Comments on: New Parliament Group Monitors EU Trade Pacts’ Impact On Poor’s Medicines Access http://www.ip-watch.org/2010/01/28/new-parliament-group-monitors-eu-trade-pacts-impact-on-poors-medicines-access/ Original news and analysis on international IP policy Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:19:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Miles Teg http://www.ip-watch.org/2010/01/28/new-parliament-group-monitors-eu-trade-pacts-impact-on-poors-medicines-access/comment-page-1/#comment-3246487 Miles Teg Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:56:18 +0000 http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=9239#comment-3246487 GSK's position on many of these issues is well known in different parts of the world. It is simply trite for Pendar to be quoted as saying that the right balance is needed. The balance is already safeguarded in the International IPR agreements which GSK and its fellow monopolists seek to render "illegal" through their client states' like the US, EU and Japan. The US has the Special 301 unilateral "naming and shaming" process and the EU has just set up one. In fact so rosy eyed and naive are EU officials of the EC that they even passed anti-counterfeiting legislation that has FEW if ANY safeguards against abuse by BigPharma. And it was abused. The EU has been in self-praise mode for a long time about its stance on access to medicines. They try to parade as the deal makers when the North and South clash - like at WTO, WHO or WIPO or the nefarious EPAs. Where exactly is the reason for praise when the EU brokers "deals" where one party seeks to rob the other of their legal entitlement and the other has to "pay" to get some sort of settlement. In fact, the Americans are far more respectable on this - vested interests count, simple. The EU on the other hand is worse than the allegations its mainstream media flung at South Africa's Mbeki. Why, because at least Mbeki was interested in ensuring access to all meds - not just for HIV - whereas the EU is on a case by case basis for the use of what the French like to call the "nuclear option" of compulsory licenses. Not even an alleged pandemic is enough to trigger a relaxation of IPRs and "open and transparent" Europe wants to stroke its own ego again. Self-praise is no recommendation. GSK’s position on many of these issues is well known in different parts of the world. It is simply trite for Pendar to be quoted as saying that the right balance is needed. The balance is already safeguarded in the International IPR agreements which GSK and its fellow monopolists seek to render “illegal” through their client states’ like the US, EU and Japan. The US has the Special 301 unilateral “naming and shaming” process and the EU has just set up one. In fact so rosy eyed and naive are EU officials of the EC that they even passed anti-counterfeiting legislation that has FEW if ANY safeguards against abuse by BigPharma. And it was abused.

The EU has been in self-praise mode for a long time about its stance on access to medicines. They try to parade as the deal makers when the North and South clash – like at WTO, WHO or WIPO or the nefarious EPAs. Where exactly is the reason for praise when the EU brokers “deals” where one party seeks to rob the other of their legal entitlement and the other has to “pay” to get some sort of settlement.

In fact, the Americans are far more respectable on this – vested interests count, simple. The EU on the other hand is worse than the allegations its mainstream media flung at South Africa’s Mbeki. Why, because at least Mbeki was interested in ensuring access to all meds – not just for HIV – whereas the EU is on a case by case basis for the use of what the French like to call the “nuclear option” of compulsory licenses.

Not even an alleged pandemic is enough to trigger a relaxation of IPRs and “open and transparent” Europe wants to stroke its own ego again.

Self-praise is no recommendation.

]]>