Neg A2: ip leadership



Download 116.27 Kb.
Page1/3
Date15.05.2016
Size116.27 Kb.
  1   2   3

Dartmouth 2012

Neg

A2: IP Leadership




SQ solves – advanced biotech now produces GM crops solves all environmental impacts of agriculture. Their evidence doesn’t make a distinction between biotech and biotech innovation


Toby J. A. Bruce, PhD. Principal Investigator (band 5); Chemical Ecology Group, Rothamsted Research, 12, [“GM as a route for delivery of sustainable crop protection,” Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 537–541, 2012, http://sbc.ucdavis.edu/files2/Bruce-GM%20for%20sustainable%20crop%20protection-JEB-2012.pdf] E. Liu

Sustainable agriculture is a common goal shared by both environmentalists and GM proponents (Raymond Park et al., 2011). There is common ground in that both parties are deeply concerned about the future of agriculture and food. This was highlighted recently by Professor David Baulcombe in his speech, ‘Reconciling Organic Crops and Biotechnology’ (UK National Farmers Union, Bledisloe Memorial Lecture, December 2010) which stated, ‘Until now organic production and biotechnology have been seen as opposite.there is a third way that takes the best of both approaches. It would use GM crops, for example, that are consistent with no-till agriculture, do not require toxic insecticides, resist late blight and viruses or that have enhanced nutritional content. From a trait perspective I find it difficult to see how there can be an objection to these developments’. Perhaps it is time to think what some environmentalists may at first consider unthinkable, that is, that GM crops may provide solutions to some of the environmental impacts of agriculture. Indeed several prominent environmentalists have already decided to recognize the potential benefits of having GM crops (e.g. Ronald and Adamchak, 2008; Brand, 2009; Moore, 2010). It would be naı ¨ve to imagine that non-GM crops have no harmful effects on the environment. Our current elite crop cultivars deliver high yield but rely on large inputs of fertilizer and pesticides. GM approaches could remove this dependency and actually produce crops that are more environmentally friendly. GM crops could provide advantages over conventional crops for growth under low input conditions. The focus of this article is on crop pro- tection, but it should be noted that GM traits to increase phosphate mobilization and nitrogen use efficiency would reduce crop requirements for fertilizer and reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture. For affluent consumers in the rich world, organic and GM-free produce are choices based on dissatisfaction with particular agricultural practices. However, for subsistence farmers in the developing world, the cost of agricultural inputs such as artificial pesticides and fertilizer is often too high and they are forced to be organic farmers. Need can change attitudes to GM, as highlighted in a recent newspa- per article (The Guardian, 9 March 2011) where a farmer from Uganda was quoted as saying, ‘Most of the people against this have choices. Somebody who is hungry does not have a choice. GM, organic or whatever—you have to feed the people.’ Moreover, future projections indicate that the cost of agricultural inputs will rise with the cost of oil and that food will become more expensive as a consequence (Beddington, 2010). The secret of sustainability is to keep as many options open for the future as possible, and to remove the GM option would limit what we can do to face the grand challenges agriculture will face in the future. These challenges are not only the evolution of pesticide-resistant biotypes but also climate change, reaching peak oil, water shortages, soil erosion, and of course the increasing demand for food as the world population continues to grow (Beddington, 2010; Godfray et al., 2010) (Fig. 2). In 2008, the president of the EU stated that the food price rises had added ‘a new dimension’ to the public debate on GM crops. The dislike of GM is because it is perceived as unnatural. However, agriculture itself is unnatural and mutagenesis screening (described above) used in conventional breeding of crops seems more extreme than GM which introduces very pre- cisely controlled genes. GM crops expressing the Bt protein are already widely used to control Lepidopteran pests, and herbicide-tolerant GM crops have greatly facilitated weed control. Both these examples show that successful delivery of improved crop protection is possible by means of GM. For sustainable crop protection it would be better to have a greater diversity of traits increasing crop resistance to pests, weeds, and diseases (Raymond Park et al., 2011). Heavy selection pressure for resistant biotypes will occur if only a limited number of traits are used. Thus, from a sustainable agriculture point of view it could be better to have more GM traits available. GM papaya that expresses a coat protein from the Papaya ringspot virus has saved Hawaiian papaya production which was close to being abandoned because of the disease (Stokstad, 2008). Other potentially valuable GM traits for resistance to pests, weeds, and diseases are in the pipeline (Jones, 2011; Ronald, 2011) and could deliver sustainable crop protection if farmers are allowed to use them.

TB declining in the Status Quo


Woodard 3/25/13 (L.L., Three decades of nursing experience in long-term care, Good News on Tuberculosis Incidence in the United States, Yahoo News, http://news.yahoo.com/good-news-tuberculosis-incidence-united-states-161000611.html)

The good news is that in 2012, the incidence rate for newly diagnosed cases of tuberculosis decreased by 6.1 percent over the 2011 incidence rate, with 2012 becoming the 20th consecutive year for declines in new tuberculosis cases. Reported data showed that in 2012, 3.2 cases per 100,000 people were newly diagnosed with the contagious illness.¶ The less-than-good news is that the total number of these cases in the United States still numbered nearly 10,000 people.¶ Forty percent of the 3,143 counties in the nation have not reported a single new case of TB in the last three reporting years. Not every state was able to enjoy participation in the declining rate of TB -- 33 states and the District of Columbia had lower rates, 17 states had higher rates. Four states -- California, Florida, New York and Texas -- combined to report 4,967 of the new TB cases, representing 49.9 percent of the total new cases.¶ Reports of new TB cases were statistically lowest in West Virginia in 2012 with an incidence rate of 0.4 compared with Alaska where the incidence rate was 9.0. The median incidence rate among the states was 2.3. Both U.S.-born and foreign-born persons were part of the decline in newly reported TB cases. Nearly 55 percent of all foreign-born persons with known country of origin who were diagnosed with tuberculosis came from five countries: Mexico, the Philippines, India, Vietnam and China.¶ Asians experienced the highest incidence rate of new diagnoses of tuberculosis among all known racial and ethnic groups, a rate 25 times higher than that of whites. The TB rate among U.S.-born blacks was 5.8 times greater than that of U.S.-born whites; a rate the CDC explained represents the highest single disparity among racial/ethnic groups of U.S.-born persons.¶ The HIV status for newly diagnosed cases of TB was known in more than 80 percent of the cases, with 7.7 percent of the known-HIV-status cases being HIV-positive.¶ In the TB cases with known housing status of those 15 years of age or older, 5.6 percent reported as being homeless. Excessive alcohol use was identified in 12.1 percent of cases reported in this age group and 4.2 percent were detained in a correctional facility at the time of TB diagnosis.



Disease doesn’t cause extinction – Transmission and survivors are inversely related


Leah R. Gerber, Associate Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Sciences, 8-05, ["Exposing Extinction Risk Analysis to Pathogens: Is Disease Just Another Form of Density Dependence?,” Ecological Society of America, Jstor] Zheng

The density of it population is an important parameter for both PVA and host-pathogen theory. A fundamental principle of epidemiology is that the spread of an infectious disease through a population is a function of the density of both susceptible and infectious hosts. If infectious agents are supportable by the host species of conservation interest, the impact of a pathogen on a declining population is likely to decrease as the host population declines. A pathogen will spread when, on average, it is able to transmit to a susceptible host before an infected host dies or eliminates the infection (Kermack and McKendrick 1927, Anderson and May l99l). If the parasite affects the reproduction or mortality of its host, or the host is able to mount an immune response, the parasite population may eventually reduce the density of susceptible hosts to a level at which the rate of parasite increase is no longer positive. Most epidemiological models indicate that there is a host threshold density (or local population size) below which a parasite cannot invade, suggesting that rare or depleted species should be less subject to host-specific disease. This has implications for small, yet increasing, populations. For example, although endangered species at low density may be less susceptible to a disease outbreak, recovery to higher densities places them at increasing risk of future disease-related decline (e.g., southern sea otters; Gerber ct al. 2004). In the absence of stochastic factors (such as those modeled in PVA), and given the usual assumption of disease models that the chance that a susceptible host will become infected is proportional to the density of infected hosts (the mass action assumption) a host specific pathogen cannot drive its host to extinction (McCallum and Dobson 1995). Extinction in the absence of stochasticity is possible if alternate hosts (sometimes called reservoir hosts) relax the extent to which transmission depends on the density of the endangered host species.



Turn – Section 211 Key to US IP Leadership

Section 211 is key to US intellectual property rights leadership


Federal News Service March 3, 2010

MR. LEHMAN “Hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Domestic and International Trademark Implications of Havana Club and Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1999” LexisNexis

Finally, opponents of Section 211 argue that it abrogates U.S. leadership in intellectual property matters, and I think this -- the exact opposite is the case. The very essence of U.S. intellectual property policy under administrations of both parties has been that the use of intellectual property rights without permission of the rights-holder is contrary to the national interests. Any act of Congress that would repeal legislation based on this principle would send a very strong message to the world that U.S. opposition to confiscation of patents, trademarks, and copyrights is country-specific. We would be broadcasting to the world the message made clear in statements of this committee today that if you interfere with the nationalization of companies and the confiscation of their trademarks, the U.S. can be held hostage by the threat that others will meet the same fate if a single aggrieved

party complains.




Strong IPR Bad

IPR harmonization fails – US won’t give up first-to-invent system


Sheldon Mak & Anderson 1995 (Full-service intellectual property firm providing legal expertise in the areas of Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets, Litigation and International IP Law, ‘FIRST-TO-FILE V. FIRST-TO-INVENT: A BONE OF CONTENTION IN THE INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION OF U.S. PATENT LAW,’ Sheldow Mak & Anderson Intellectual Property Law, http://www.usip.com/pdf/Article_Patents/1st2fil.pdf)
A international treaty harmonizing the laws that govern the creation and enforcement of ownership rights in intellectual property has gradually become an increasingly important goal for the United States. The United States International Trade Commission, a governmental agency authorized to investigate unfair import practices, estimates that the U.S. loses approximately $23.8 billion dollars annually from the piracy of intellectual property created in the United States. These losses constitute about five percent of the U.S. trade deficit, and translate into nearly 300,000 jobs lost for Americans. With the rising trade deficit, the U.S. can no longer afford to ignore the potential revenues that would be generated by a system allowing world-wide enforcement of U.S. owned intellectual property rights. A unified system of intellectual property laws would reduce intellectual property piracy by allowing world-wide enforcement of U.S. owned patents, copyrights and trademarks, which in turn would generate substantial foreign revenues. A multi-national treaty ratified by a large number of nations would offer a feasible means of enforcing U.S. patents in foreign countries, with the advantages of simplicity and multi-party representation. Although bilateral trade agreements offer a more flexible method of negotiating a mutually acceptable agreement between two governments, it would be an arduous and insurmountable task for the U.S. to negotiate bilateral treaties with each and every country in the world. Moreover, without the incentives offered by a multi-national agreement, many countries may simply refuse to negotiate bilateral treaties with the United States. Further, the legal morass of rules that would be created by a multitude of bilateral agreements would be difficult to implement. Thus, a multi-national treaty is effectively the best way of world-wide enforcement of U.S. patents. Two organizations, the World Intellectual Property Organization (hereinafter "WIPO") and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (hereinafter "GATT") are working towards drafting the provisions of a multinational agreement that would be acceptable to many countries. The WIPO is a specialized agency of the United Nations that is attempting to draft an international treaty to harmonize the patent laws of the different nations of the world. GATT is a high level international meeting between nations designed to facilitate international trade. One of the fifteen GATT negotiating groups, the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter "TRIPS"), is attempting to negotiate an international agreement that could provide a minimum level of protection for intellectual property. Although the GATT agreement does not mandate adoption of a first- to-file system, U.S. participation in the WIPO treaty is obstructed by the first-to- invent rule followed by U.S. patent law. The first-to-invent doctrine is a fundamental doctrine of U.S. patent law which dates back to the 1836 Patent Act. Under the first-to-invent system, a patent is granted to the first applicant who conceives of the invention, provided that applicant used reasonable diligence in reducing the invention to practice from the moment of conception. Thus, amongst rival applicant claiming the same invention, the first inventor is granted the patent, rather than the first person to file a patent application. In contrast, under the first-to-file system followed by the overwhelming majority of countries, patent rights may be claimed by the first person to file a patent application; irrespective of whether he or she was truly the first inventor. The reluctance of the U.S. to adopt the first-to-file system proposed in the WIPO draft treaty has stalled U.S. participation in this treaty.

IPR harmonization stifles innovation, increases inefficiencies, and is prone to failure


Charnovitz 1998 (Steve - associate professor of law at The George Washington University Law School,

“Patent Harmonization under World Trade Rules,” Charnovitz.org, http://www.charnovitz.org/jwip.htm)



While these are good arguments for harmonization, there are also arguments against it. First, it is often assumed that patents are the best way to stimulate invention (or to address the market failure that hinders invention). Yet from an economic perspective, the explicit right of monopolization exacts a welfare cost. If it were possible to subsidize or reward the inventor directly with a prize, instead of giving him a patent, the deadweight loss from monopoly could be avoided. Thus, since patents may not be the first best method for stimulating inventions, it would seem wrong, ex ante, to require them. The argument for harmonization also implicitly assumes that all countries are the same. But each country is different in the values and preferences of its citizens and in its level of development. There is no reason to assume that every polity would freely choose the same patent system. Forcing uniform regulation upon every country is likely to be inefficient. Although policy uniformity is rarely the best approach, the case for it improves when governments pursue necessary cooperation to respond to global problems -- for example, eliminating chlorofluorocarbons that deplete the ozone layer. Concerned nations might rationally seek to influence an unconcerned nation that wanted to persist in producing these dangerous chemicals. By contrast, there are no physical spillovers involved in inadequate enforcement of patents; all effects are transmitted through the market. In that way, the harmonization of patent regulations is similar to the harmonization of labor regulations and different from the harmonization of environmental regulations when such regulations address transborder effects. A third problem with harmonization is that it is too rigid. Since we don’t know what the ideal patent system is, we should probably encourage governments to experiment and compete against each other. Theoretically, if a country operates an inadequate patent system, the denizen inventors will emigrate. Governments will respond to this loss of talent by correcting their patent policy. Yet in a rigidly harmonized system, such experience-driven corrections may not occur. Suppose the new 20-year patent term mandated by TRIPS proves to be too high. Changing this TRIPS rule requires a consensus of members of the WTO. Thus, one holdout country (or 34 percent of WTO members if a vote is taken), could keep all the others from lowering their patent term to a more efficient number of years.


Developing Countries Turn

IPR harmonization hurts developing countries


Comune et al 11 (Maria Comune - PhD researcher in Law & Economics at the University of Siena, Alireza Naghavi - assistant professor of International Economics at the University of Bologna, and Giovanni Prarolo - assistant professor of economics at the University of Bologna, July 2011, “Intellectual Property Rights and South-North Formation of Global Innovation Networks,” Recent Center for Economic Research, http://www.recent.unimore.it/wp/RECent-wp69.pdf)

This paper has conducted an empirical analysis at micro and macro level of the influence of IPRs protection on the extent of innovative collaborations between emerging economies and OECD countries. 28 The debate on the protection of IPRs has often been placed in a ‘North-toward-South’ perspective. This paper looked at innovation originating from th e South. The investigation attempts to answer the question whether stronger and more harmonized global levels of patent protection generate more innovation collaboration at an international scale. Using both survey-based firm-level data on two of t he fastest-growing emerging economies in one of the most technologically progressive industries and country-level global data, our analysis find IPRs to be an important determinant of global colla boration of Southern firms in innovation. While the survey data only confirmed the bare importance of IPRs for Southern firms and did not distinguish between their views on IPRs at home and away, the global data analysis uncovered a positive effect of IPRs at home and a negative one of IPRs abroad on foreign patenting activities of emerging countries. Both analyses also suggest the importance of sectors and subsectors in an analysis of IPRs and GINs. We found the ICT industr y, particularly the hardware segment, to rely on IPRs when engaging in the international outsourcing and offshoring of innovation or in patenting activities abroad.

IPR Treaties hurt developing countries


US News 9/22/10 (Developing Countries May Not Benefit From Adopting International Treaties, US News and World Report, http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/09/22/developing-countries-may-not-benefit-from-adopting-international-treaties)

A new study by an Oregon State University business professor has found that developing countries that adopt major international economic treaties do not necessarily gain more foreign direct investment.¶ In fact, in some cases adopting these treaties can hurt, not help a developing country, contrary to what agencies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) espouse. The study, published in the online version of the Journal of World Business, has major implications for Latin American and Caribbean intellectual policy reform.¶ Ted Khoury, an assistant professor in OSU’s College of Business, spent more than 12 years in private industry managing intellectual property and research and development strategies at various firms. He is the inventor of 43 issued United States patents and more than 70 international patents in areas related to micro/nanotechnology and semiconductor manufacturing.¶ Khoury wanted to know when developing countries in Latin America adopt intellectual property treaties such as the Paris Convention if their inbound investment from foreign countries increases. Mike Peng from the University of Texas at Dallas contributed to the research.¶ “Basically, I wanted to know when developing countries take on the rules of the wealthy, developed nations, do good things happen to them?” Khoury said. “And in many cases, the answer is no.”¶ Khoury looked specifically at the Paris Convention treaty, which was renewed in 1967. He found that countries that did not have a significant invention and scientific research base did not financially benefit from adopting the treaty, and in some cases found their economic situations worsen.The OSU professor pointed out that developed countries such as the United States encourage others to adopt the treaties because they want to be able to file their patents in countries where there may be a market for their product, or perhaps where there may be a manufacturing workforce to make the product.¶ As the inventor of more than 100 domestic and international patents, Khoury saw this issue come up frequently when he was filing for patents in other countries. Companies file international patents to protect their invention and make sure competitors in other countries do not copy the product; and they want to ensure that they can sell, market or manufacture the product overseas.¶ Looking at the data over a 14-year period in 18 Latin American and Caribbean countries, Khoury found that countries that adopted the Paris Convention early—such as Colombia, Ecuador and Uruguay—had an inflow of foreign direct investment if they increased innovation, which he measured by the number of scholarly journals published and number of patents filed from that country. So in some cases, adoption of international intellectual property rights treaties may have helped a developing nation.¶ But in countries with the lowest innovation base—including El Salvador, Honduras and Paraguay—early adoption did not increase investment in those countries.¶ “Countries that do not adopt are threatened with sanctions and other types of coercion,” Khoury said. “This explains why so many developing nations adopt treaties that are, quite frankly, not beneficial to them and in some cases only helps larger, multinational corporations within more industrialized countries.”¶ Khoury explained that developing countries often struggle to stay in harmony with international treaties that are designed as “one-size-fits-all.” In many cases, he added, developing nations may see much larger economic benefits from delaying participating with economic treaties such as the Paris Convention and waiting until they have increased their domestic innovation base.

Directory: rest -> wikis -> openev -> spaces -> 2013 -> pages -> DDI -> attachments
pages -> Schmitt Kritik Table of Contents
pages -> *Afghan Stability Advantage* 1ac Afghan Instability
pages -> Consequential framework destroys intrinsic value to life- they reduce human life to a calculable object
pages -> Economic engagement with Latin America fuels capitalist exploitation – the plan is used to make imperialist violence more efficient and invisible
pages -> Race File – 7ws bfjr
attachments -> La fem ir shell
attachments -> Structural violence is the largest proximate cause of war- creates priming that psychologically structures escalation
attachments -> Plan: The United States Federal Government should invite Mexico to participate in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations
attachments -> Appeasement Disadvantage – Negative


Share with your friends:
  1   2   3




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page