lessig, you deal with ethics. i think the average american would be extremely upset to know that people are dying not because we don't know how to treat those people -- that's one sad aspect of life -- but that they can't afford what is, in fact, a minimal cost in terms of the real production of the product to save their lives. it's like somebody over there dying and nobody is going out and reaching them a hand and bringing them in. it's like they're drowning in a swimming pool. what are the ethical implications of that? >> of course, i agree that there's a significant ethical question raised by the problem you described as somebody not voluntarily stepping forth and saving a drowning child. but i think this problem is actually worse because, as jamie was just emphasizing, the government is intervening in this market already. its intervention is in the form of an exclusive right called a patent. the consequence of that intervention is to produce a market where only a tiny slice of those who are affected by the dis

professor lessig serves on the boards of creative commons, maplelight, brave new film foundation, the american academy berlin, axa research fund and on the advisory board of the sunlight foundation. he's a member of the american academy of arts and sciences and has received numerous awards including the freedom award, fast cast 50 award and being named one of scientific american's top visionaries. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. as you know, since the beginning of this republic, there has been a fierce debate about how best to create incentives for scientists and innovators to discover and to bring to market advances in science that address important public needs. on one side of that debate have been the supporters of exclusive rights secured by the government, the constitution gives congress the power to secure such rights, and since the earliest days of the republic congress has by law established mechanisms which secure exclusive rights to invent inventors. on the other side of this debate have been skeptics about exclusive rights at least within some demands

but i wanted to get back to the point that professor lessig raised regarding the fact that the ip systemsmarket. the u.s. government does intervene in the market here in the u.s., but we also know that the u.s. government has been pushing for more stringent ip standards worldwide, including in developing countries, start anything the 19820s with the negotiation of the trips agreement and more recently through demanding certain types of provisions in free trade agreements that are being negotiated, demanding higher and higher and higher ip standards knowing full well what the implications are for access to medicines, so i think the ethical questions reach far beyond to stretch worldwide. >> let me ask you, dr. moon, a dumb bunny question of which i know the answer but some people watching this on tv may not know, why is that? why are the economic forces involved here? is it an accident that the united states government is telling poor people around the world and their governments, essentially, what you're saying, they're going to have to pay more for drugs to keep people alive? how does th