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 Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas 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.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    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 Report Details Accountability In Director Chan’s First Term

    Published on 2 July 2012 @ 4:13 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    World Health Organization Director General Margaret Chan was re-elected for another term at the annual May World Health Assembly. Now the WHO has issued a “report card” showing how she kept her promises during the first term. This includes a range of steps to ensure new drugs are affordable and accessible, even if intellectual property rights make them high-priced and hard to get.

    The commitment the WHO took on was to: “Ensure that interventions, including new drugs, that arise from these initiatives are affordable and accessible to those in need.”

    In response, it listed various activities and initiatives that member states have taken in the past couple of years, including adoption of the Global Strategy and Plan of Action for Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property.

    “The Global Strategy set out the framework, and laid the groundwork, for multiple ways to improve access to essential products,” it said.

    WHO specified the effectiveness of its work in helping developing countries use the built-in flexibilities in the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) for public health purposes.

    “Moral pressure on industry, also using flexibilities in the TRIPS agreement, contributed to dramatic reductions in the price of antiretroviral therapy, with the annual costs of treatment dropping, within a decade, from $30,000 to $200,” it said.

    The report also mentioned ways in which “WHO endorsement of new products can likewise stimulate dramatic price reductions for developing countries.”

    And it mentioned several key vaccine-related initiatives, including one on meningitis that meant that “For once, the best technology that the world, working together, can offer was introduced in Africa.”

    Other areas mentioned include financing of research and development of products for neglected diseases, affordable medicines against noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), and a framework to ensure fairness in fighting pandemic influenza.

    “In May 2012, the World Health Assembly approved a way forward for exploring innovative ways of financing R&D to produce new products for neglected diseases of the poor,” it said.

    On NCDs, it said: “The relentless rise of chronic noncommunicable diseases, especially in the developing world, is certain to create new challenges for access to affordable medicines. While many essential medicines for managing these chronic conditions are off-patent and available in low-cost generic form, the millions of people now affected, and the duration of needed treatment, take these products beyond the reach of health budgets in most developing countries.”

    Additional areas of work described in the report are help to engender local R&D in developing countries such as in Africa, and WHO’s role and relationship with other organisations.

    There is some mention of the inability to complete work due to funding shortages. Furthermore, one area of shortcoming was in the mandate to “integrate WHO activities across the health research spectrum to promote health and to prevent and control disease.”

    “In May 2010, the Health Assembly approved a WHO strategy on research for health. However, this commitment has not been fully met,” it said. “In 2013, the World Health Report will be devoted to health research, with a particular focus on research that improves access to essential medicines and services and supports the goal of reaching universal health coverage.”

    The WHO report is available here [pdf].

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Riaz K tayob says:

      [A positive report? Is this not the same Chan who:
      1. facilitated the process on innovation for public health to be started upon the basis of a document that was a "helicopter drop" limiting the potential scope of action to a few diseases despite the WHOs own experts report that used economic categories;
      2. allowed IMPACT to conflate intellectual property rights with counterfeit medicines while nary offering a word about legal counterfeits like fatal Vioxx (the unmentionable if one gets a salary from WHO);
      3. left poor countries without access to vaccines during the "Swine Flu" pandemic while rich countries were complaining that the pre-purchase contracts for vaccines were triggered by a declaration of a pandemic that was only a pandemic because of the swingeing changes to the definition (form over substance), despite the fact that companies claims were made on vaccines sourced from poor countries subject to protections and benefit-sharing arrangements? Instead of sticking to its own guidelines in a show of "transparency" it removed the guidelines specifying benefit sharing so that US "research institutions" (aka proxies for private companies) could expropriate biodiversity from the poor countries and milk them for all it was worth (with the mainstream media pillorying and putting a frantic and desperate Indonesia on the stake for a right royal burning at the stake);
      4. Added insult to injury in coming along with the WTO's Pascal Lamy of US and Mexican pig farmers saying it was safe to consume pork (when the virus was regarded as highly plastic - Evolution 101) while not taking even rhetorically a similar stance for poor countries access to medicines?
      5. Took up Intellectual Property Rights issues up into her direct control, and under that watch Pharmaceutical companies got to make privileged commentary on the outcome document of Innovation and Public Health? (At least when the likes of Aitken where in the play the game was tough but smart, not this amateurish "hard power" of eager to please bureaucrats: one needs to watch and see if a replacement of equal perspicacity is coming up the ranks... (a smart enemy is better than a stupid friend)
      6. Initiated processes to improve transparency and participation at WHO without changing designation of 'official relations' for civil society, keeping the WHO in archaic age when most UN bodies, even WIPO, have moved on... an arrangement that benefits corporate lobbies who have the wherewithal to help initiate changes in important designations like pandemics.
      7. under her watch lost "progressives" like German Valsquez (access to meds) and Kathy Holloway (rational use of medicines, that fig leaf over Adam's navel given her recent filibustering) while those bureaucrats who allegedly maintained a "persona non grata" list of civil society people WHO officials could not speak to were promoted (one is reminded of two dialectical adages, cream floats to the top, but sh&t also floats!)
      8. talks about evidence based health policy but does in effect nothing about conflicts of interest (even in the mild form of disclosures even in academic journals) which even Harvard medical students have sought fit to take up with regards to their professors and their links to BigPharma.
      9. Waxes lyrical about being subordinate to the WTO and WIPO rules on intellectual property when poor countries have problems but is ever ready to come to defend developed countries like Australia in their trade mark disputes (a leader should be predictable and readable to breed stability imho, and perhaps Chan is). Moral pressure is one thing, but arguing that one is subordinate to WTO rules when countries have legal rights is sophistry...
      10. Is happy to push all sorts of new ideas from the World Bank and IMF on how developing countries should run their health system but stays mum on the highly inefficient US health system, which the UK is now seeking to copy... (health imperialism (abroad) = health tyranny @ home)
      11. Pushed the "Health Security" issue to the chagrin of many developing countries, while forgetting security of access to health care...
      12. Did not take an activist role in health worker migration and allowed the rich countries to bludgeon the African initiatives on this matter...
      BUT
      What Chan has done is change the terms of the debate on a number of strategic issues. The first is the amount of WHOs budget that is controlled by member states (less than 20%). Second, at least opening more spaces for civil society participation - even though the rich "democratic" countries then take sessions into informal discussions where civil society is excluded... Third, by meeting with "radical" civil society like PHM (but of course, insisting allegedly on no discussion of intellectual property rights issues)... These are not easy changes, but it seems like some of Chan's advisers are more servants to other forces than for health and her legacy...

      The choice essentially is whether Chan wants to go down as a well groomed bureaucrat or a leader in health. From the trajectory taken it seems like bureaucrat with tactically inept advisers is the preview for forthcoming WHO attractions... This is because the normal bureaucratic turf wars that characterise organisations seem to be missing at WHO... instead of trying to reclaim or retain turf and budget WHO just lets it slide... compounding its irrelevance to poor peoples' needs...


    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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 95.160.59.28