Wall Street Journal Quote on Patents

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Subject: PATNEWS: Wall Street Journal quote from James Love was false
     Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:26:54 -0400
    From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
       To: patent-news@world.std.com

!19980422  Wall Street Journal quote from James Love was false

    This morning's PATNEWS mentioned a Wall Street Journal article that
included a very critical quote on drug patents from James Love, a DC
consumer advocate.  As it turns out, the quote was false, and the WSJ
is planning a retraction.  Here's what happened from Mr. Love himself,
who apparently had another IP quote falsely attributed to him.  Reminds
me of what happens to this patent newsletter guy I know :-)

Greg Aharonian
Internet Patent Newsletter guy
                              ====================


    I just learned that on Friday, April 17, 1998, the Wall Street Journal
ran a guest editorial by Owen Lippert of the Fraser Institute (from
Vancouver, British Columbia), which was titled "Pirates Plunder Patents.
Will the Rule of Law Prevail?"

    The article discusses the March 1998 meetings in Costa Rica on the
FTAA Business Forum negotiations over intellectual property.  In this
article, the author wrote:

        At the meeting, Mr. Love asserted that "patents are a 
        tax on the poor and sick that allow drug companies to 
        profit from inventions rightly belonging to humanity.  
        Governments must safeguard their citizen's health and 
        pocketbook by striping drug companies of that 
        undeserved legal privilege called a patent."

    I was surprised to see this quote, because I have never written or
said this, and it goes further than anything that I have recommended in
any public forum, let alone the FTAA meetings.  Moreover, I believe that
patents on pharmaceutical drugs are one (of several) appropriate
mechanisms for promoting research and development, particularly for
developed countries.  Of course, I do think there are abuses in patent
rights, overreaching in some cases, needs for exemptions (such as
surgical patents) and many areas where consumer interests are different
from PhRMA interests (compulsory licensing, parallel imports, levels of
"unfair competition" protections on health registration data, etc.), and
I favor a shift in trade agreements to focus more on burden sharing for
R&D, with greater national discretion on how those burdens are met.  The
WSJ "quoted" something I did not say, and something I would not say.

    I contacted Mr. Lippert, and he agreed that I never said this,
that it was his intention to paraphrase the views he thought I was
taking.  In other words, Mr. Lippert made the quote up.  He said the
editing made it seem as thought it was a direct quote.  The Wall Street
editors also agree that it was something I did not say, and they say Mr.
Lippert should not have used quotes, and they agree with me that the WSJ
should not print "quotes" which are entirely phony.  They say they will
run a retraction tomorrow.

     This is the second time in recent days that I have been attacking
on specious grounds.  Former PhRMA president Gerald Mossinghoff was quoted
on NPR public radio attacking me for believing that Microsoft's Windows
operating system was not private property -- again attacking a position
which I have never embraced, and do not agree with.
[Greg note: Mr. Mossinghoff is a former PTO commissioner]

    One expects criticism of the positions one takes on controversial
topics, but I would expect news organizations such as NPR and the Wall
Street Journal to pay closer attention to the actual statements or
positions one takes, rather than to demonize and marginalize a critic.


James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
love@cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org
202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5176