[Ip-health] Times of India editorial, IPR & Public Interest

[msfh-india-medco-assist@field.amsterdam.msf.org]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Dear Moderator,



Kindly post the following Times of India editorial on Ip-health.



Leena Menghaney
Project Manager-India
Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines
Medecins Sans Frontieres - Holland (in India)
C 106 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110 034

Tel: +91 11 24337225, Fax:  +91 11 24336834
E-mail: msfh-india-medco-assist@field.amsterdam.msf.org



Times of India, Editorial, 5th April, 2007
Intellectual propriety
Anuradha Rajivan
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/OPINION/Editorial/Intellectual_propriety=
/articleshow/msid-1858184,curpg-1.cms


As efforts are underway to revive World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks to b=
ring the Doha Round to its logical conclusion there is an urgent need to ta=
ke a fresh look at intellectual property rights (IPRs).

The debate has been driven largely by commercial interests. Public interest=
 is equally, if not more, important. We need to understand that different s=
ituations may require different solutions balancing commercial interests wi=
th the public good.

Global institutions like World Intellectual Property Organisation that spec=
ialise in intellectual property, together with the WTO agreement on Trade R=
elated aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) are increasingly inf=
luencing the governance of intellectual work.

Should intellectual work be subordinated to human well-being or to profit? =
Are the two necessarily contradictory? Is it logical to take different posi=
tions for different types of intellectual outputs?

While the argument for property rights favours financial gain as the best i=
ncentive, the contrary view is that strong IPRs inhibit innovation and deve=
lopment of new technologies with implications for biodiversity and concerns=
 for the poor making medicines more expensive or farmers' seeds ineffective=
.

IPR issues are often seen as developed versus developing country positions =
the former with strong aggressive interests and the latter with more defens=
ive interests. The balance of power is in favour of industrial lobbies in d=
eveloped countries that have successfully increased the breadth and coverag=
e of IPRs from trade secrets, utility models, and broadcasting rights to ri=
ghts on data compilation.

However, the positions can well be reversed as in the case of traditional k=
nowledge. IPRs do not have to be all or nothing. It is possible to take dif=
fering positions depending on the 'public good' nature of the product. The =
challenge lies in finding ways to balance rewards to the innovator while fa=
cilitating wider access and dissemination to spur further innovation and ne=
wer applications.

For instance, biotechnologies are at the cutting edge - in the laboratory a=
nd commercially. The original species for this research comes mainly from t=
ropical countries rich in biodiversity. Corporations patent these resources=
 after getting them from poor communities.

The US patent on turmeric for healing wounds is an example. While most corp=
orations in the business see it as bio-prospecting, and demand strong IPRs,=
 for poor communities this is bio-piracy as they lose out on fees worth mil=
lions of dollars for prospecting rights.

Adding value to traditional knowledge through geographical indications (GIs=
), is an excellent opportunity for developing countries to aggressively lev=
erage commercial gains from IP. A GI identifies a good as originating in a =
specific region, with quality or characteristics attribu-table to its geogr=
aphic origin.

Most GIs are used for relative luxuries like wine, spirits and cheese. Trad=
itional knowledge can push the use of GI beyond luxury goods and whole comm=
unities can benefit. Examples are basmati rice of India and Pakistan, tea f=
rom Sri Lanka, Phu Quoc fish sauce and Hunza apricots. Another idea not yet=
 utilised is GI in services like Thai massages and Asian hospitality.

A major area of concern is the implication for drug prices with the strengt=
hening of IPRs in pharma-ceuticals. The cost of essential drugs is much low=
er in India than in neighbouring Pakistan - with different intellectual pro=
perty regimes.

India has historically had 'process' patents, not 'product' patents, allowi=
ng domestic pharmaceutical companies to produce low-priced copies of patent=
ed drugs. This simple provision in the original Indian Patents Act (1970) i=
ncreased competition and put pressure on pharma-ceutical companies to keep =
prices low.

India is the fourth largest producer of pharmaceuticals and a large supplie=
r of low-cost generic drugs to other developing countries. As a signatory t=
o the TRIPS agreement India was under pressure to modify its IP laws, to ch=
ange to a 'product' patents regime. A 2004 amendment to the Indian Patents =
Act made the country WTO compliant but this was later reversed under intens=
e domestic pressure.

Arts and entertainment is one area where the argument of public good for hu=
man well-being need not be an issue. Music, painting and film are the works=
 of specific artists who should be compensated for the use of their work. S=
trong IPRs in these areas is less likely to compromise social good.

The writer is with UNDP.
--
[ attachments.zip of type application/x-zip-compressed deleted ]
--