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 >


    WHO: No Evidence Of Misleading On Counterfeit Medicines

    Published on 20 May 2010 @ 2:15 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    There is no evidence that the World Health Organization has been misled or misled its members on the issue of fake or dangerous drugs, representatives of the UN organisation told journalists today. Nor is the WHO yet ready to drop use of the term ‘counterfeit’ to describe such medicines despite generic producing nations complaints about possible confusion over the term.

    They also addressed concerns over the behaviour of the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT) which some WHO members this week are urging be replaced with a more accountable approach (IPW, WHO, 20 May 2010).

    Specific work is needed on counterfeit medicines, said Hans Hogerzeil, the director of the WHO programme on Medicines Policy and Standards. With substandard medicines, drug regulatory authorities know who to go to when a quality problem is discovered, said Hogerzeil. But with counterfeit, false or fake medicines the identity of the producer is not known, and they easily cross national borders, so normal regulatory approaches cannot be used, he explained.

    “Every honest industry is interested in stopping this,” said Hogerzeil, as is every government because counterfeiting harms both patients and the legitimacy of the health system. IMPACT grew out of a request by drug regulatory agencies that WHO work on this area, said Hogerzeil, though he did not specify which countries’ agencies.

    African countries are very supportive of the programme as they “have a real problem” with low regulatory capacity and porous frontiers, he said.

    If IMPACT is abolished “that leaves us vulnerable” said Nigeria in a committee meeting this morning, adding strong measures were needed to counteract counterfeits.

    But Kenya yesterday gave an intervention saying IMPACT had provided guidance for negotiation of harmful counterfeit legislation with their trade ministry rather than their health industry (IPW, WHO, 20 May 2010), and had been targeting other countries with similarly harmful model legislation.

    “We were very surprised to hear that, we were not aware of it at all,” Hogerzeil told the press conference in response to an Intellectual Property Watch question.

    “Perhaps people are mixing up different organisations in which acronyms resemble each other,” said said Lembit Rägo, coordinator of quality assurance and safety: medicines in the Medicines Policy department at the WHO.

    “There is IMPACT, there is ACTA [the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement], there are other organisations,” he added, saying “we haven’t had any evidence” of this happening.

    Had Kenya used text from the WHO they “never would have had a problem,” added Hogerzeil. The text prepared by IMPACT “is actually extremely clear and would have prevented this problem.”

    Other protests with regards to use of the term ‘counterfeit’ were attributed to a “communication problem” at WHO due to the World Trade Organization Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, which defines counterfeit as a trademark issue. Many governments have therefore objected to the use of the term, saying it could cause confusion between the protection of intellectual property – limted to trademarks – and the protection of public health.

    “Now countries are saying this is a hidden agenda,” said Hogerzeil, though the WHO has been using the word ‘counterfeit’ since 1988.

    On giving up the term counterfeit, “we’re not ready to do that yet,” said Hogerzeil. The director general has said she is willing to find an alternative term but “will not do it in an emotional moment in the assembly.”

    Good Data Hard to Find

    It is “difficult to measure properly statistically the extent of the problem” said Hogerzeil, adding that each country counts counterfeits differently and generally only measures suspicious packages rather than taking a representative sampling. This means there is no way to determine if figures previously quoted from WHO are accurate.

    Pharmaceutical industry representatives yesterday told journalists that data is difficult to ascertain but that the number of reported incidents of counterfeit medicines is on the rise.

    One of the critical issues that has come up with regards to counterfeit is delays in generic drug shipments in transit through Dutch ports (IPW, Public Health, 12 May 2010). WHO “deplores that this has happened,” said Hogerzeil, calling it “improper, unfortunate use of counterfeit terminology or counterfeit legislation to work in a patent infringement issue” but said that the issue belonged at the World Trade Organization, where a trade dispute case has been opened.

    Discussions on counterfeit drugs have been moved to this afternoon as governments continue to work toward consensus in informal meetings.

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Miles Teg says:

      Lets pick this apart shall we?

      1. “Every honest industry is interested in stopping this,” said Hogerzeil. Brazil and India are not honest? Nice one, pity it was not China then there could have been dragon baiting… both these countries have said that Quality, Safety and Efficacy is a problem not mainly IPR, a view even MSF takes with its position substandard medicines…

      2. It is unclear in what capacity regulators attended these meetings… perhaps WHO could clarify this… it is funny that the same countries that attended these meetings actually now oppose it. If WHO is not concerned about this then it says a great deal about the manager’s capability of being international civil servants…

      3. African countries do have problems, it is health systems and a host of issues. How exactly is a list of patent information and hologram decoders going to help them… even good medicines stored in unsavory conditions pose a risk… but that is NOT WHO IMPACT’s concern is it… makes one wonder why…

      4. Not aware of what IMPACT is doing, denial when you are host, secretariat and pimping for IMPACT solutions… haha… How about taking a stand and saying that these laws will hamper access to medicines as HAI-Africa and other local NGOs have shown (besides the trans-shipment cases that have exploded with an EU Council who ostensibly is committed to access to medicines – err correct that Access to Branded medicines)…

      5. The hidden agenda on counterfeits – well WHO as IMPACTs pimp can do two things to clarify: a) the 1988 study it did identified high prices as an incentive for counterfeits, but IMPACT has dropped it (coincidental or profit maximisation?) and they can revive this aspect, b) It can even use the word VIOXX – that legal, regulatory approved ‘ccounterfeit’ that made lots of money and killed many users along with counterfeit journals, duped data – all those people affiliated it with this scandal are still members of high standing in the health community… in fact try to get one of the Alliances on Patient safety to include even a vague reference to this is difficult… so HIDDEN AGENDA it is UNTIL YOU CAN SAY VIOXX…

      6. Nice that the WHO defers to the WTO. One would have expected a turf war… stranger things have happened than the WHO asserting it is THE international agency for health and that health is a right…

      Such poor representation of the issue in the media… i mean allowing shoddy statistics to be used (yes now there is nuance previously there was dissemination) and fear to be caused. Now big companies are establishing direct relationships with certain pharmacies to distribute authentic medicines… hey this is vertical integration and market concentration in the sector… TESCO, Wallmart, here we come…

      Eternally Vioxxed…

    2. Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » New Resolution Gives Governments Control Of WHO Work On False Medicines says:

      [...] Drugs TradeThe issue here is about legal concepts and languag… »Miles Teg on WHO: No Evidence Of Misleading On Counterfeit MedicinesLets pick this apart shall we?1. “Every honest ind… »Older »Inside ViewsContribute [...]

    3. Sonia Shah says:

      I’m a journalist looking into undue corporate influence at the WHO. Very interested to hear more about corporate influence on IMPACT and its effect on WHO policies. If anyone has tips they would like to share, please contact me at sonia@soniashah.com


    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.