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

Advertisement


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.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »
  • I deeply apprecite the initiative to combat agains... »

  • 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 Members To Consider Review Of TRIPS Public Health Amendment

    Published on 11 February 2010 @ 1:57 am

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    A waiver to World Trade Organization rules intended to aid people in poor countries in gaining access to medicines has remained essentially unused in the over six-and-a-half years since it was put in place. On Friday, member states of the WTO will in an informal meeting discuss this situation and see what, if anything, needs be done.

    The 2003 waiver was made an amendment in 2005 within the WTO Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement to allow for increased export of medicines made under compulsory licences. This was intended to give a helping hand to nations without a domestic pharmaceutical industry, who might have public health needs for a patented and unaffordable medicine they are unable to produce themselves.

    Under TRIPS, compulsory licences are meant to primarily serve a national market, but the TRIPS public health amendment (often referred to as the “paragraph 6” solution referring to the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health) allows countries with pharmaceutical industries to manufacture and export more medicines under a compulsory licence to countries without them, provided certain conditions are met.

    The system has been used exactly once since implementation, to make two shipments of AIDS medicines to Rwanda in 2008 and 2009. The Canadian generic drug company involved has said it will not use it again (IPW, IP Burble, 17 September 2009). The majority of WTO member states have yet to accept the protocol.

    This was “supposed to be an expeditious solution for public health needs,” one developing country representative told Intellectual Property Watch. But the “general feeling is that this is neither expeditious nor is it a solution.”

    At a TRIPS Council meeting on 27-28 October, members of the African Group, the Least-Developed Country Group and several other developing nations including Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Pakistan, said that the lack of use and the lack of acceptance of the decision was an indication that there are problems, and asked for a review to figure out ways to solve those problems (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 30 October 2009).

    But the United States argued that the limited use of the system indicated countries with no domestic manufacturing capacity were getting access to medicines via aid, according to the TRIPS Council report to the WTO General Council in December.

    The US objected to a review on grounds that the example of the Canada/Rwanda shipment indicated the system is usable, but in the end allowed consensus to go through on the condition that there be only a single meeting on the issue and that it would have no outcome document except “possibly” reporting to the TRIPS Council what had been said, according to the General Council report.

    The 12 February gathering is that one informal meeting.

    Developing countries are hoping to see a solution as some think public health is heading in a “very scary” direction in which it is more exposed to the “whims and fancies of the pharmaceutical industry.” There are strong generic versions of many drugs on the market now, but the worry is that future drugs – such as much-needed paediatric formulations or second-line medicines to treat HIV/AIDS – come along there may be no one with the freedom to manufacture them, said a developing country delegate.

    In a past interview with Intellectual Property Watch, IP and health expert Ellen ‘t Hoen called the paragraph 6 solution an agreement “gone wrong,” as it is “based on a case-by-case, drug-by-drug, country-by-country process,” conditions under a sustainable generics drug industry cannot be supported.

    Meanwhile, there was another informal meeting of the TRIPS Special Sessions, dedicated to the creation of a mandated international register for geographical indications (product names associated with specific places) on wines and spirits on 5 February. This meeting was a chance for new chair of the Special Sessions, Amb Karen Tan of Singapore, to meet member states in her new role. She is temporarily taking over for the previous chair Trevor Clarke of Barbados, who has joined the World Intellectual Property Organization as an assistant director general. The General Council of the WTO will elect a new chair in February.

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@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.