The EU Competitiveness Council, chaired by Swedish
Trade Minister Ewa Bjorling, managed to broker a deal after over 40
years of efforts to agree on a unified EU patent system. Swedish
Minister for Communications, Esa Torstensson discussed Swedish
concerns about the ongoing ACTA negations at a meeting at USTR.
Sweden is in the process of recruiting a National Coordinator within
the Swedish Police, who will coordinate IPR related investigations.
This will greatly facilitate the work for Sweden's two specialist
prosecutors. Furthermore, the Police authorities plan to have
completed the recruitment of the 15 investigative officials during
the first half of 2010. Our industry contacts tell us that this is
the key issue going forward -- far more important than IPRED.
Notwithstanding, the IRPED-legislation (implementation of the EU
Enforcement Directive) has spurred a 40 percent increase in DVD
sales of newly released movies since the law entered into effect on
April 1, 2009. End summary.
EU Patent breakthrough
-------- ------- -----
¶2. (U) On December 4 the EU Competitiveness Council battled toward
a so-called 'general approach' on a future patent system, together
with an agreement on the basis of a draft regulation for European
Union patents. The issue has bogged down the European Commission
and the Council for over 40 years. Today, the cost of getting an
EU-wide patent is eleven times that of getting the same protection
in the U.S. The Council conclusions also contain the main elements
of a single European Patent Court that will try cases on both the EU
patent and existing European patents. In today's system, patent
processes for one and the same invention must be conducted
separately in each Member State. The establishment of a single
court could mean annual savings of up to USD 42 billion for European
companies.
¶3. (U) Leading the objections to the Swedish EU Presidency's
proposal for a general approach was Denmark. The Danes, though,
finally withdrew their legalistic objections after it became clear
that changes to the Swedish proposal would not be acceptable. The
Swedish 'general approach' on the EU patent regulation means a real
breakthrough. The all important issue of translation will now be
left for agreement at a "later" date.
¶4. (U) The agreement paves the way for further discussion, under
Spanish and other Presidencies, towards a future patent system.
This would be based on two main pillars. Firstly, a unified patent
litigation system with exclusive jurisdiction for civil litigation
related to patent infringements and validity of EU and European
patents. There would be a court of first instance comprised of a
central division as well as local and regional divisions (in member
states). There would also be a court of appeal.
¶5. (U) Comment. This is a major accomplishment of the Swedish
Presidency. It was the top EU Presidency priority of Trade Minister
Bjorling. The issue has been blocked for over 40 years. Sweden
made a serious effort to break the deadlock during its EU Presidency
in 2001. Although the tricky language question remains, it is
likely that it will be possible to solve that piece separately.
This breakthrough on a European patent is a welcome addition to the
Swedish list of accomplishments during the Presidency, which
includes the Lisbon treaty, the future leadership, climate
financing, and the Stockholm Program. End comment.
ACTA
----
¶6. (U) Even though Asa Torstensson's Ministry, the Ministry of
Enterprise, Energy, and Communication has no ACTA negotiations
mandate; she raised the issue of openness and the ACTA during her
visit to the United States. She publicly summarized her trip as
follows: "I was invited by Peter Cowhey (USTR) to describe the
experience of the telecom-package, and the debate and discussion
that followed. I also described how a similar debate is now gaining
force, as we discuss the ACTA texts -- without even having seen
them. That is why openness for the duration of the discussions is
so important." Torstensson further said she had explained to
Cowhey that it will not be possible to reach ACTA conclusions which
go beyond the scope of the telecom package. "I explained the
complexity of the issue of streamlining efforts on the telecom
market, and the balance between regulations that ensure internet
users' interests. I also said that the telecom package has meant
reinforcements of the rights of the internet users," Torstensson
told reporters. She also told Swedish reporters that she understood
the U.S. position that negotiations must be kept secret and that she
felt that Cowhey understood and respected her position as well. The
Swedish Justice Ministry has the lead on the ACTA negotiations, and
ACTA was not the reason for Torstensson's visit but she still
believes that "it is important to have as open negotiations as
STOCKHOLM 00000776 002.2 OF 003
possible. We then avoid speculations on what the texts include or
involve. It is beneficial to all parties if negotiations can take
place openly, as we then can remove our focus from issues which are
not part of the ACTA."
Sweden continues to strengthen IPR Enforcement structures
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
¶7. (SBU) Justice Ministry contacts informally told us about an
upcoming change of the organization for the two specialist
prosecutors with national IPR competence. The two will work under
the International Prosecutors' Chamber at the Prosecutor General's
office, together with the Specialist Unit for Corruption issues and
the Internal Controls Unit. This organizational change is much
welcomed by the rights-holders organizations. Furthermore, Swedish
police are in the final stages of recruiting a National Coordinator,
who will be responsible for channeling and prioritizing IPR related
investigations. This will have a great impact on the effectiveness
of the prosecutors. Another key part of the puzzle is the
recruitment of additional investigative officials. The Swedes have
told as that they intend to have 15 dedicated investigative
officials in place by the end of the first half of 2010. A close
contact at the Anti-Piracy Bureau told us that "this is all that
matters now, IPRED and its effects are nothing compared to this."
IPRED legislation works
----- ------ ------ ----
¶8. (U) The Sodertorns District Court decided on December 4 that
ISP Telia is obliged to hand over the identity of the customer that
has been operating the website Swetorrent where thousands of IPR
protected works have been made available (illegally) to
approximately 20,000 users. A number of Swedish movie corporations
have, with the help of The Swedish Anti- Piracy bureau, requested
that Telia hand over information about the identity of the persons
behind the IP number which operates the Swetorrent site. Swedish
Anti-Piracy Bureau has previously warned the website operator but
the operator continued its operation. "It is no longer possible to
protect illegal activity behind an IP number. Today's decision
shows that it is the owner of the copyright protected material who
will be protected rather than the perpetrator," says Sara Lindback,
Legal Counsel at the Swedish Anti Piracy Bureau, following the
decision.
¶91. (U) This is the second District Court ruling where ISPs have
been forced to handover information on IP users. The previous
decision was turned over on appeal and is currently appealed to the
Swedish Supreme Court, which has ordered that the ISP is not allowed
to destroy information related to the suspected IP number.
IPRED legislation effects felt
-------------------------------
¶10. (U) As previously reported, the IPRED legislation may have
caused ISPs to remove IP numbers sooner rather than later, but there
have also been benefits. In Sweden sales of newly released DVDs
have increased by 40 percent since the IPRED legislation went into
effect on April 1, 2009. According to the owner of the legal
downloading site for movies, Film2home, downloads of movies have
increased six-fold.
¶11. (U) Although 40 percent is a huge number, the increase in
sales might not be entirely a result of IPRED regulations. The new
movie "Men that Hate Women" have sold in 300 000, which is unusually
high for any newly released movie in Sweden.
¶12. (U) The Music Business is also experiencing an increase in
sales; 18 percent during the first nine months of 2009. The sale of
hard copies increased by 9 percent whereas digital sales increased
by 80 percent. During 2008 music sales fell by 7 percent.
¶13. (U) Other IPR news in brief
--Portlane tracker still up
Stockholm District Court decided not to order Internet Service
Provider (ISP) Portlane to remove its tracker pending a legal
hearing. "To already prior to the legal hearing order the removal
of a tracker would create a too great burden on ISPs," Jonas
Forzelius (legal counsel for Portlane) explained following the
decision.
-- Voddler gets competition as another free streaming movie site is
launched
As previously reported, Voddler has been well received in Sweden and
internet users are lining up to get access. However, their instant
success as a result of being the only service provider that provides
movies without a cost may be threatened. Another Entertainment
Service Provider, HDMT.net, also providing streamed movies without a
STOCKHOLM 00000776 003.2 OF 003
cost was recently launched. The site collects and compiles movies
and series which are already available online, and stream them over
their services. The legality of the service has been questioned.
BARZUN
This leads nicely into the next cable, which comes from Slovenia. We previously wrote about or alluded to Slovenia’s stance on the patent question in [1, 2, 3]. The following cable is titled “Slovenia – 2008 Special 301 Review – Recommendation Against Inclusion On Watchlist” and this points out that: “While pipeline protection is not part of the GATT/TRIPS provisions, Slovenia is working towards harmonizing its procedures with the EU Patent Protection Law.”
Well, further down it addresses lists of shame like the one Argentina and Brazil found themselves in. “Post recommends against including Slovenia in the Special 301 Watch List,” it concludes. “In general, the GOS is meeting its obligations under TRIPS and the 24 other treaties on intellectual property and patents to which it is party. With membership in the EU, there is added pressure to conform to European norms, Post judges that Slovenia is making progress and will continue to do so in good faith, even if in some areas it has yet to achieve its goals.”
Here is the Cablegate cable in full (marked “SENSITIVE”):
VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB
DE RUEHLJ #0081/01 0521324
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 211324Z FEB 08
FM AMEMBASSY LJUBLJANA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6466
INFO RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 1851
UNCLAS LJUBLJANA 000081
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR EUR/NCE TYEAGER, EB/TPP/IPE JBOGER
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USTR JENNIFER CHOE GROVES,
USDOC/ITA/MAC/OIPR CASSIE PETERS, FCS VIENNA FOR CQUINLIVAN
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON [Economic Conditions], ETRD [Foreign Trade],
KIPR [Intellectual Property Rights], SI [Slovenia]
SUBJECT: SLOVENIA - 2008 SPECIAL 301 REVIEW -
RECOMMENDATION AGAINST INCLUSION ON WATCHLIST
REF: STATE 09475
SUMMARY
-------
1. (SBU) Slovenian legislation on intellectual property rights
(IPR) and data protection is fully aligned with EU legislation,
TRIPS, WIPO, and other ratified international treaties. In
practice, U.S. pharmaceutical companies have access to the Slovene
market. Recent efforts by the Government of Slovenia (GOS) to
balance the health-care budget, curb inflation, and reduce
government spending have posed some problems for "innovative" drug
producers. But the GOS has been responsive to commercial concerns
and it appears that the long-term impact of the health legislation
will be to expand the availability of drugs, including innovative
drugs, to the Slovene public. The Ministry of Health's (MOH)
incorporation of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America (PhRMA) and Post's pricing concerns in the pricing
regulation implemented in 2007 and the omission of the therapeutic
reference pricing (TRP) from the Medicine Act submitted by the MOH
in February 2008 are both positive signs. The MOH intends to
implement the EU Transparency Directive, but has cited limited
resources as the main reason for the delay. As well as working with
PhRMA to address its concerns, over the last few years, Post has
been cooperating with the GOS to provide training for judges,
prosecutors, and staff at the Slovenian Intellectual Property Office
(SIPO) to help address the challenges of the overburdened courts and
strengthen U.S.-EU cooperation of IPR protection. Post believes GOS
cooperation will continue to increase, and recommends that Slovenia
not be included on the Special 301 Watch List. END SUMMARY.
PHRMA CONCERNS
--------------
¶2. (U) ENFORCEMENT/COURT PROCEDURES: PhRMA's continued complaint
about slow court procedures in Slovenia is well-founded but does not
reflect the progress that Slovenia has made in the past few years.
The Ministry of Justice's Lukenda Project, started in 2005 to
eliminate the judicial backlog, has made inroads into the backlog by
increasing the auxiliary court staff by 500, upgrading courtroom
technology, and streamlining small claims cases. Slovenia has been
steadily decreasing its court backlog every year. Since 2005, the
backlog has decreased by more than 18 percent. While the GOS might
be late in meeting its targets of eliminating judicial backlog by
2010, cutting the average processing time of a case from 18 months
to 6 months, and implementing alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms, it has made progress. SIPO acknowledges deficiencies in
Slovenia's legal system, but denies that current legislation favors
domestic (pharmaceutical or other) industry. In a meeting with
emboff in May 2007, local PhRMA members concurred with SIPO's
statement.
¶3. (U) To help support the efforts of the GOS, Post funded and
coordinated several training programs for Slovene judges,
prosecutors, and police in 2007. In 2008, Post plans to work
cooperatively with the Slovenian Ministry of Justice and the State
Prosecutor's Office to train judges, investigators, and prosecutors.
Post believes that providing U.S. expertise will help to create a
more efficient judicial system, improving the speed of case
adjudication in the courts.
¶4. (U) FREE CHOICE OF EXPERTS: Although PhRMA asserts that experts
are chosen to favor local companies, courts generally choose experts
after consultation with both parties. It is also possible for the
court to designate a person or institution which is not considered a
"court expert," but an expert in the subject nonetheless, including
a foreign person or institution. If one of the parties proposes an
expert, the proposing party must cover the costs associated with the
proposed expert.
¶5. (U) PIPELINE PROTECTION: While pipeline protection is not part
of the GATT/TRIPS provisions, Slovenia is working towards
harmonizing its procedures with the EU Patent Protection Law.
Slovenia introduced patent protection on January 1, 1993. Prior to
this, there was no protection either in Slovenia or the former
Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia of which Slovenia was a part until
June 25, 1991. Slovenia introduced the possibility of
supplementary protection certificates in 1993. Since May 1, 2004,
when Slovenia joined the EU, supplementary protection certificates
have been granted in accordance with European regulations. Patent
holders have the possibility to claim prolonged protection for a
product after the expiration of patent protection.
¶6. (U) MARKET ACCESS BARRIERS: The GOS has been focused on
controlling government spending, lowering inflation, and negotiating
labor agreements. The MOH's goal, as part of healthcare reforms,
was to control healthcare costs. In January 2007, the MOH adopted
some changes to drug reimbursement procedures. Slovenia now employs
a pricing and reimbursement system based on manufacturer prices for
drugs in Germany, France, and Austria (previously it used Germany,
France, and Italy as its reference points), taking into account
Slovenia's lower GDP. While PhRMA acknowledges that regulating
pricing at the manufacturer level increases transparency, it is
still dissatisfied with the reimbursement procedure. Post
understands that Slovenia's program, while perhaps not ideal, is a
legitimate formula not unlike those used in other EU member states.
¶7. (U) PRICING: Slovenia's approach on drug pricing has been an
effort to find a balance between the use of innovative and generic
drugs. Contacts at the MOH have told Post that PhRMA's complaint
that the government favors domestic producers over foreign was not
justified and that the pricing measures were not specifically aimed
at foreign producers. Post understands that domestic Slovene
generic producers also are experiencing increased competition with
the introduction of lower priced generic drugs from India.
¶8. (U) PhRMA complains that Slovenia is inconsistently and
non-transparently applying the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)
and Defined Daily Dose (DDD) systems. Post understands that the MOH
uses the ATC/DDD as indicators, not exclusive determinants, of
price. Contacts at the Ministry tell Post that there is no law or
legal procedure prohibiting physicians from prescribing any drug
approved for use in Slovenia. However, the system will only
reimburse up to the value of the lowest-priced drug on the
Interchangeable Drug List (IDL). This system would not affect any
new, innovative drugs brought to market before the patent protection
period ran out and generics became competitive.
¶9. (U) The MOH has told Post in the past that the changes in
regulations have all been adopted in order to control healthcare
costs and make decision-making more transparent. These decisions
have significantly decreased the annual percentage rise in the
Government's expenditures on healthcare. Post understands that the
Ministry sees this current period as one of adjustment. Former
Health Minister Andrej Brucan, as he unveiled the new pricing
regulations in January 2007, stated that the MOH plans to use the
increased savings to improve health services and to spend more on
innovative drugs.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
---------------------
¶10. (U) Slovenia has enacted highly advanced and comprehensive
legislation for the protection of intellectual property that fully
reflects the most recent intellectual developments in the TRIPS
Agreement (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property) and
various EU directives. Slovenia is a full member of the TRIPS
Council of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Slovenia has ratified
the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), and the Cyber Crime Convention.
¶11. (U) Slovenia's Intellectual Protection Office actively
participates in the Intellectual Property Working Party of the
Council of the EU, the Trademark Committee and other EU working
bodies in formulation of new EU legislation. The Copyright and
Related Rights Act amended in 2001 and 2004 deals with all fields of
modern copyright and related rights law, including traditional works
and their authors, computer programs, audiovisual works, as well as
rental and lending rights. The act also takes into account new
technologies such as storage and electronic memory, original
databases, satellite broadcasting, and cable re-transmission. The
2004 harmonization with the EU legislation introduced a new system
of collective management of intellectual rights following the EU's
latest directive.
¶12. (U) Slovenian legislation provides for different legal measures
within the framework of civil, criminal and administrative law,
which may be used by holders of intellectual property rights to
defend their interests. The Industrial Property Act (IPA), the Act
on Litigation Procedure (ALP), and the Act on Enforcement of
Judgments in Civil Matters and Insurance (AEJCMI) are generally used
in civil litigation and for cases involving infringement of
industrial property rights. In 2007, SIPO revamped its website so
that both domestic and foreign parties can access the most current
information regarding intellectual property issues.
DATA PROTECTION
---------------
¶13. (U) Slovenia has a comprehensive legal framework for the
protection of intellectual property rights. Slovenia signed the WTO
Uruguay Round Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPs) and has implemented those commitments. The
number of intellectual property complaints has been quite low,
although U.S. industry representatives have raised some concerns
about the pace and scope of action taken by the government against
infringement.
¶14. (U) The 1994 Law on Courts gives the District Court of
Ljubljana exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over intellectual
property disputes. The aim of the law is to ensure specialization
of the judges and the speed of relevant proceedings. Concerning the
TRIPS Agreement's enforcement provision, Slovene law provides for a
number of civil legal sanctions, including injunctive relief and the
removal of the infringement, the seizure and destruction of illegal
copies and devices, the publication of the judgment in the media,
compensatory and punitive damages, border (customs) measures, and
the securing of evidence and other provisional measures without the
prior notification and hearing of the other party. Furthermore,
these infringements also constitute a misdemeanor with fines ranging
from EUR 417 (USD 613) to EUR 41,729 (USD 61,000) for legal persons
and a range of fines, from EUR 41.73 (USD 61) to EUR 2,086 (USD
3,066), for supervisors of individual offenders provided that the
reported offenses are not criminal in nature. (Note. All USD
amounts have been calculated at 0.680 Euro to the Dollar. End Note)
In such a case, the Slovenian Criminal Code would apply, which may
result in fines or, in extreme cases, imprisonment.
COUNTERFEITING/PIRACY
---------------------
¶15. (U) The GOS does not have significant issues regarding piracy
of optical media (music CDs, video CDs, CD-ROMs, and DVDs);
unauthorized procurement/use of computer software; counterfeit and
pirated goods. Since the enactment of the Law on Copyright and
Related Rights Act, there have been relatively few reported
prosecutions for infringement violations. Most notable are cases of
computer software piracy. In 2002, the Koper District Prosecution
Office successfully completed a case against a small computer
company, which had illegally installed software on its customers'
hard disk drives in 1997. In January 2004, a long-running software
piracy court case ended with a jail sentence and monetary fine.
Since piracy prosecution is still in the early stages of
implementation, Slovenia has dedicated resources to the training of
prosecutors and public authorities. Prosecutors did not file any
new cases in 2007. Slovenia continues to address the preservation
of evidence in infringement procedures and border measures by
amending existing legislation. Moreover, in 1997, the Ministry of
Culture established the Intellectual Property Fund, the Slovene
Copyright Agency, and the Anti-Piracy Association of Software
Dealers (BSA) to combat the problem of piracy in a collective
manner.
¶16. (U) The GOS takes its situation on the border of the EU's
Schengen zone very seriously. Since joining the Schengen zone
December 21, 2007, the GOS has strengthened its border security.
The customs officials who once patrolled the Italian, Austrian, and
Hungarian borders were reassigned to the Croatian borders. In 2007,
the Slovenian police did not report counterfeit or pirated goods
crossing any of Slovenia's borders.
COMMENT
-------
¶17. (U) Post recommends against including Slovenia in the Special
301 Watch List. In general, the GOS is meeting its obligations
under TRIPS and the 24 other treaties on intellectual property and
patents to which it is party. With membership in the EU, there is
added pressure to conform to European norms, Post judges that
Slovenia is making progress and will continue to do so in good
faith, even if in some areas it has yet to achieve its goals. The
most significant problem, by far, is an overburdened court system,
which is also the target of many calls for reform from all sectors
of society. Post's success in facilitating judicial training should
also help Slovenia in its efforts to improve the efficiency of its
courts. In addition to the IPR complaints, PhRMA has pointed to the
problem of market access and drug cost reimbursement policies in the
Slovene health system. There is agreement on all sides that the
reimbursement mechanism employed by the Slovene health system has
disadvantaged some innovative drug producers in some categories in
the short run. This development, however, should be viewed in the
context of the overall need for the GOS to balance its budget, bring
down inflation, and root itself in the euro zone, which it joined in
January 2007. Post believes that the GOS did not undertake these
measures with a goal of favoring domestic producers of generic drugs
- according to the GOS, Slovenia's system is similar to the majority
of EU members' systems.
¶18. (SBU) Post hopes this information will be helpful in
stimulating a well-informed discussion of PhRMA's claims.
Post is committed to promoting a fair, open, and transparent market
for U.S. pharmaceuticals. Post is in regular contact with the local
PhRMA and has engaged successfully with the MOH on pricing issues
and plans to continue to engage the GOS. In 2008, utilizing lessons
learned when PhRMA and Post successfully engaged the GOS to ensure a
fairer pricing plan, PhRMA and Post worked together to proactively
to persuade the government not to submit the therapeutic drug
pricing (TRP) legislation to the Slovene Parliament. Post plans to
continue to promote fair market access and find the most effective
ways in which PhRMA and Post can lobby the GOS. We look forward to
engaging in further dialogue on this issue, and, as always, we
welcome guidance from both USTR and the Department. END COMMENT.
SHELTON
Got to love the acronym “PhRMA”. As we pointed out before, just as “terrorism” and “child porn” are often being used to pass laws that have nothing to do with those dog whistles, the “drug” (or counterfeit drug) dog whistle is often used to ban generics and in some cases, as in the case of ACTA, is is being used by Hollywood and other “IPR” maximalists to pass laws that have nothing to do with medicine. They use the “life” propaganda to piggyback their way into morality in pursuit of law changes. █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.