A justification of developing countries against product patents for pharmaceutical products has been that if they were enforced, life-saving drugs would be out of reach for all but the very rich. A similar argument is being used in a populist move in the U.S senate for reducing the patent lives of innovative drugs, in a bid to reduce health care costs. Some senators and the pharmaceutical industry leaders claim that this move would discourage medical innovation and slow down the development of drugs for the cure of such diseases as AIDS and cancer, and thereby increase the costs of taking care of current and future patients. How would you react to the arguments and counterarguments for reducing patent lives, and what would be your stance on this issue? In your opinion, what would be the international repercussions if this bill were to pass? How do you think other developed and developing countries would react?

Today, some 150 million EU citizens shop online from websites such as Amazon.com and eBay, spending on average $1248 (800 euro) per capita. However, only-one fifth of them buy goods and services from another EU state. The EU’s consumer chief is currently planning new rules to make it easier and safer for the bloc’s 490 million consumers to shop online in any corner of the 27-nation EU. As the latest step from Brussels to make itself more friendly and relevant to people's everyday lives, this move is expected to tear down barriers to cross-border web shopping to boost competition, offer businesses a bigger market, and cut prices for consumers. What advantages and difficulties do you think the EU has in setting such rules? How can EU members benefit individually or as a whole from such a move? Are there any implications from the move, if successfully set, for the rest of the world? Why or why not?