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 >


    Global Pharmaceutical Industry Launches Ethics Code, Highlights Importance Of Patents

    Published on 20 October 2006 @ 5:01 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen
    As part of its greater focus on accountability and transparency, the global pharmaceutical industry will launch a new code of marketing ethics next year, it announced at its recent biennial meeting in Geneva. Meanwhile, its stand in support of patents will remain unchanged, although its strategy was challenged at the meeting.

    Patents constitute a temporary monopoly, but in the end society benefits, Fred Hassan, CEO of Schering-Plough and newly-elected president of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) told Intellectual Property Watch at the meeting. He replaces the CEO of Novartis, Daniel Vasella, who has held the post for the past two years.

    Separately, the director general of IFPMA, Harvey Bale, will step down within the next two years, according to the meeting.

    “[We] need to educate people on the importance of intellectual property,” Hassan said, adding that in some parts of the world, such as in Singapore, patents are often better understood than in countries such as the United Kingdom or the United States.

    The IFPMA’s 23rd general assembly in Geneva on 11-12 October brought together some 230 participants from the industry, nongovernmental and governmental organisations and research institutions. On the agenda were issues such as meeting the United Nations Millennium Development Goals health challenges, healthcare system choices in emerging countries, the future of pharmaceutical innovation and research into neglected diseases.

    There was a good spirit of collaboration, especially compared with the situation five to 10 years ago, sources said. “The value system in which we operate has changed,” said Vasella, referring to both the industry’s self-image and expectations.

    Acting Director General of the World Health Organization Anders Nordström said that during the past five to 10 years there has been quite a change as there is “a much broader understanding of health” now. He said organisations such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria have become effective at bringing in the civil society but “not that brilliant in bringing in the private sector.”

    But Nordström said that the IFPMA Assembly, and its agenda, showed that there was willingness from the industry for dialogue on public health issues.

    Disagreement Over Patents and Drug Access

    But despite a general atmosphere of collaboration, there were still some areas of disagreement. And perhaps not surprisingly, most of them dealt with patents.

    “We still have inadequate access to drugs,” said Regina Kamoga, country manager of the International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations in Uganda.

    Nordström encouraged technology transfers, including know-how, especially when it comes to vaccines. An industry representative asked him to explain his view on sharing intellectual property rights for these products and the link to innovation.

    Nordström replied that this is a “balancing equation,” and that “certain things can and should be available for everybody.” He said the WHO wants as much sharing as possible, while recognising that there is a role for patents. But there is an issue of developing products when there is not a large market, he said. “Patents should be there,” he said, but then one should “discuss exactly how [the scheme] should function.”

    Many of the representatives from public-private partnerships for neglected diseases described successes, but called for more money and more engagement from the industry.

    Michel Zaffran, deputy executive secretary of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, said that investments had been slower than expected, and what was missing was to ensure the pharmaceutical industry that the markets exist in developing countries, and are not just “small, risky and unpredictable.”

    Bernard Pécoul, executive director of the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative, said that DNDi had 22 projects in its portfolio in 2006, but needed more in clinical trials, and invited the industry to “help us fill that gap.”

    Chris Hentschel, CEO of the Medicines for Malaria Venture, said that patents are not only a problem but “part of the solution.” He said that if only as much time had been spent on “creative deal-making” as on criticising the intellectual property rights system, that would have been fruitful.

    Nordström said that there are gaps in the research and development of medicines for certain types of diseases, and he called for more innovation in areas such as HIV/AIDS, avian influenza and malaria. What is needed is “money, medicines and motivated health force,” he said. But, speaking to industry, he said: “The WHO’s dialogue with you is very good.”

    He welcomed the engagement of companies such as Novartis, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis in projects such as advance market commitment, but called for more “as long as we are clear about the business rules.”

    Continuing the Reform

    Under Vasella’s presidency, IFPMA launched what it called a “major reform,” focused on increasing transparency, and worked on access issues with organisations such as the WHO and Médicins Sans Frontières, he said.

    As part of this reform, the IFPMA has agreed to a new, clearer and stricter Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices. It will become effective 1 January 2007. When a complaint is upheld, information about the case will be published at IFPMA’s website, it said. The code covers areas such as limits on entertainment and social activities paid for by member companies, or personal gifts for healthcare professionals.

    IFPMA also has agreed to set up the Clinical Trials Portal, which provides easy, multilingual access to clinical trials information worldwide.

    Hassan said he would continue the reform toward accountability and transparency in the healthcare sector for health promotion, disease prevention, intervention and innovation, but he also will work on developing scorecards for health providers on key health metrics. As part of this, the industry wants to collaborate on health education against obesity, for example.

    Recurring Issue: Counterfeit Medicines

    The agenda also contained longstanding industry concerns such as the availability of counterfeit medicines. Bale said that his wife had even encountered the problem at a pharmacy in Washington.

    Howard Zucker, WHO assistant director general of health technology and pharmaceuticals, talked about counterfeit medicines and said that if the regulation of aircrafts had been subject to the same situation as medicines, one in four would not get off the ground and one in 10 would crash. He said two counterfeit medicines conferences had been held since January and the WHO would officially launch a counterfeit task force, which he is heading, in November.

    But Hans Rosling, professor of International Health at Karolinska Institute in Sweden, challenged this view. He said that while two million children die of pneumonia and one million from malaria, “very few of these are due to counterfeit.” He said that “of course [counterfeit medicines] is a problem, but it is over-estimated in comparison to “the blunt lack of medication,” he said.

    Delivery Problem

    Nordström also talked about the difficulties in delivering medicines and pointed to the fact that one can purchase certain types of soft drinks in basically all villages in poor countries, but not necessarily drugs.

    Zucker suggested that industry be more involved in training pharmacists in countries that lack this resource. He also said that one should “pull the community in” and think anew about how pharmacies could be set up, using a port town in South Africa as an example, where containers are being turned into pharmacies.

    An Indian industry representative said that he had suggested to the Indian government that it start handing out medicines at the post offices, which are widely distributed throughout the country.

    Should Pharma Look to Google?

    Rosling had another perspective on the patent discussion and presented a challenging idea to the industry. “The pharmaceutical industry has so far been extremely conservative,” he told Intellectual Property Watch.

    He called on industry to think of new “clever business models,” as the information technology and aircraft industries have done, both of which offer high-price as well as low-price alternatives. He also cited Internet companies Google, Skype and YouTube, which he said had thought successfully about alternatives to the conventional market mechanism of having a right to a patent and selling items at the same prize.

    Rosling suggested that the pharmaceutical industry should think of every person on the earth as a potential customer, and find ways of providing free or at cost products in the beginning, as many mobile phone companies have done, in order to acquire potential customers, he said.

    With this thinking, the industry should not be afraid that its products would be copied, he said. Even Microsoft Corp.’s Bill Gates had recognised that copiers would later purchase the products when it has helped them grow their economy, he said.

    ”Some companies have started new approaches for drugs needed by the poorest, the challenge ahead are the three billion entering the market economy with capacity to pay for the synthesis of the drugs they need for non-communicable diseases, but they will not be able to pay for research and development,” he said.

    Rosling is the founder of Gapminder, a non-profit organisation that brings “vital global data to life,” according to a source. He said that the aim is to create a “YouTube of statistics.” Public statistics are hidden from the public, and those who have used it have either put “prices or stupid passwords” on it, he said. His group, Gapminder, aims to change this and bring statistics back into the public.

    With striking “live” graphs, Rosling showed, for example, that many countries developed much faster if they were “healthier first,” meaning that the government made critical highly productive investments in public health.

    Rosling’s presentation and graphics are available here.

    Tove Gerhardsen may be reached at tgerhardsen@ip-watch.ch.

     


    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.