3 ms·

But aren't these things two way? Like it applies to Canada and the US equally no? And how is any of this measurable? Like "less" could be a little less or a lo

But aren't these things two way? Like it applies to Canada and the US equally no? And how is any of this measurable? Like "less" could be a little less or a lot. Also, I don't see anything lowering art/music/film protection. In fact it seems the opposite, copyrights will last longer, and ISP will police content. In the end, an agreement of that sort has to be win/win for both countries no? Otherwise why would Canada agree to it?

pyre 8y ago
We're sort of focusing on digital here, but some of the IP rights stuff in the agreement would make certain generic drugs available in Canada illegal... so the prices of medication would go up since you could no long buy the generic brand. I would not say that's a win for Canadians.
- phyller 8y ago
  The flip side would be more money available for the institutions that actually create new medicines. I'm not saying it's a better tradeoff, just that it's not so single dimensional.
  - PakG1 8y ago
    I do not believe those institutions are lacking in funds for research. Even if they get more funds, they will still be incentivized to do R&D only on high-potential opportunities with high probability of product development success. Shareholders wouldn't care to let them just spend money just anywhere and waste it.
  - 8note 8y ago
    except when the owners of the IP don't actually make new medicines, and instead us that money to buy more IP to charge higher prices for
- didibus 8y ago
  Right, and such a concession to be agreed on by Canada would require an equally beneficial concession made by the U.S. no? I guess I only see 3 scenarios for such a trade agreement. 1) Both parties try to predict future economic growth. So maybe US believes IP protection for drugs would have a huge impact on their economy. But Canada thinks they're wrong, and that they'll make more gains from tax free dairy exports to the US that it will trump the loses from drug IPs. This is what I hope is happening. In which case, whoever can predict best wins. 2) This whole thing is driven by corruption. And the deals are not beneficial to Canada at large, but to special interests within it to which the deal is beneficial, even though it won't be for the average tax payer. 3) The US is using military threat or similar kind of forceful threat in order for Canada to just adopt laws that benefit the US only. Is there something else at play here I can't see?
  - pyre 8y ago
    > Right, and such a concession to be agreed on by Canada would require an equally beneficial concession made by the U.S. no? The way that Trump likes to negotiate that's not necessarily the case. He may think that he can get huge concessions without giving anything in return by just "playing hardball" and issuing threats to terminate negotiations if they don't go his way.
jacquesm 8y ago
They are only two way if both parties gain in equal measure from the items listed. That is not the case due to the imbalance between Canada and the USA for certain industries.
- didibus 8y ago
  I still don't get it. Overall, it should be believed that the end terms of Nafta should end up bolstering both economies. One way to do that is either through common laws which are believed to benefit a sector equally in both countries if enacted across borders, or by trading one sector for another. If that's not possible, why do we have this deal?

pyre 8y ago

We're sort of focusing on digital here, but some of the IP rights stuff in the agreement would make certain generic drugs available in Canada illegal... so the prices of medication would go up since you could no long buy the generic brand. I would not say that's a win for Canadians.

phyller 8y ago
The flip side would be more money available for the institutions that actually create new medicines. I'm not saying it's a better tradeoff, just that it's not so single dimensional.
- PakG1 8y ago
  I do not believe those institutions are lacking in funds for research. Even if they get more funds, they will still be incentivized to do R&D only on high-potential opportunities with high probability of product development success. Shareholders wouldn't care to let them just spend money just anywhere and waste it.
- 8note 8y ago
  except when the owners of the IP don't actually make new medicines, and instead us that money to buy more IP to charge higher prices for
didibus 8y ago
Right, and such a concession to be agreed on by Canada would require an equally beneficial concession made by the U.S. no? I guess I only see 3 scenarios for such a trade agreement. 1) Both parties try to predict future economic growth. So maybe US believes IP protection for drugs would have a huge impact on their economy. But Canada thinks they're wrong, and that they'll make more gains from tax free dairy exports to the US that it will trump the loses from drug IPs. This is what I hope is happening. In which case, whoever can predict best wins. 2) This whole thing is driven by corruption. And the deals are not beneficial to Canada at large, but to special interests within it to which the deal is beneficial, even though it won't be for the average tax payer. 3) The US is using military threat or similar kind of forceful threat in order for Canada to just adopt laws that benefit the US only. Is there something else at play here I can't see?
- pyre 8y ago
  > Right, and such a concession to be agreed on by Canada would require an equally beneficial concession made by the U.S. no? The way that Trump likes to negotiate that's not necessarily the case. He may think that he can get huge concessions without giving anything in return by just "playing hardball" and issuing threats to terminate negotiations if they don't go his way.

jacquesm 8y ago

They are only two way if both parties gain in equal measure from the items listed. That is not the case due to the imbalance between Canada and the USA for certain industries.

didibus 8y ago
I still don't get it. Overall, it should be believed that the end terms of Nafta should end up bolstering both economies. One way to do that is either through common laws which are believed to benefit a sector equally in both countries if enacted across borders, or by trading one sector for another. If that's not possible, why do we have this deal?