The Ultimate Bush Legacy for Big Business

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bush's presidency may be winding down, but he's not quite done with his conservative domestic agenda.

Bush administration officials, in their last weeks in office, are pushing to rewrite a wide array of federal rules with changes or additions that could block product-safety lawsuits by consumers and states.

The administration has written language aimed at pre-empting product-liability litigation into 50 rules governing everything from motorcycle brakes to pain medicine. The latest changes cap a multiyear effort that could be one of the administration's lasting legacies, depending in part on how the underlying principle of pre-emption fares in a case the Supreme Court will hear next month.

This amazing piece, from the Wall Street Journal's Alicia Mundy, hasn't generated a lot of attention so far today, and that's a shame. The administration's efforts on this are likely to have a huge impact.

Corporate America has been calling for some mechanism to "preempt" product-liability litigation for years, and Bush had promised to deliver. The White House, however, had limited options in dealing with a Democratic Congress which cares about consumer protections.

So, the Bush gang is adding provisions to obscure federal regulations that will block product safety lawsuits by consumers and states. The scheme would affect products ranging from cars to prescription medication to railroad cars.

But a possible Obama administration can undo this, right? If Obama wins, he'd no doubt want to, but reversing these regulations would take a long while.

These new rules can't quickly be undone by order of the next president. Federal rules usually must go through lengthy review processes before they are changed. Rulemaking at the Food and Drug Administration, where most of the new pre-emption rules have appeared, can take a year or more.

The article is online here, and an WSJ video with Mundy talking specifically about how this affects state lawsuits is here. Take a look.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, the joys of deregulation by the back door.

I had to laugh, I was watching the news about 3 weeks ago and they were talking about the children's cough/cold medicine's that had been withdrawn firstly because they were dangerous for children under 2 years of age and secondly because there was no proof they were effective.

Anyway, essentially the ban on cough/cold medicine's for children between 2 and 12 were being allowed back on the shelves because it wasn't proved that these were in fact dangerous for that age range. However, the interviewer asked about the efficacy and the response from the 'PR spokesperson for the drug company selling a large share of these so called 'medicines' countered with this classic:

"We know these remedies are effective because so many parents buy them for their children"

Logic 101

[IAMX 3,055]

.. ahem, this sort of thing seems to constantly be overlooked.

http://torrentfreak.com/president-bush-sig...zar-law-081014/

Bush Signs Draconian Anti-Piracy Law

Written by Ben Jones on October 14, 2008

Over in California, champagne corks are popping. In the offices of the MPAA and RIAA, lawyers turned lobbyists are dancing jigs. In houses all around the US however, people are left dumbfounded by the passage of a bill based on appeasement to big money, at a time when the country is in economic turmoil.

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, or PRO IP Act, finally gathered the signature of President George W. Bush, and made it into law. The act, as we previously reported, has been criticized by both the US Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Commerce (DOC), but gathered support in the wake of economic troubles that have hit the US.

Title I of the bill, which allowed the DOJ to pursue civil copyright cases, was dropped by the senate when they passed the bill, with Richard Esguerra, spokesman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noting that he was relieved that attorneys won't become 'pro bono personal lawyers for the content industry.' However, the objections of the DOC - that the creation of a "Copyright Czar" would be an unconstitutional violation of Separation of Powers - went unopposed. Included in the bill is the issue of 'civil forfeiture', where articles can be seized and held if it is thought they are to be used in committing a crime, or infringement.

The unanimous passage of this bill is worrying, mainly because it shows a triumph for lobbying over facts, and how common sense can be easily overruled with enough money and influence. Claims that support the bill include spurious job creations from this bill, to money saved in the economy. Counterfeiting and piracy costs the United States nearly $250 billion annually, "says the US Chamber of Commerce in a Reuters article, while others have more effectively broken down the figures and pointed out how they don’t make sense.

Yet, in a country on the brink of economic meltdown, a bill that is claimed to help the economy by creating jobs (and boost the economy by reducing those jobs and revenue claimed to be lost) seems like a good political move, regardless of how absurd and baseless the figures are. Dan Glickman of the MPAA certainly wants to play the economic card, saying: "At this critical time for our economy, it's important to send a message that the jobs created and maintained by the protection of intellectual property is a national priority."

The person filling this Copyright Czar role will, presumably, be in a similar position to that of the Drugs Czar, and will listen mainly to lobbyists and a 'safe' peer pressure. Just as in the case of narcotics, symptoms will be dealt with, and not causes. Targeting causes means targeting contributors, while targeting symptoms just means targeting voters, and there are millions of them. It also remains to be seen who will be given the role of Copyright Czar, but don't be surprised if it's a member of the MPAA/RIAA, although some might start pushing for Prof. Lessig, as happened when California's 12th District lost its congressman. However, Prof. Lessig told TorrentFreak that he's "not going to be an enforcement czar, and nor would I be wanted for that."

Perhaps the worst aspect of the bill, though, is the extension of forfeiture. Already used extensively in drugs cases, it is often inappropriately applied. If drugs are found in someone's home, and along with that comes a claim from a 3rd party (even if they were caught breaking into the home) that they were dealing, the home owner can have their house taken away, along with anything of value in it.

Although some may feel that forfeiture is an appropriate response to serious large scale drug dealing, those same draconian measures can now apply to copyright infringement cases. It can cause more expense and difficulty in defending cases when defendants have to prove in a separate court action, that the materials seized were not used for the actions claimed. Wikipedia indicates that 3 years, and $10,000 is the typical cost of fighting such cases. Public Knowledge opposes these forfeiture measures, with spokesman Art Brodsky saying: "Let's suppose that there's one computer in the house, and one person uses it for downloads and one for homework. The whole computer goes."

The increase in powers and fines exacerbates an already bad situation. With the forfeiture laws, in theory they may be able to have equipment belonging to ISP's seized (while the DMCA gives safe harbor for prosecution under infringement, it may not allow a defense under forfeiture) and that could be used as a club to beat ISPs into the role of copyright police, one that ISPs worldwide have been loathed to accept.

With the election just weeks away, perhaps our American readers might be interested in tracking who voted for the bill, as all representatives are up for election. Senate voting was not recorded.

I must also add that Pelosi's vote wasn't anywhere to be found on the Library of Congress list of for/against/nv, last I checked, last night.

Edited October 15, 2008 by SRVT

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"We know these remedies are effective because so many parents buy them for their children"

Logic 101

That's when the news media needs to grow a spine and challenge such stupidity. It can't though, not when much of their revenue comes from these very companies. Shameful.

[Peikko 1,575]

You'd think wouldn't you? It never fails to amaze me - and of course who is going to be 'buying' these remedies? Why, those folks who can't get health insurance cover for their kids, or find the office fees prohibitive. Bah, humbug.

I have to say, that health care provision is the single issue that I have a problem with about living in the US and it's not because I personally can't afford it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You'd think wouldn't you? It never fails to amaze me - and of course who is going to be 'buying' these remedies? Why, those folks who can't get health insurance cover for their kids, or find the office fees prohibitive. Bah, humbug.

I have to say, that health care provision is the single issue that I have a problem with about living in the US and it's not because I personally can't afford it.

I don't know what you mean...

"MacGuffix is not for everyone. Occasionally serious side-effects like heart attack, stroke and death may occur. If you suffer any of these side effects while taking MacGuffix, call your doctor immediately as these may be signs of a potentially life-threatening condition".

[Peikko 1,575]

PD, am I imagining things, or are drug companies pretty much banned from advertising in the UK? I find all this drug advertising obnoxious - it's not as if there is any honesty in it, increasing 'customer choice' as it were. So very frustrating!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

PD, am I imagining things, or are drug companies pretty much banned from advertising in the UK? I find all this drug advertising obnoxious - it's not as if there is any honesty in it, increasing 'customer choice' as it were. So very frustrating!

Yes - that's right. You can advertise for over the counter stuff, but not for anything that requires a prescription. I think the reasoning is that it can encourage self-diagnosis and also unrealistic expectations as to the benefits provided by the drug. So many of these medications can have potentially dangerous interactions with other things people are taking that they have to throw in that "its not for everybody".

Its a bit silly really - advertising for things that you can't buy unless you have permission from the doctor.

BTW - there have been some recent attempts to overturn this (I think its European Law). No idea what the current state of play is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/ma...dicineandhealth

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr...lth.advertising

Edited October 15, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

Wonderful!

Seriously, "Sales soared in the US after companies were allowed to advertise their prescription medicines on TV and radio and in magazines and newspapers. Patients in America began demanding more drugs and specific, expensive brand-name drugs from their doctors. Now the firms want to target the UK in the same way, and are strongly challenging a ban on direct consumer advertising in the EU."

Was there corresponding 'soar' in the prognosis of those taking the drugs? Let's not all hold our breaths.

Bah, humbug on the profit based drugs industry and the sale of drugs that are unecessary or downright harmful.

[IAMX 3,055]

PD, am I imagining things, or are drug companies pretty much banned from advertising in the UK? I find all this drug advertising obnoxious - it's not as if there is any honesty in it, increasing 'customer choice' as it were. So very frustrating!

Excessive business interests intruding into the health of others, and cosmetic-like prescriptions included in profits have turned doctors into pill pushers of late. This is why health care does not belong in the private sector.