Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Truman Le
Interpretation: Affirmatives must reduce intellectual property protections for medicines unconditionally and permanently.
Reynolds 59: Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9 A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959, lexis)
Section 83's counterpart with regard to nondisability pensioners, section 84, prescribes a reduction only if the pensioner should again take a public job. The disability pensioner is penalized if he takes any type of employment. The reason for the difference, of course, is that in one case the only reason pension benefits are available is because the pensioner is considered incapable of gainful employment, while in the other he has fully completed his "tour" and is considered as having earned his reward with almost no strings attached. It would be manifestly unfair to the ordinary retiree to accord the disability retiree the benefits of the System to which they both belong when the latter is otherwise capable of earning a living and had not fulfilled his service obligation. If it were to be held that withholdings under section 83 were payable whenever the pensioner died or stopped his other employment the whole purpose of the provision would be defeated, i.e., the System might just as well have continued payments during the other employment since it must later pay it anyway. *13 The section says "reduced", does not say that monthly payments shall be temporarily suspended; it says that the pension itself shall be reduced. The plain dictionary meaning of the word is to diminish, lower or degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency.
Violation: The waiver is temporary.
Gupta and Namboodiri 21: Gupta, Vineeta a maternal and child health physician, human rights advocate, and a passionate activist for health equity. As director, she leads the ACTION Global Health Advocacy Partnership as well as a volunteer-based policy advocacy organization that unites the Indian diaspora to mount a prompt, global response to the COVID-19 crisis in India. Dr. Gupta has more than 20 years of tri-sector experience in leading and supporting projects in more than 25 countries. In addition to conducting organization development, diversity, inclusion, equity, and global health equity workshops, Gupta has designed and facilitated partnership projects to achieve agreements and results on complex issues. She has been invited to speak in more than 60 universities in the US and Europe. Namboodiri, Sreenath LLM, LLB, is assistant professor at the School of Ethics, Governance, Culture and Social Systems at Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth and a post-graduate on law of intellectual property rights (IPR) from Inter University Centre for IPR Studies, CUSAT, Kochi. His areas of interest are in intellectual property rights vis-à-vis health systems, sustainable development and innovation, pharmaceutical patents, knowledge governance, and technology and law. He is an honorary fellow of the Centre for Economy, Development, and Law since 2013. Namboodiri is part of the editorial team of Elenchus Law Review, a biannual peer-reviewed journal from the Centre (CEDandL). He has also worked as a guest lecturer in Inter University Centre for IPR Studies, CUSAT, Kochi, where he provided courses on access to medicine and IP, and patents and biotechnology “America And The TRIPS Waiver: You Can Talk The Talk, But Will You Walk The Walk?,” July 13, 2021 AA
In October 2020, the governments of India and South Africa, with the support of 62 WTO member states, proposed a TRIPS Agreement waiver proposal that would temporarily waive intellectual property rights protections for technologies needed to prevent, contain, or treat COVID-19, including vaccines and vaccine-related technologies. More than 100 low-income countries support this proposal, but it is receiving much opposition from many high-income countries, including some European Union (EU) member states, the UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia. On May 5, 2021, the Biden administration announced support for negotiating this waiver, intensifying debate in the US and the EU—but so far the US has not gone further than its announcement of support.
No plan text in a vacuum – the offense defines what the plan looks like. Worst case scenario, you vote neg on presumption because all their solvency evidence is about a waiver.
Prefer my interpretation:
1 Limits: they open the door to an infinite number of affs – from any condition to any time restriction. Each one becomes its own new aff.
2 Ground: condition and delay counterplans are all ground we are entitled to because they disprove the idea of passing the plan right now.
3 Topic lit: authors aren’t writing about a reduction that happens a few years or now or under a specific condition.
4 Semantics: not defending the text of the resolution justifies the affirmative doing away with random words in the resolution which destroys predictability because they are no longer bounded by the resolution.