Patents Spell Dearer Drugs, Seeds for Poor -Report

Reuters ^ | Thu Sep 12, 5:06 AM ET

[anymouse]

Poor countries have little to gain and plenty to lose from adopting Western standards of patent protection, a group of experts appointed by the British government said on Thursday.

The Commission on Intellectual Property Rights concluded that a global drive to expand patent protection would mean higher-priced medicines and seeds for most developing countries, with no significant benefit for their local industries.

Activists have long campaigned against the blanket adoption of patents in the developing world, arguing it leads to inflated prices for drugs to treat AIDS and other deadly conditions in Africa. Western companies say patents are vital for innovation.

Outlining 50 recommendations for aligning patent law with poverty reduction, Commission Chairman Professor John Barton of Stanford University, California, said intellectual property rules needed to be tailored to the needs of poor nations.

"Developed countries often proceed on the assumption that what is good for them is likely to be good for developing countries," he said.

"But, in the case of developing countries, more and stronger protection is not necessarily better. Developing countries should not be encouraged or coerced into adopting stronger IP (intellectual property) rights without regard to the impact this has on their development and poor people." World Trade Organization The World Trade Organization (WTO) has promoted rules to ensure proper respect for intellectual property rights around the world, with the goal of stamping out pirate copies of pharmaceuticals, software and other technology-derived products.

But the 180-page report from the commission finds this system is less advantageous for developing than for developed countries, since poor nations are net importers of health, agriculture, education and information technologies.

The problem is acute in the case of access to medicines where the full adoption of the WTO's patents agreement, known as TRIPS, after 2005 may restrict access to cheap generic products.

Barton said poor countries should have the flexibility to apply TRIPS at their own pace, rather than on an arbitrary date.

The report is the work of six commissioners, drawn from academia, the law and industry.

They included Gill Samuels, director of science policy at drug firm Pfizer Inc in Britain, who said the role of patents should be recognized but not overstated, since even their complete absence would not solve a lack of health facilities in many countries.

[anymouse]

The problem is acute in the case of access to medicines where the full adoption of the WTO's patents agreement, known as TRIPS, after 2005 may restrict access to cheap generic products.

World Trade Organization (WTO) vs. British anarchist socialists - this ought to be interesting.

[staytrue]

If there is no IP protection, then the best and brightest will leave your country and come to ours where their brilliance will be rewarded. Good luck with exporting your best people and good luck having an economy that is totally bereft of intellectual property developement.

[Cicero]

You don't help the poor by encouraging them to be deadbeats or cheats. This is a perfect illustration of how socialism leaches off of capitalism. Sure, it hurts the capitalists by stealing their intellectual property, but in the end it hurts the people living under socialism even more, as their society spirals further and further down into poverty and dependency.

[anymouse]

The IP laws have changed significantly over the past 10 years and it has tipped the scales of justice away from the small inventor and consumer in favor of the big multi-national corporations with a fleet of patent lawyers.

A global effort to restrict the availibility of generic pharmaceaticals can't be a good thing, eccept for these same big multi-national corporations sales of brand name products.

[VOA]

If there is no IP protection, then the best and brightest will leave your country and
come to ours where their brilliance will be rewarded. Good luck with exporting
your best people and good luck having an economy that is totally bereft of intellectual
property developement.

Shhh!
Don't tell these morons in other countries about out secret weapon!

If these EU and Canadian bureaucrats took 15 minutes to walk down the halls
of our university research labs and the labs of our pharmaceutical and chemical
research companies and asked the researchers "were you born in the USA or did you
immigrate here?"...they might get a clue.

I do feel a little sheepish about all the brains we get from Canada, as I generally like
the country and the people there. Even if they are dead wrong on a lot of social/economic
policy.
My understanding is that about 50% of the approx. 25,000 Canadians that
immigrated to the USA last year would be classified as "professionl", i.e., doctors,
dentists, degreed in sciences and academic disciplines, etc.

[staytrue]

Assuming what you say is true, then lack of IP protection will mean that these poor countries will never have a large multinational corporation develope. Good Luck running a country without large corporations. Plus, if you are an investor in those countries, where will you send your money ? Will you invest in a country that does not protect the IP of people or corporations or will you invest in a country that does protect IP ? I say good luck to those poor countries that have all their money being invested somewhere else.

Also consider that all US drugs only have patent lives of 17 years. Failure to protect IP means gaining access to Western IP by 17 years but it probably dooms investment in your country forever. It is typical democrat thinking. Take from the rich and give to the poor works once and this is how the democrats think. Republicans think that rewarding investment and the rich will keep them producing for everyone for a long long time.

[3AngelaD]

State-of-the-art drug research: Another thing Americans are supposed to grin and pay for, for the rest of the entire world.

[staytrue]

Basically, if you like a lot of social services (aka welfare), then go to canada. If you want to work hard and get rich, come to the USA. I wonder which economy will do better ?

[razorback-bert]

The price of a patent has skyrocketed.

[anymouse]

Guess why? Back in the mid 90s the IP lobby pressed hard for changing the US Patent law to the system that Europe and Japan use which is biased toward big companies with big legal staffs to manipulate patent law. Sharp drop off in real innovation resulted.

Tons of frivolous patents filed. The US Patent Office workers were swamped and started aproving patents for stuff that doesn't pass the smell test, let alone being checked against prior art. Don't get me started on software patents.

Once again trial lawyers trounce the freedom to innovate to line their pockets.