From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec
From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec
5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGHistorically, IP legislation has followed development: as countrieshave grown richer, and as they evolve from imitation to innovation,they have introduced more stringent IP laws. Chemical substancesremained unpatentable until 1967 in West Germany, 1968 in theNordic countries, 1976 in Japan, 1978 in Switzerland, and 1992 in Spain,by which time these countries’ chemical industries had establishedthemselves. 66 This pattern has been broken over the past 20 years by acombination of new institutions such as the WTO and regional tradeagreements and an extraordinarily aggressive campaign by largecorporations and their home-country governments.Global IP legislation also imposes a growing financial burden onpoor countries, through the costs of introducing largely irrelevant orunsuitable IP laws to comply with the WTO and through the drain ofspiralling royalties to the owners of patents – almost always richworldTNCs. In 2005, developing countries paid out a net $17bn inroyalty and licence fees, largely to companies in the industrialisednations. The USA was the big winner from the system, earning a net$33bn, considerably more than its overseas aid budget. 67The spread of potentially damaging ‘one size fits all’ internationalIP rules took off in the 1980s, when a number of pharmaceutical andother companies scored the spectacular coup of persuading the USdelegation to include them in the Uruguay Round negotiations thatled to the creation of the WTO. Industry lobbyists overwhelmedopposition from the secretariat of the GATT (which hosted the talks)to adding IP to the agenda. The agreement on Trade-Related Aspectsof Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) introduced a global IP system,including a minimum patent protection period of 20 years, along withprotection for industrial designs, trademarks, copyrights, and otherIP rights. Unlike several other WTO agreements, the TRIPS rulesapplied even to the poorest developing countries, although they weregiven longer deadlines for implementation.Nowhere have TRIPS been more controversial than in the drugsindustry. Each year more than ten million people in developingcountries perish from infectious and parasitic diseases, most of whichcould be treated with existing drugs. 68 Although there are otherimportant factors behind the death toll, such as dilapidated healthservices, high drug prices are a key barrier to saving lives.327
FROM POVERTY TO POWERThe vast majority of people in developing countries have to buytheir own medicines. For example, in India over three-quarters of allspending on health services is out of pocket, of which 75 per cent isspent on medicines. 69 People in the developing world are thus acutelyvulnerable to high prices.Pharmaceutical giants spend considerable amounts of moneytrying to delay the introduction of off-patent generic versions ofmedicines for as long as possible, and TRIPS rules are a vital part oftheir armoury in this effort. The gap between the prices of patentedand generic medicines is large, for a variety of reasons: R&D costs arehigh, relative to other industries, and the costs of copying a medicineare usually very low; companies pursue very different business models,with producers of patented medicines investing massively in advertising,absorbing the cost in high prices, while generics concentrate on highvolume and low costs. As long as they can retain a monopoly, pharmaceuticalcompanies know that desperate people will pay whatever theycan for the medicines that can keep them alive: it is the epitome of asellers’ market.Prior to the creation of the WTO, some 50 developing countrieseither excluded medicines from eligibility for product patents, orprovided shorter periods of protection and other safeguards. 70 Thanksto flexible IP regimes, India became known as the ‘pharmacy of thedeveloping world’, manufacturing most of the world’s generic medicinesand exporting them to poorer developing countries. Since 2001, forexample, competition among Indian generics producers has drivendown the cost of first-line antiretroviral medicines from $10,000per patient per year to the current level of less than $100 per patientper year.Although the poorest countries have a grace period until 2016,most of them do not have manufacturing capacity and therefore haveno means of producing generic medicines for their populations. Thedamage is most severe in the case of ‘new diseases’ such as HIV andAIDS, and other diseases with rising incidences such as cancer andasthma, which require new generations of drugs, all of which areunder patent. In fact, access to these medicines has already beencurtailed because the world’s major producers of generic, low-costmedicines were obliged to implement the TRIPS agreement by 2005.328
- Page 294 and 295: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY VIOLENCE A
- Page 296 and 297: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY VIOLENCE A
- Page 298 and 299: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY VIOLENCE A
- Page 300 and 301: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY VIOLENCE A
- Page 302 and 303: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY VIOLENCE A
- Page 304 and 305: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY SHOCKS AND
- Page 306 and 307: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY SHOCKS AND
- Page 308 and 309: PART FIVEWho rules the world? 292Th
- Page 310 and 311: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM WHO RULE
- Page 312 and 313: THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SYSTEMT
- Page 314 and 315: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FINANCEm
- Page 316 and 317: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FINANCEI
- Page 318 and 319: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FINANCEw
- Page 320 and 321: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FINANCEp
- Page 322 and 323: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FINANCEp
- Page 324 and 325: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FINANCEA
- Page 326 and 327: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FINANCEI
- Page 328 and 329: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FINANCEB
- Page 330 and 331: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FINANCEc
- Page 332 and 333: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FINANCE
- Page 334 and 335: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FINANCEn
- Page 336 and 337: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGB
- Page 338 and 339: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGD
- Page 340 and 341: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGA
- Page 342 and 343: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGT
- Page 346 and 347: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGT
- Page 348 and 349: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGA
- Page 350 and 351: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGM
- Page 352 and 353: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADING2
- Page 354 and 355: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGF
- Page 356 and 357: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGp
- Page 358 and 359: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGG
- Page 360 and 361: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGI
- Page 362 and 363: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGd
- Page 364 and 365: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGT
- Page 366 and 367: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGC
- Page 368 and 369: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGT
- Page 370 and 371: THE INTERNATIONAL AID SYSTEMA few y
- Page 372 and 373: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AIDTABLE
- Page 374 and 375: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AIDIt is
- Page 376 and 377: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AIDthe s
- Page 378 and 379: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AIDThe a
- Page 380 and 381: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AIDTHE Q
- Page 382 and 383: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AIDplann
- Page 384 and 385: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AIDreduc
- Page 386 and 387: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AIDcan s
- Page 388 and 389: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AIDgover
- Page 390 and 391: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AIDThe g
- Page 392 and 393: 5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AIDIn fo
5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM TRADINGHis<strong>to</strong>rically, IP legislation has followed development: as countrieshave grown richer, and as they evolve from imitation <strong>to</strong> innovation,they have introduced more stringent IP laws. Chemical substancesremained unpatentable until 1967 in West Germany, 1968 in theNordic countries, 1976 in Japan, 1978 in Switzerland, and 1992 in Spain,by which time these countries’ chemical industries had establishedthemselves. 66 This pattern has been broken over the past 20 years by acombination of new institutions such as the WTO and regional tradeagreements and an extraordinarily aggressive campaign by largecorporations and their home-country governments.Global IP legislation also imposes a growing financial burden onpoor countries, through the costs of introducing largely irrelevant orunsuitable IP laws <strong>to</strong> comply with the WTO and through the drain ofspiralling royalties <strong>to</strong> the owners of patents – almost always richworldTNCs. In 2005, developing countries paid out a net $17bn inroyalty and licence fees, largely <strong>to</strong> companies in the industrialisednations. The USA was the big winner from the system, earning a net$33bn, considerably more than its overseas aid budget. 67The spread of potentially damaging ‘one size fits all’ internationalIP rules <strong>to</strong>ok off in the 1980s, when a number of pharmaceutical andother companies scored the spectacular coup of persuading the USdelegation <strong>to</strong> include them in the Uruguay Round negotiations thatled <strong>to</strong> the creation of the WTO. Industry lobbyists overwhelmedopposition from the secretariat of the GATT (which hosted the talks)<strong>to</strong> adding IP <strong>to</strong> the agenda. The agreement on Trade-Related Aspectsof Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) introduced a global IP system,including a minimum patent protection period of 20 years, along withprotection for industrial designs, trademarks, copyrights, and otherIP rights. Unlike several other WTO agreements, the TRIPS rulesapplied even <strong>to</strong> the poorest developing countries, although they weregiven longer deadlines for implementation.Nowhere have TRIPS been more controversial than in the drugsindustry. Each year more than ten million people in developingcountries perish from infectious and parasitic diseases, most of whichcould be treated with existing drugs. 68 Although there are otherimportant fac<strong>to</strong>rs behind the death <strong>to</strong>ll, such as dilapidated healthservices, high drug prices are a key barrier <strong>to</strong> saving lives.327