Intellectual Property and Patent & Trade Mark Protection

Intellectual Property and Patent & Trade Mark Protection

Posts 1-8 of 8
  • Jane Lambert
    Jane Lambert    Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    TRIPS Agreement: Debate between OXFAM and Drugs Companies
    The WTO website has a video of a fascinating debate between Celine Charveriat of Oxfam and Harvey Bale, Director General of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association on whether TRIPS strikes the right balance between pharmaceutical patentees and the world's poorest nations (see http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/debates_e/debate2_e.htm).

    In April I visited Sierra Leone and saw the problems of underdevelopment for myself. In 2002 there were 88,991 applications for Sierra Leonean patents through the PCT but only one from a Sierra Leone through ARIPO (see http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/ipworldwide... )

    I know that this is not a popular thing to say, but I am driven to the conclusion that TRIPS together with the Paris, Rome and other IP conventions perpetuates the imbalance between the developing and developed world
    • 16 Jul 2007, 11:25 pm
  • Post visible to registered members
  • Dr. Oliver S. Hartmann
    Dr. Oliver S. Hartmann    Premium Member   Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^2: TRIPS Agreement: Debate between OXFAM and Drugs Companies
    Hello,

    Isn't it a very strong argument to say, that without sufficient protection of patent rights, no company would spend millions/billions of dollars to develop a new medicine? Governments can not spend that kind of money, so eventually patent protection promotes research and therefore benefits society.

    Regards
    Oliver S. Hartmann
    • 19 Jul 2007, 11:07 am
  • Jane Lambert
    Jane Lambert    Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^3: TRIPS Agreement: Debate between OXFAM and Drugs Companies
    Thank you both for taking the trouble to read the article and sharing your thoughts.

    The debate between the rights of industrialists in developed countries and the aspirations of developing countries is not new. It certainly raged between the UK and USA in the late 19th century and I seem to remember a German cartoon from the early 19th century depicting German industry bound by chains marked "Manchester" and "Liverpool" when we enjoyed comparative advantage over the rest of Europe by being the first country to industrialize.

    When I first came to the Bar I remember the early cases on free movement of goods which resulted form the fact that Italy did not provide the same protection for pharmaceuticals as Germany.

    I certainly agree with Oliver's argument that there has to be some incentive of drugs companies to invest large sums of money in developing and marketing new products. But how big does that incentive have to be? The revenues from a country like Sierra Leone which is in serious need of anti-malaria and other basic drugs will be pretty marginal. Would it be so very disastrous if that country were to import generics from say Brazil, South Africa or India?

    The answer I think lies in compulsory licensing. Doha went part of the way but I am not sure that it got the balance right.

    Also, drugs are just one part of the problem. Similar arguments can be made for seed varieties, pesticides, fertilisers and other products used in food production.

    Yet another point, I am not sure that we do enough in our legal systems in Europe to protect traditional knowledge and folklore which are, of course, the poor countries' intellectual assets. This is a big debate and we may wish to consider a webinar or maybe even physical seminar involving perhaps our friends from the Trade Mark and Copyright Group. I could get some of my friends from the Quaker UN Office in Geneva and the South Institute to share their research some of which you can find at http://www.quno.org/economicissues/intellectual-property/int....
    • 19 Jul 2007, 11:32 am
  • Post visible to registered members
  • Jane Lambert
    Jane Lambert    Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^5: TRIPS Agreement: Debate between OXFAM and Drugs Companies
    Well I think that it is generally agreed that intellectual property is pretty important for development and development is pretty important for world stability. That is why TRIPS is annexed to the WTO agreement. Poverty is not by any means the only cause of violence but people are much more likely to make a nuisance of themselves if they have nothing better to do. Sierra Leone is one of the few countries of the world that have actually gone backwards over the last few decades and I think that is one of the contributing factors for the recent civil war.

    Just to give you a little example. There has been a great influx of people into the main town Freetown from the countryside in recent years, partly because of the civil war but mainly because it is very difficult to earn a living in the countryside. It was not always like that. My mother in law, who is Sierra Leonean, remembers a time when agricultural produce was transported to the capital and ports by a railway which was built by the colonial power in the late 19th century. Locally produced food in the capital was cheap and plentiful and the countryside was prosperous. The railway was abandoned not long after independence in the 1960s and the roads just can't take the traffic. Agriculture has reverted to subsistence. There is just not enough revenue to sustain the rural population. Many of the rural poor were tempted to take up arms on one side or another. Others have flooded into Freetown. It seems to me that unless work is found for the poor and they have hope for the future there will be more trouble.

    Now we have to encourage investment in poor countries and that connotes technology transfers on much better terms than is available under the WTO framework. We also have to relax IPR to allow access to fertilizers, medicines and other staples to keep the population alive and healthy. And we have to protect their intellectual assets in our markets. That includes traditional knowledge as well as more conventional assets like works of art and literature. I know that legal protection can be extended through Berne, Rome, Paris and other conventions but the main problem is the cost of enforcement of an IPR in an advanced country.
    • 19 Jul 2007, 12:58 pm
  • Dr. Oliver S. Hartmann
    Dr. Oliver S. Hartmann    Premium Member   Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^4: TRIPS Agreement: Debate between OXFAM and Drugs Companies
    John Lambert schrieb:
     
    Yet another point, I am not sure that we do enough in our legal systems in Europe to protect traditional knowledge and folklore which are, of course, the poor countries' intellectual assets. This is a big debate and we may wish to consider a webinar or maybe even physical seminar involving perhaps our friends from the Trade Mark and Copyright Group.
    Let me know, how I can help to set up such a seminar or debate.

    If you and the moderators of this group don’t mind, I would like to suggest that you also can post a copy of your notes in our cognate group https://www.xing.com/net/markenrecht. In this way members of the other group can also start a discussion on your commentaries, if desired.

    Best regards
    Oliver S Hartmann
    This post was modified on 20 Jul 2007 at 12:06 pm.
    • 20 Jul 2007, 12:03 pm
  • Dr. Oliver S. Hartmann
    Dr. Oliver S. Hartmann    Premium Member   Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^5: TRIPS Agreement: Debate between OXFAM and Drugs Companies
    Hello,

    with regard to our discussion, I would like to make reference to the following recent notification:

    PATENTS AND HEALTH: WTO RECEIVES FIRST NOTIFICATION UNDER 'PARAGRAPH 6'
    SYSTEM
    Rwanda on 19 July 2007 became the first country to inform the WTO that it
    is using the 30 August 2003 decision designed to ease the way for
    countries with public health problems to import cheaper generics made
    under compulsory licensing elsewhere when they are unable to manufacture
    the medicines themselves (often referred to as the "paragraph 6 system",
    i.e. implementing paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS
    Agreement and Public Health).

    News item: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news07_e/public_health_jul...
    More on TRIPS and public health: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/pharmpatent_e.ht...
    • 20 Jul 2007, 12:24 pm