[Ip-health] op-ed on IP and north v south

[Mike Palmedo]

http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/29/ebr5.htm

Intellectual property: whither the common interest? 

Zubeida Mustafa
July 29, 2002 

<snip>

What are the implications of the present IP system? In the first place
it has, according to the UNDP, allowed the industrialized countries to
use technology as a means of competitive advantage in the global
economy. Although TRIPs requires the developed countries to "provide
incentives to enterprises and institutions in their territories for the
purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least
developed members", this option has remained a neglected area. 

Secondly, traditional knowledge which was regarded to be common property
is being shifted to the private sector. Thus the claims to the
properties of the Neem tree, turmeric and basmati rice have led to
disputes which underline the potential dangers lurking on the horizons. 

Thirdly, pharmaceutical manufacturers are pricing many of their products
out of the reach of the poor in the third world. Although options are
available under the law to adopt measures such as manufacture of generic
drugs, compulsory licensing and tiered pricing of brand names, the
multinational drug companies have not allowed them to be used. A lot of
controversy has been generated where some third world countries such as
South Africa, India, Brazil and Thailand have resorted to the
manufacture of generic drugs for AIDS. 

In this scenario, it is not surprising that many in the third world
regard the prospects for IPS to be gloomy. However, the situation can be
improved by adopting a rational approach. This calls for WIPO to act as
a watchdog for public interests of the community in the developing
countries rather than a service provider for the patent applicants from
the industrialized states. WIPO is aware of the nature of the
controversy which surrounds this sector. The seminar opened by defining
the "myths" and detailing the "reality". This was its answer to Vandana
Shiva's powerfully argued book Patents: myth and reality. 

On paper the arguments appeared convincing - but only on paper. For
instance, when the organization speaks of protecting the work of
inventors everywhere, one can well ask who are the inventors who
benefit? Does it actually help the third world countries by stimulating
domestic innovation, fostering new industries leading to sustained
economic development and improving healthcare as claimed by WIPO? 

There is need for WIPO to shift its thrust towards the common interest -
the economic, cultural and social progress of all mankind. Since it
generates a substantial income for itself, theoretically speaking it
should be in a position to act as an independent agency. But with more
than 75 per cent of its budget coming from the fees it charges for the
global protection services and most of these being paid by the big
manufacturers in the West would they allow the organization to set up an
IP system which is not harsh vis-a-vis the third world?