3 ms·

If these politicians are supportive of invasive surveillance, then "You first" is a decent rebuttal. Let the politicians make ALL their phone OS and data open,

If these politicians are supportive of invasive surveillance, then "You first" is a decent rebuttal. Let the politicians make ALL their phone OS and data open, then we can talk about letting them install bugs into our phones. So perhaps GP is casting aspersions to bring attention to something fishy that deserves a (privacy-violating) investigation. Mind, I am not under EU law and don't know who these specific politicians are, let alone whether the allegations against them have merit.

bombolo 4y ago
Ursula von der Leyen's response to the initial (for europe) covid outbrake in Italy was that it was Italy's problem alone and to not ask for money or any support. She of course is opposed to waiving patents on covid vaccines. As Italian I'm ashamed that my country voted against patent waiving, which would have benefitted Cuba and other poorer countries, after we received aid from Cuba.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  Patent waiving is a dick move. If we want to help Cuba then we should buy those doses for Cuba, not sabotage a company to maybe help but then not actually follow through and make sure people benefit. By negotiating a sale for all 7b of us at once we could get the best deal without any games.
  - LtWorf 4y ago
    sabotage a company that used a ton of public money to develop a vaccine and is then selling it back to us… Such sabotage.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      Yes, anything that interferes with their ability to do business is sabotage. We should have given them the money with some strings attached.
      - tremon 4y ago
        So minimum wage legislation is sabotage? Corporate taxes are sabotage? A prohibition on slavery is sabotage?
        LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        If you did any of that for one company only, yes.
  - chmod775 4y ago
    We already know where "no you can't do that but we'll take care of you" leads. An example is AIDS and other medication in South Africa. There is just no way South Africa could pay the prices dreamed up by pharma companies. But any plan by South Africa to manufacture drugs or import generics and provide them at cost domestically was fought tooth and nail by pharma companies and by the highest instances of the US government on behalf pharma companies. Millions died preventable deaths but at least nobody was a dick by waiving a patent.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      FWIW We also know where "you did the work but it belongs to everyone" leads. There was no real will to pay for AIDS drugs for the world regardless of how it was done, save your sarcasm for the lawyers who fought saving people no matter the excuse they used. We don't have the will this time either, that's why we opened the patent rather than actually helping. It'd be like if your house was on fire and I threw a box of smoke detectors through the window, to help. Like Robin Hood stealing from the rich and forgetting about the second step. If we want to save lives we'd have the factories that are already producing keep going rather than expecting new factories to tool up. We did this patent grant because we didn't want to help. If we do decide this is how patents should work then we should set the rule now, for next time.

bombolo 4y ago

Ursula von der Leyen's response to the initial (for europe) covid outbrake in Italy was that it was Italy's problem alone and to not ask for money or any support. She of course is opposed to waiving patents on covid vaccines. As Italian I'm ashamed that my country voted against patent waiving, which would have benefitted Cuba and other poorer countries, after we received aid from Cuba.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
Patent waiving is a dick move. If we want to help Cuba then we should buy those doses for Cuba, not sabotage a company to maybe help but then not actually follow through and make sure people benefit. By negotiating a sale for all 7b of us at once we could get the best deal without any games.
- LtWorf 4y ago
  sabotage a company that used a ton of public money to develop a vaccine and is then selling it back to us… Such sabotage.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    Yes, anything that interferes with their ability to do business is sabotage. We should have given them the money with some strings attached.
    - tremon 4y ago
      So minimum wage legislation is sabotage? Corporate taxes are sabotage? A prohibition on slavery is sabotage?
      - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        If you did any of that for one company only, yes.
- chmod775 4y ago
  We already know where "no you can't do that but we'll take care of you" leads. An example is AIDS and other medication in South Africa. There is just no way South Africa could pay the prices dreamed up by pharma companies. But any plan by South Africa to manufacture drugs or import generics and provide them at cost domestically was fought tooth and nail by pharma companies and by the highest instances of the US government on behalf pharma companies. Millions died preventable deaths but at least nobody was a dick by waiving a patent.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    FWIW We also know where "you did the work but it belongs to everyone" leads. There was no real will to pay for AIDS drugs for the world regardless of how it was done, save your sarcasm for the lawyers who fought saving people no matter the excuse they used. We don't have the will this time either, that's why we opened the patent rather than actually helping. It'd be like if your house was on fire and I threw a box of smoke detectors through the window, to help. Like Robin Hood stealing from the rich and forgetting about the second step. If we want to save lives we'd have the factories that are already producing keep going rather than expecting new factories to tool up. We did this patent grant because we didn't want to help. If we do decide this is how patents should work then we should set the rule now, for next time.