[Ip-health] IP Watch: G8 Summit Strengthens IP Protection; May Undercut Compulsory Licensing

[Judit Rius Sanjuan]

/http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D646&res=3D1280_ff&print=3D0

/June 7, 2007. G8 Summit Strengthens IP Protection; May Undercut
Compulsory Licensing

By Monika Ermert for Intellectual Property Watch, and Tove Gerhardsen

The strengthening of intellectual property rights protection in =93a new
dialogue=94 between Group of 8 and emerging economies moderated by the
Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the
possible establishment of an =93IPR Task Force focussing on
anti-counterfeiting and piracy=94 are among decisions to be taken at the
G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany.

Other decisions on IP according to the final declaration on =93Growth and
Responsibility in the World Economy=94 published this evening by the
German G8 Presidency are =93new guidelines for technical assistance on
intellectual property rights protection=94 and =93guidelines on customs and
border enforcement cooperation designed to strengthen cooperation among
national customs and law enforcement administration.=94

Health care and funding in Africa joined IP protection on the agenda for
the 6-8 June summit that started Wednesday with an informal dinner. US
President George Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel after their
first bilateral discussion referred to the fight against malaria and
HIV/AIDS as a top priority.

Non-governmental organisations gathered in nearby Rostock and
Kuehlungsborn are highly critical of the approach that is being taken,
they told /Intellectual Property Watch/. They were concerned about the
unilateral push for ever more =93strengthening=94 of IP, said a spokesperso=
n
from the organisation M=E9decins Sans Fronti=E8res (MSF) in a first reactio=
n
to the final declaration. Intellectual property protection has not
provided the innovation needed to address diseases in the developing
world, MSF warned at the summit.

G8 leaders are holding up intellectual property protection as the only
way to foster innovation, according to MSF. Tido von Schoen-Angerer,
director of MSF=92s Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines, told
Intellectual Property Watch: =93We know from our work in developing
countries that more patent protection did not lead to more innovation.=94
Universal access to affordable drugs for diseases like tuberculosis and
HIV/AIDS, leishmaniasis and sleeping sickness is still far from
realised. For the G8 to be putting IP protection forward as solution for
the future is =93simply disingenuous.=94

Schoen-Angerer instead pointed to the intergovernmental working group at
the World Health Organization that is exploring alternatives to patent
protection. It was unfortunate that these discussions did not find any
reflection in G8 discussions, he said.

=93It is also irritating that when you try to talk about alternatives you
always end up in discussions about counterfeit medicines,=94
Schoen-Angerer said, though he acknowledged they are a danger to
people=92s health. =93Counterfeit medicine is a crime,=94 he said. =93But t=
hey
are not hampering innovation.=94

On the contrary, the lack of affordable and effective medicines could
contribute to the counterfeit medicines, he said. The G8 must therefore
also support mechanisms that increase access to medicines by stimulating
competition and production of affordable, quality generic medicines,
upon which the developing world can rely.

The organisation =93Netzwerk Freies Wissen=94 this week sent letters to the
five Outreach countries (O5) - China, India, South Africa, Mexico and
Brazil - asking them not accept the G8 invitation to participate in
talks on better IP protection on Friday, the last day of the summit. It
is important that a fair dialogue about IP does not unilaterally address
economic interests of the G8 summit, the group said.

=93According to our information, the US delegation has presented a new
proposal that would void proposals to encourage African countries to
more rely on compulsory licenses to produce medicines,=94 said Julian
Finn, spokesperson for Netzwerk Freies Wissen at Kuehlungsborn.
Influencing developing countries to act against their own interests must
be stopped, said Finn. =93We do not want pressure on countries like Brazil
and India where the life of many people is at risk because of
ever-increasing IP protection of drugs.=94

Schoen-Angerer described as =93extremely counterproductive=94 the attempts
to put pressure on developing countries not to use the flexibilities
provided for in the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Some of the
O5-countries have been pioneers in producing affordable generic drugs.
=93The flexibilities are there,=94 said Schoen-Angerer. =93Every time there=
 is
an outcry when a developing country uses compulsory licenses, yet
countries like the US or Italy certainly are using it=94 as well,
Schoen-Angerer said.

A purported 1 June draft declaration on Growth and Responsibility in
Africa called on international organisations and donors =93to respond
constructively to requests by African developing countries without
manufacturing capacities with regard to the use of the flexibilities
referenced in the WTO Doha declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, while
respecting WTO obligations.

There may be later drafts, sources said, and the declaration was
expected to be discussed at the meeting on 7 June, a UK press person said.

The 1 June draft also recognised the challenge surrounding access to
medicines, and says it wants to support African countries that request
technical assistance and capacity building programmes to improve access
to =93high quality generic and innovative medicines in a manner consistent
with the WTO.=94

It listed what parties should do, including African governments, the
pharmaceutical industry and international organisations and donors. The
latter should =93respond constructively=94 to requests from African
countries lacking manufacturing capacities, =93with regard to the use of
the flexibilities referenced in the WTO Doha Declaration on TRIPS and
Public Health, while respecting WTO obligations.=94 Flexibilities are
built into the TRIPS agreement.

As for the pharmaceutical industry, it was asked to continue to explore
further initiatives that can boost access to affordable HIV/AIDS
medicines and review its prices policies on second-line antiretroviral
medicines. It was also asked to assist local production of medicines in
Africa by issuing voluntary licenses and providing laboratory
capacities. Such initiatives are already underway in parts of Africa
involving the German development agency and the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development, sources said.

The New Role of OECD

The G8 includes the Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia,
United Kingdom, and the United States.

Netzwerk Freies Wissen and over 20 other organisations warned in late
May against a forum-shopping move by the G8 countries. Instead of
shifting IP discussions to G8 or to the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development, where only northern countries have a voice,
IP issues plus their developmental aspects should be discussed at more
multilateral bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organisation
(WIPO), they said. WIPO, while not ideal at least is struggling with a
development agenda, argue NGO representatives. =93The last time the North
evaded WIPO resulted in getting TRIPS,=94 said one activist.

The new role of the 30-member OECD as a moderator of a dialogue on IP
protection has seemed to be a hot issue in the lead-up the summit. An
invitation to the OECD to organise the dialogue with emerging economies
had been cut out of an April version of the draft final declaration of
the summit, yet is back in the final declaration.

Wolfgang Huebner, counsellor in the OECD=92s Directorate for Science,
Technology and Industry, said the OECD would act as a platform and
report back at the G8 Summit in two years time. OECD would look much
more at the economic issues of intellectual property rights, contrary to
the political debate in some other fora.

The final declaration also emphasises the =93function and role of the
competent multilateral organizations, in particular WTO and the WIPO,=94
which could serve to defuse tensions between organisations. Participants
in the new dialogue could also =93discuss initiatives aimed at
strengthening intellectual property rights protection which should then
be addressed in the appropriate international fora", reads the text. The
goal of the dialogue is a =93positive exchange on topics critical for
growth of successful knowledge economies and the promotion of an
innovation-friendly business environment also taking into account the
needs of small and medium sized enterprises.=94

Important points in the OECD section, according to the declaration, are:
a) the crucial role and economic value of intellectual property
protection and implementation as a central framework condition for the
development of a future-oriented economy based on technological progress
and innovation; b) effective market incentives for innovation and the
diffusion of knowledge at the national level taking into account recent
developments in technology markets; and c) the crucial importance of
efficient innovation value chains that promote business
commercialization of patented research results and exploit licensing as
a major driver for the international transfer of technology.

The declaration that has been worked on by the sherpas (high-level
government negotiators) for months. Finn and Schoen-Angerer said that IP
issues had somewhat been pushed aside by the high attention put on
debates on climate change and also the Russia-US debate about the US
defence system. For the IP and healthcare activists there was no
possibility to further make input in the current discussions of the
leaders. First and foremost, said one activist, =93there is this big fence.=
=94

Text of Declaration

The final version of the draft summit declaration includes five
=93undertakings=94 following the summit:

a) endorsing Guidelines for Customs and Border Enforcement cooperation
designed to strengthen cooperation and coordination among our national
customs and law enforcement (..),

b) endorsing a new framework for technical assistance on intellectual
property rights protection to interested developing countries. As well
as a mechanism to better coordinate and leverage existing G8 assistance
to such countries with a view to building the capacity necessary to
combat trade in counterfeited and pirated goods to strengthen IP
enforcement,

c) endorsing recommendations aimed at improving G8 member countries
cooperation of actions to combat serious and organized IP rights crimes (..=
)

d) while appreciating the information contained in the OECD report
estimating the economic impacts of counterfeiting and piracy on national
economies and right holders as well as public health and safety we will
encourage the OECD to work with member state to further identify and
target specific areas for concrete actions,

e) recognizing the need for continued study by national experts of the
possibilities of strengthening the international legal framework
pertaining to IPR enforcement.

f) considering the establishment of an IPR task force focusing on
anti-counterfeiting and piracy to look together at how best to improve
the working of the international IPR protection and enforcement, and
produce recommendations for action including improved peer review.

/Monika Ermert and Tove Gerhardsen may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch./

------------------------------------------------------------------------

/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/>. All of the news
articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch are also subject to
a Creative Commons License
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/> which makes them
available for widescale, free, non-commercial reproduction and translation.=
/


Judit Rius Sanjuan
Attorney
judit.rius@keionline.org

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
www.keionline.org / www.cptech.org
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 18  Fax: +1.202.332.2673