Comments on: Brazil is so trendy…its pharma patent-busting technique is starting to catch on http://promotetheprogress.com/blog/brazil-is-so-trendyits-pharma-patent-busting-technique-is-starting-to-catch-on/618/ Analytical commentary on current issues in United States patent law Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:32:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: William New http://promotetheprogress.com/blog/brazil-is-so-trendyits-pharma-patent-busting-technique-is-starting-to-catch-on/618/comment-page-1/#comment-161 William New Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:46:31 +0000 http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/2007/04/26/brazil-is-so-trendyits-pharma-patent-busting-technique-is-starting-to-catch-on/#comment-161 Hi, just trying to understand this argument as a journalist writing about the compulsory license issue: Based on the TRIPS agreement, isn't it understood for those who receive a patent, especially if they apply it internationally, that the monopoly comes with an obligation related to public interest, that there is always a built-in possibility for other countries to act in their own public interest, and up to them to decide when that is necessary? It wouldn't really be 'patent-busting' if it was already understood to be part of the deal when you apply a patent outside the US? I wasn't there for the negotiations, but wasn't that the intent of the TRIPS agreement, which the pharmaceutical industry and everyone else agreed to? If that option (the ability to use the so-called flexibilities like compulsory licenses) wasn't in the agreement, would the developing countries have even signed the agreement? And then why would anyone be surprised when they use it? Also, is it considered patent-busting when developed countries issue compulsory licenses? Thanks for the help. Some lawyerly explanation could be useful here. Best, William New, Editor, Intellectual Property Watch, Geneva (www.ip-watch.org) Hi, just trying to understand this argument as a journalist writing about the compulsory license issue: Based on the TRIPS agreement, isn’t it understood for those who receive a patent, especially if they apply it internationally, that the monopoly comes with an obligation related to public interest, that there is always a built-in possibility for other countries to act in their own public interest, and up to them to decide when that is necessary? It wouldn’t really be ‘patent-busting’ if it was already understood to be part of the deal when you apply a patent outside the US? I wasn’t there for the negotiations, but wasn’t that the intent of the TRIPS agreement, which the pharmaceutical industry and everyone else agreed to? If that option (the ability to use the so-called flexibilities like compulsory licenses) wasn’t in the agreement, would the developing countries have even signed the agreement? And then why would anyone be surprised when they use it? Also, is it considered patent-busting when developed countries issue compulsory licenses?

Thanks for the help. Some lawyerly explanation could be useful here.

Best, William New, Editor, Intellectual Property Watch, Geneva (www.ip-watch.org)

]]> By: Timothy Platt http://promotetheprogress.com/blog/brazil-is-so-trendyits-pharma-patent-busting-technique-is-starting-to-catch-on/618/comment-page-1/#comment-160 Timothy Platt Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:45:22 +0000 http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/2007/04/26/brazil-is-so-trendyits-pharma-patent-busting-technique-is-starting-to-catch-on/#comment-160 620,000 + Brazilians infected by HIV/AIDS should qualify as a medical emergency. Patent rights are an important part of the balance of incentives and rights, but they are never absolute. Should compulsory license provisions (which may make the patent system acceptable to the developing world) never be invoked? Ask what many members of the US Congress had to say during the 2001 Anthrax scare, envisioning a purely theoretical shortage of Ciprofloxacin. And what compulsory license threats did the US Department of Health and Human Services use when driving Ciprofloxacin patent holder, German Bayer AG, down to a lower price? 620,000 + Brazilians infected by HIV/AIDS should qualify as a medical emergency. Patent rights are an important part of the balance of incentives and rights, but they are never absolute. Should compulsory license provisions (which may make the patent system acceptable to the developing world) never be invoked? Ask what many members of the US Congress had to say during the 2001 Anthrax scare, envisioning a purely theoretical shortage of Ciprofloxacin. And what compulsory license threats did the US Department of Health and Human Services use when driving Ciprofloxacin patent holder, German Bayer AG, down to a lower price?

]]>