Suchergebnisse

[…] book review is published by the LSE Southeast Asia blog and LSE Review of Books as part of a collaborative series focusing on timely and important social science books from and […]

[…] book review is published by the LSE Southeast Asia blog and LSE Review of Books as part of a collaborative series focusing on timely and important social science books from and […]

[…] book review is published by the LSE Southeast Asia blog and LSE Review of Books as part of a collaborative series focusing on timely and important social science books from and […]

[…] ebook review is printed by way of the LSE Southeast Asia blog and LSE Review of Books as a part of a collaborative sequence that specialize in well timed and vital social science books […]

[…] book review is published by the LSE Southeast Asia blog and LSE Review of Books as part of a collaborative series focusing on timely and important social science books from and […]

[…] guide review is revealed by way of the LSE Southeast Philippines weblog and LSE Review of Books as a part of a collaborative sequence that specialize in well timed and necessary social science […]

[…] e book review is printed by way of the LSE Southeast Asia blog and LSE Review of Books as a part of a collaborative sequence that specialize in well timed and vital social science books […]

[…] book review is published by the LSE Southeast Asia blog and LSE Review of Books as part of a collaborative series focusing on timely and important social science books from and […]

[…] book review is published by the LSE Southeast Asia blog and LSE Review of Books as part of a collaborative series focusing on timely and important social science books from and […]

[…] ebook review is printed by way of the LSE Southeast Asia blog and LSE Review of Books as a part of a collaborative collection that specialize in well timed and necessary social science […]

[…] book review is published by the LSE Southeast Asia blog and LSE Review of Books as part of a collaborative series focusing on timely and important social science books from and […]

Last episode, Kate and Luigi discussed how the patent system creates a temporary monopoly designed to make the incentives to innovate. But the real question is does the patent system, and our entire system of intellectual property for that matter, actually accomplish that goal? We start to answer that question by investigating one of the most powerful figures in intellectual property...Mickey Mouse.

Should intellectual property laws upheld by the WTO be waived during a COVID-19 pandemic? I almost forgot to post this one, but it's better late than never, I guess. There have been endless allusions to the idea that, rich or poor, the countries of the world are all in this fight against COVID-19 together. However, when push comes to shove, it appears the reality of the matter is rather different: A few weeks ago, large developing countries put forth the idea at the WTO that intellectual property rights on COVID-19 medicines should be abrogated while a global pandemic is going on. Perhaps unsurprisingly if regrettably, European and American countries indicated not being willing to go along. Since a consensus would have been required for an IP waiver on COVID-19 medicines to come into effect at the WTO, this effort was admittedly a long shot from the start: Wealthy nations [...] reiterated their opposition to a proposal to
waive intellectual property rules for COVID-19 drugs, three trade
sources said, despite pressure to make an exception to improve access to
drugs for poorer countries. Supporters
of the waiver say existing intellectual property (IP) rules create
barriers on access to affordable medicines and vaccines and they want
restrictions to be eased, as they were during the AIDS epidemic.But
opposition from the European Union, the United States and some other
wealthy nations at a meeting on Friday, means the proposal set to go
before the World Trade Organization's (WTO) General Council next month
is likely to fail."If
rich countries prefer profits to life, they will kill it by tying it
down in technicalities." said a delegate supporting the motion who
attended the closed-door meeting. The 164-member WTO body usually has to agree by consensus unless members agree to proceed to a vote, which is exceptional. Populous developing countries India and later China pushed for lifting IP restrictions on COVID-19 medicines, although you have to wonder if they have competing commercial interests since they too have production capabilities in making these medicines should IP be waived. Then again, the current WTO head Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (this article was written before she became its Director-General) also supported the initiative:The proposal
was first raised by India and South Africa in October. Since then,
China, which has five COVID-19 vaccine candidates in late-stage trials,
has voiced its support, as have dozens of other WTO members, mostly from
developing countries.The
World Health Organization says it supports tackling barriers to access
to COVID-19 medicines, as does Nigeria's Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, selected
by a panel to be the WTO's next director-general.You have to wonder though if some developing countries might want to declare medical emergencies that compel them to waive such IP on COVID-19 medicines under "compulsory licensing" procedures allowed by the WTO:In 2001 — at the height of the AIDS crisis and under pressure from
governments whose citizens were dying because they could not afford
life-saving medicines — the World Trade Organization waded into the battle between intellectual property and public health. The resulting Doha Declaration ruled
that the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights "should not prevent members from taking measures to protect
public health."It confirmed that governments retained several mechanisms for guaranteeing affordable access to medicines, including issuing compulsory licenses,
which allow them to use an invention without the patent holder's
consent in extraordinary circumstances. This applies not only to new
drugs but also to existing medications whose patents have been extended
because pharmaceutical companies made minor changes to formulations or
discovered a new use for the medication.Given the uncertainty
over access to treatments for COVID-19, several countries have been
laying the legislative groundwork to issue compulsory licenses for
products that patent holders refuse to make accessible.I think developing countries will first observe whether they can avail of more COVID-19 medicines they believe they need under the COVAX initiative. If that avenue proves unfruitful, then don't be surprised to see "compulsory licensing" claims start appearing. Make no mistake that our world remains riven by North-South divides even amidst a global pandemic. 

Welcome back, friends! For this episode, we're hooking up with our old friends in Columbus, OH, Chairman Moe's Magic Contradiction, to discuss last week's "mega debate" in Toronto, between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek, on "Happiness; Capitalism vs. Marxism." Regular listeners to the show might remember we had Charlie Umland and Jim Calder as guests last year, in Episode 11, to talk about Situationism. That was probably one of the most fun shows we've ever done on this podcast and, given the spectacle of such an eagerly anticipated intellectual debate, I thought it would be a good idea to invite them on again, for a deep dive not only into the debate, but also what it means for the state of intellectual discourse today.



Just to provide some context for this particular episode: I'm lucky to be part of an occasional reading group with Charlie and Jim, and I think I speak for us all that we were all pretty excited when we heard this debate was going to be taking place. We knew there would probably be a pretty intense online reaction to it, especially from elements of the left that are already antagonistic to Žižek's style and brand of Marxism (see here and here, for just two examples). So we thought we'd do this show, as a way of thinking our way through some of that likely response, and also to explore some of the disagreements we have among ourselves on some of the issues arising from the debate, including the political priority of identity politics for the left.



Special thanks to Darren Latanick, who graciously offered to step in as producer of the episode, on the Columbus side. Thanks for listening and, as ever, you can leave us a review on iTunes or reach out to us with feedback on Twitter @occupyirtheory.

Hey everyone! Welcome to Episode 26 of Fully Automated… or, at least, Episode 26, Part One!



This is a super long overdue episode with a guest I have wanted to have on the show for a long time: Adam Proctor, the host of Dead Pundit's Society. Adam has been doing his show FULL TIME for the last four years, delivering not only on his commitment to evangelizing "socialism for ordinary ass'ed people" but to making an incredibly important (and often misunderstood) contribution to the critique of political economy.



In Part One of this episode, we discuss Adam's background, and the story behind the Dead Pundit's Society. DPS emerged as part of the 2016 leftist podcast wave. Some I suppose would associate Adam with the "dirtbag left," and shows like Chapo Trap House. But the story is more complicated than that.



One of the interesting things about DPS is the niche it has always occupied, between audience accessibility and issues-driven programming, on the one hand, and a commitment to rigorous academic thought, on the other. There's a certain public intellectual function to the show. So, in this episode, we discuss the role of the left intellectual. And the question of how to balance this sort of awkward relationship, of being neither an entertainer nor an academic, but something in between.



DPS covers a wide range of themes — everything from state theory through race essentialism. These are less controversial topics today, perhaps, but in 2016 Adam was taking huge risks by trying to mainstream them among an American left that was still largely committed to horizontalist or "occupy" style ideals. Four years into this project, it is clear that DPS has played a major role in articulating these ideas to a wider audience that one might have imagined possible, back in 2016.



In Part One, you'll hear us address the early days of the show, and Adam's notorious attempts to take on freedom of speech issues, cancel culture, and race essentialism. We also talk socialist strategy, and the application of work by Sam Ginden and Leo Pantich to the Grexit question. And as if these takes weren't controversial enough, wait 'til you see what we get into in Part Two! (Coming later this week).