A potential TPP gotcha

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › A potential TPP gotcha

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1405118 13-Oct-2015 16:41

Meanwhile, in the High Court :

On Tuesday Justice David Collins delivered a judgement in which he said there was was "no lawful basis for the Minister to withhold, in the way he did, some of the information requested by Professor Kelsey"

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1405126 13-Oct-2015 17:02

The Minister was either I'll advised or made a silly mistake.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1405130 13-Oct-2015 17:09

Im guessing the minister took very little advice on this one. There are no real consequences for the (ahem) 'mistake'.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1405137 13-Oct-2015 17:20

gzt: Im guessing the minister took very little advice on this one. There are no real consequences for the (ahem) 'mistake'.

Except for "next time".

It wouldn't surprise me if it prompts a legislative change to the OIA.
Opposition to that might be weak. The potential for skullduggery to be exposed can be a "problem" to whoever is in power

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1405143 13-Oct-2015 18:01

Fred99:
Rikkitic: I have to wonder what this thread is now about. Can't you guys take this argument somewhere else?

So, 3 weeks later and back to topic.
Public outrage forced the owner of the company making Daraprim to offer to reduce the price. Problem is that he actually hasn't yet.
So the situation is the same (for people needing this drug in the US).
Of course it falls off the front pages. It's not "news" so can't sell advertising.

The signed - but yet to be ratified - TPP probably gives hope that such insanity won't spread to NZ.

It is essential for treatment of parasitic infections in many parts of the world. You can buy it almost anywhere else in the world for cents compared to USA at $75k. That drug was developed in '53 so it has been off patent for a while. I do not understand the USA law how it works but they have only one 'manufacturer' for this product and that guy is granted exclusive rights by the FDA. Ie; some kind of exclusivity period. Very strange because they could import it from UK or any number of first world sources for mere cents.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1405221 13-Oct-2015 20:24

The situation for NZ with the tpp biologics exclusivity period is really unclear. In Australia Turnbull has said in practice there is no change it will stay at five years. NZ via mfat has been advising no new changes are required for us. I'm finding it hard to understand the nature of the change if there is one. I'm aware of what was agreed going from 5 to 8 but there seems to be a good chance it will not change in practice.

Edit: Added definition link for biologics

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405225 13-Oct-2015 20:32

MikeB4: The Minister was either I'll advised or made a silly mistake.

Given this governments obstructive manner of treating OIA requests it's more likely they just decided to ignore it as there were no consequences.

This is not new for the Key government.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/257009/pm-admits-govt-uses-delaying-tactics

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

DjShadow

4084 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1421986 5-Nov-2015 21:34

TPP Text is online and available to read now:

http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text

About 6000 pages of light reading :)

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1422003 5-Nov-2015 22:07

DjShadow: TPP Text is online and available to read now:

http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text

About 6000 pages of light reading :)

Zeroed in on this bit....

Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing that copyright.

So, it appears that the NZ legislation will be changed -- the 3 strikes law is gone under the TPP, replaced with expeditious (whatever that means but I would think within a day or two) identification of offenders.

Then, assumingly that the copyright holders can launch private prosecutions against the infringer .

Looks like there are going to be some people being sued by hollywood ha ha.

Unless the 'due process' includes 3 strikes? But, I don't read it like that.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1422005 5-Nov-2015 22:15

I thought Australia just did that not long ago, exactly that.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1422006 5-Nov-2015 22:21

joker97: I thought Australia just did that not long ago, exactly that.

I don't know about australia.

But the new rules for NZ copyright holders do not even need to prove anything to the ISP. They just need to make an allegation and the ISP is required to handover the infringers identity, expeditiously too :)

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1422040 5-Nov-2015 22:51

I don't doubt there are some gotcha's in there.

But also a lot of ifs and buts. The key thing will be how this is all translated into new and amended legislation and regulation.

The government will have a very good idea what is required. But most likely they will perception manage the release and legislative changes to their own timetable.

In theory OIA's on that should succeed. There are no reasons to deny for the most part.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1422397 6-Nov-2015 14:04

The usual checks and balances are there, see bold below.

They can be judicial or administrative. Maybe the current approach (under which the sky has not yet fallen) will qualify?

Or ... just don't infringe copyright?

Zeroed in on this bit....

Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due process and privacy, that enable a copyright owner that has made a legally sufficient claim of copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service Provider information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, in cases in which that information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing that copyright.

Mike

Behodar

10501 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1422404 6-Nov-2015 14:09

I thought I'd read that the "three strikes" law wasn't changing, so maybe it is indeed covered under the "Party's legal system". There is also a note in one of the fact sheets that NZ has negotiated some exemptions which aren't listed in the text.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1422407 6-Nov-2015 14:11

"In the way he did" refers to a procedural error.

The court is not saying the decision was wrong, just made in the wrong way.

The court has not called the decision illegal or overturned it, just ordered a review.

Now that it's all been released the point is moot.

Fred99: Meanwhile, in the High Court :
On Tuesday Justice David Collins delivered a judgement in which he said there was was "no lawful basis for the Minister to withhold, in the way he did, some of the information requested by Professor Kelsey"

Mike

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22