From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

12.07.2015 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!