Way to misstate what was said. :doh
I said you bought into it.
But way not to accurately interpret what another has said. :thumbs:
That doesn't speak well to your interpretation of the topic. :shrug:
Today they last 20 years, which seems fine.
...For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, utility and plant patents are granted for a term which begins with the date of the grant and usually ends 20 years from the date you first applied for the patent subject to the payment of appropriate maintenance fees for a utility patent. There are no maintenance fees for plant patents . Design patents last 14 years from the date you are granted the patent. No maintenance fees are required for design patents.
Note: Patents in force on June 8, 1995 and patents issued thereafter on applications filed prior to June 8, 1995 automatically have a term that is the greater of the twenty year term discussed above or seventeen years from the patent grant....
So... not forever.
And, again, patent protection is good for the US because we are the ones with the patents who are being violated.
Currenlty copyrgiht last way too long for that to happen and patents have issues with them being issued for things that are too vague and the further issue of patent trolls which both stifle innovation and only lead to frivolous lawsuits.
I was talking about copyright lasting too long which is the life of the author plus 70 years, it should be 30 years or death of the creator, whichever comes first. Patents have other issues.
:doh:shrug: accusing someone of holding their position only because they have "bought into it" pretty implicitly argues that they have been suckered.
But let me know when you have something other than a Just So argument. I find it interesting that you would accuse others of having been "bought in" to their position, yet seem unable to defend yours with any data capable of withstanding scrutiny.
no system is perfect. when I was a young attorney at a big firm, we represented a pharmaceutical concern that was a producer of generics. They would have the line up and running before the expiration so they could jump into the market ASAP. advantages to the consumer-lower cost
disadvantages if there is no protection, companies like that didn't have the resources or the wherewithal to bring a new drug to market and meet all the strict governmental testing requirements
I see the Democratic position as one similar to what Cruz did with the House in the gov't shutdown.
The Senate is more 'sensible' and 'conservative' in the case of the TPP, so it passes there.
Sen. Warren will gin up the liberals in the House while the Black Congressional members don't appreciate Obama playing the 'CBC' card.
The key on the left is whether Pelosi will whip votes FOR Obama--my guess is NO, as with allowing DEMs to vote YES on the Cromnibus.
Then there's Boehner's problem with the Freedom Caucus led by Ohio GOP Rep. Jordan and his 60 or so members--they're against TPP.
As I've said before, the TEA/LIB coalition is growing in numbers and in strength .
:doh
And again. No.
Your interpretation skills are currently way off.
No it isn't.
But you can't see that becasue you have already bought into it.
Hook, line, and sinker.
From the parts of the agreement we know; I am 100% against it. We know what NAFTA caused, and I honestly have no idea why any working or middle class American would be for this agreement, this agreement is essentially NAFTA on steroids.
:doh
And again. No.
Your interpretation skills are currently way off.
It's for working class and middle class Americans that know what they are doing, and for processes that patents can protect to keep them in America. It also wouldn't make logistical sense to ship out a lot of the jobs that this supposedly would ship out because of cost of freight. It could for example, bring more regional factories for certain devices (electronics) and encourage the production of hybrid cars within America rather than China because prohibitive cost are taken out.
All you have presented to me is a partisan think-tank...I'm all for research but even though I'm democrat I don't believe their own BS unless it's backed up from something unbiased or has a good counter point.
David Ricardo demonstrated how free trade benefited both partners centuries ago. For it.
For the claim that it was made in China by China: :lamo[/QUOTE]
To the bolded, agreed.
Oh G_d, no.
You are to far gone.
There is no conspiracy.
The arguments are relevant.
And clearly you have bought into it being a great idea when it isn't.
Nope. I asked what your preferred immigration policy was. Are you in favor of the DREAMers? Amnesty? Where do you stand on actually securing our border? Because large scale immigration of low-skill workers has the exact same effect you are decrying from the TPP.
Which you probably didn't stop to think about until now. Which is probably why you are trying to dodge the question.
My prefered immigration policy is to simplify our immigration system, and implement a policy where its easier to become legal citizens, allowing them to become legal taxpayers and also ensuring that they are not being exploited for illegal wages. But again, I dont think thats the root of the problem, I think its clear that the root of the problem is our trade policies especially when it comes to immigration. Its also to point out the part your quoted isnt even about immigration in the first place.
So yes, in fact, you support immigration policies that have the exact same result as that which you decry in the TPP. What is the difference, for you?
I'm not a big fan of these big trade agreements, but the world is still turning so I guess they're not as dire as many originally predicted.Obviously we haven't seen it. But it is concerning that while the GOP doesn't trust Obama on anything, suddenly they trust him with fast track authority on this, and most democrats are steadfastly against it. Furthermore, there's 28 committees composed 85% of corporate executives and industry lobbyists. It is problematic.
I'm not a big fan of these big trade agreements, but the world is still turning so I guess they're not as dire as many originally predicted.
I am, however, very much put off by the fast track aspect. I'm sorry, but no... things like should not be fast tracked. They should be carefully negotiated and include some level of public knowledge and comment.
The worst trade deal imaginable isn't likely to stop the earth from revolving, but if that's the bar..............................!!!!!
So Perot has been vindicated in his opinion; expanded free trade has not been accompanied by an increase in jobs in the U.S. relative to the vast numbers of jobs created in the rest of the world as NAFTA became just a stepping stone on the pathway to global commerce.
Just how much the giant vacuum has been collecting has been calculated at GEI Analysis. The results are shown in the following two graphs. The first shows manufacturing jobs lost each year starting with 1992 that are equivalent to the U.S. goods trade deficits over the past 19 years. The second shows the cumulative job loss, amounting to almost 29 million jobs by the end of 2010.
Read more: Looks Like Ross Perot Was Right About The
Here's something more recent.
NAFTA's Economic Impact - Council on Foreign Relations
Council on Foreign Relations › Trade
Council on Foreign Relations
Feb 14, 2014 - ... and U.S. manufacturers created supply chains across North America that have ... But economists still debate NAFTA's direct impact, given the many other ... such as the movement of some jobs and industries across borders.
[h=5]How has NAFTA affected the U.S. labor market?[/h] . . . Wide disagreement persists on how and to what degree NAFTA accounts for changes in net employment from adjustments in the labor market. Supporters of NAFTA, and many economists, see a positive impact on U.S. employment and note that new export-related jobs in the United States pay 15 to 20 percent more on average than those focused on domestic production. But side effects of the treaty should not be ignored. Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that wages haven't kept pace with labor productivity and that income inequality in the United States has risen in recent years, in part due to pressures on the U.S. manufacturing base. To some extent, he says, trade deals have hastened the pace of these changes in that they have "reinforced the globalization of the American economy."
Opponents of NAFTA take a starker position. Thea M. Lee, the deputy chief of staff at the AFL-CIO, which opposes NAFTA and lobbies against other free-trade agreements unless they include provisions that raise labor and environmental standards, said that NAFTA forced "workers into more direct competition with each other, while assuring them fewer rights and protections." Public Citizen, the left-leaning Washington nonprofit consumer rights organization, said in a report that the "grand promises made by NAFTA's proponents remain unfulfilled" [PDF] twenty years after implementation and resulted in the loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004.
But most economists say it is a stretch to blame these shifts on NAFTA. Manufacturing in the United States was under stress decades before the treaty, and job losses in that sector are viewed as part of a structural shift in the U.S. economy toward light manufacturing and high-end services. Alden says that broader economic trends affecting U.S. employment, such as China's economic rise, wouldn't be substantially altered by U.S. policy shifts toward NAFTA. . . .
Yeah I know, doesn't sound good.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?