SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • Congratulations upon re-election;-WHO chief.Priori... »
  • Great article. Ms. Chan may want to read our book ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    WTO Strikes Agreement On TRIPS And Public Health On Eve Of Ministerial

    Published on 6 December 2005 @ 10:53 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    The World Trade Organization today adopted a permanent amendment to international trade law that will make it easier for poor countries exposed to health emergencies to import cheaper generic versions of patented medicines if they are not able to produce these themselves.

    The WTO General Council adopted the proposal immediately after a short meeting of the Council of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which took place against the background of a number of meetings held over the weekend.

    The amendment, the first ever to the 1994 TRIPS agreement, implements a waiver that was temporarily agreed on 30 August 2003, making it possible for countries to export medicines under compulsory license to countries with no or inadequate production facilities. This waived paragraph 31(f) of the TRIPS agreement, which states that production under compulsory license should predominantly be for domestic use.

    In a press conference, WTO Director General Pascal Lamy hailed the change to the TRIPS agreement as a sign of “flexibility” and “adjustment” that bolsters the current development-focused round of free-trade negotiations at the WTO.

    “The agreement to amend the TRIPS provisions confirms once again that members are determined to ensure the WTO’s trading system contributes to humanitarian and development goals as they prepare for the Hong Kong ministerial conference,” Lamy said in a statement.

    The waiver was more or less adopted in full in the amendment, which consists of three parts: Article 31bis (an addition to Article 31) allowing medicines to be exported under compulsory license and setting out parameters for remuneration to the patent holder; an annex on terms for using the system and an appendix to the annex that spells out assessment of manufacturing capacities of pharmaceuticals (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 5 December).

    The agreement will become part of the TRIPS agreement once two thirds of WTO members have ratified it, with a 1 December 2007 deadline, according to the documents.

    Moreover, a statement made by the TRIPS Council chairman on 30 August 2003 was also read out loud and adopted according to a pre-determined “choreography,” intended to ensure a match of the 2003 adoption procedure. This was a result of “intricate legal discussions,” the WTO said in a release.

    As part of this “choreography,” 11 advanced developing countries had to re-state their 2003 statement of intent to use the waiver only in cases of national emergencies. Participants at the meeting said that this was done, although some of the members had to be kept on track and reminded that they were not to make additional statements. A Brazilian delegate said that procedure was followed and he was very pleased with the outcome.

    African countries also welcomed the agreement although it compromises the proposal the African Group made earlier this year. That proposal would have implemented the 2003 decision with the removal of what they perceived as technical barriers to its use.

    An African official said that it was not so much the content of the amendment but the fact that it had been adopted that was important. He said that an amendment had now been made to “the most difficult agreement in the WTO,” and that this had been a “window” for the African countries.

    But another developing country official said the amendment process had been too rushed, saying the decision could have waited until after Hong Kong.

    Still another developing country official said, “It was a bit rushed, but the issue is not new,” and that it was maybe “the best possible compromise.”

    General Council Chair Sees Use of Waiver

    General Council Chairperson Amina Mohamed of Kenya said at a press conference that this was an “extremely important decision” that “gives the organisation [WTO] a very human face.”

    Mohamed told Intellectual Property Watch afterward that the waiver “has delivered” although it has not been used by any country so far. She said that the success of a WTO regulation could not be judged by the frequency of use, as just the fact that the system is in place could bring comfort. It therefore is not flawed just because it has not been used, Mohamed said.

    Mohamed said that the waiver had done just what it was supposed to do, namely address the public health issue and crisis in poor countries. It has also worked to lower prices on medicines for diseases such as HIV/AIDS, she said.

    Moreover, Mohamed said that other reasons why it had not been used so far were that it took time for countries to implement necessary changes to national law, and that up to now it has been possible to import cheap medicines, or active substances, from India, which only this year introduced patents for pharmaceuticals. Now that drugs will be patented in India, there is a greater likelihood that countries will need to use the waiver.

    In a statement the United States said it welcomed the agreement, emphasising that it had “played an instrumental role throughout the process.” US Trade Representative Rob Portman said it was a “landmark achievement” and that, “The African Group, and other developing countries, made clear that the amendment was something they saw as essential to accomplish before Hong Kong and we were pleased to make it happen.”

     

    Comments

    1. James Love says:

      It might have be useful to include the views of groups critical of the deal, which include basically every public health group that has monitored TRIPS.


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.