Access to Healthcare in Middle Income Countries and Intellectual Property Rights
International Trade Regimes and Access to Technology in Developing Countries: The Case of Medicines
Introduction: There is strong evidence that appropriate protection of intellectual property rights (IPR’s) can facilitate technology diffusion in middle to lower income countries. This spread of knowledge and technology and technology occurs through increased trade in goods and services, FDI, joint ventures, licensing and cross border movement of personnel. Additionally it can promote knowledge diffusion as the information available in patent claim is publically available, and therefore easily accessible by other potential investor who can use that information to invent around the patent to make improvement and modifications.
Despite this evidence, IPRs remain controversial with campaigners and public interest group who claim that they actively prevent technology diffusion, especially in the poorest countries. These complaints are heard loudest on the topic of patented medicines, and since 1990s there have been a number of emotive global campaigns calling for an end, or dilution, of IPR.
One of the biggest global controversy came on this topic has been of cost of patented HIV medicines in Africa. During 1998 in South Africa, in face of escalating public health crisis, multinational companies launched a legal challenge to prevent government from diluting its patent law. Thereby exploiting the poor and sick by overcharging for the medicine.
This resulted in introduction of flexibilities into TRIPs agreement during Doha 2001. The declaration recognised the gravity of public health problems affecting developing countries and affirmed the rights of these countries to “promote medicines for all”. This was considered a victory for developing world and it has been invoked quite a few times by several governments such as Thailand and Brazil in 2007 and India in 2012.
Context: A 2004 study found that 98% drugs on WHO’s essential medicine list are off-patent. These
Introduction: There is strong evidence that appropriate protection of intellectual property rights (IPR’s) can facilitate technology diffusion in middle to lower income countries. This spread of knowledge and technology and technology occurs through increased trade in goods and services, FDI, joint ventures, licensing and cross border movement of personnel. Additionally it can promote knowledge diffusion as the information available in patent claim is publically available, and therefore easily accessible by other potential investor who can use that information to invent around the patent to make improvement and modifications.
Despite this evidence, IPRs remain controversial with campaigners and public interest group who claim that they actively prevent technology diffusion, especially in the poorest countries. These complaints are heard loudest on the topic of patented medicines, and since 1990s there have been a number of emotive global campaigns calling for an end, or dilution, of IPR.
One of the biggest global controversy came on this topic has been of cost of patented HIV medicines in Africa. During 1998 in South Africa, in face of escalating public health crisis, multinational companies launched a legal challenge to prevent government from diluting its patent law. Thereby exploiting the poor and sick by overcharging for the medicine.
This resulted in introduction of flexibilities into TRIPs agreement during Doha 2001. The declaration recognised the gravity of public health problems affecting developing countries and affirmed the rights of these countries to “promote medicines for all”. This was considered a victory for developing world and it has been invoked quite a few times by several governments such as Thailand and Brazil in 2007 and India in 2012.
Context: A 2004 study found that 98% drugs on WHO’s essential medicine list are off-patent. These