Ft Letter on Pharma patents30 Apr 2021 09:32
I think there may be a paywall. One of you will be able to overcome it and post so all can read it
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/ef2d4fb5-a6c2-477c-832b-474331fc8f89
Thomas Cueni’s account of what happened in regard to HIV/Aids medication and intellectual property rights 20 years ago misses out some crucial facts (“Waiving IP rules will not deliver more Covid vaccines”, Opinion, April 26).
In the late 1990s, innovative antiviral treatment was basically unaffordable in developing countries because pharmaceutical companies insisted on their patent-induced monopolies.
In that setting, governments in some emerging-market countries allowed generic production in spite of World Trade Organization rules on intellectual property rights. This led to lower treatment prices, improving the healthcare outcomes in places like Brazil and Thailand, for example.
Civil society activists took note and supported these and other governments’ efforts for change.
Then in 2001, the WTO summit in Doha modified the global IP regime substantially.
Facing a public health crisis, every country has since been entitled to grant compulsory licences to companies to produce generics of patent-protected pharmaceuticals.
WTO rules even allow them to grant such licences to companies in foreign countries and import those drugs.
After Doha, affordable treatment fast became available in southern Africa and other world regions severely affected by HIV/Aids. The main reason was that patent holders accepted much lower prices. On the one hand, their bargaining position had worsened; on the other, they wanted to prevent an onslaught of generic production permits around the world.
The full truth is therefore that even though the WTO’s flexibility rules have hardly been used, their introduction 20 years ago had a vitally important impact. The insistence on the right to produce generics was most effective.
Of course, a top-level pharma lobbyist may not want the public to remember that. He may much rather have everyone believe that effective healthcare always depends on patents being sacrosanct.
In my view, Cueni’s International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations does not prioritise the public good, but focuses on protecting special interests.
In regard to Covid-19 vaccines, that stance is particularly absurd.
These vaccines would not even exist had governments not sponsored research with massive injections of taxpayers’ money.
Hans Dembowski
Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Sign In
Follow the stocks
