Intellectual Property Rights - 2

The Debate on Relaxing IPRs

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), formed during the Uruguay Round, gives the WTO limited authority to enforce intellectual property rights (IPRs) and obligates member nations to enforce private IPRs. In negotiations to refine the agreement, the US has fought for even more strict enforcement of IPRs. The US argues that IPRs encourage innovation by protecting inventors' right to their creation for a limited amount of time and allowing them to reap the profits that make innovation worthwhile. The US trade representative's firm stance on IPRs seems largely in line with powerful commercial lobbies, such as the pharmaceutical industry. Because of its large lobby power, the pharmaceutical industry has been able influence the WTO agreement that relaxed drug IPRs through the US's negotiating stance. The pharmaceutical industry has traditionally resisted these agreements because it is concerned that vagueness in the language could allow countries to abuse patent exemptions. While the pharmaceutical lobby is quick to defend the right of countries to produce generic drugs for public health reasons, it argues that profitable 'lifestyle' or luxury drugs such as Viagra and weight-loss drugs could be included under patent exemption via loopholes in the wording of the agreement.[3] To assuage these fears, the US introduced a 'public, non-commercial' use clause that WTO members agreed to add, and many developed nations pledged to never use patent exemptions unless in the case of an emergency. Other developed nations with a strong pharmaceutical lobbying force, such as the EU, agree with the US's concerns, but have been quicker to compromise than the US.

A broad spectrum of players argue in favor of loosening intellectual property rights in the interest of increasing global access to patented pharmaceuticals. Especially in light of the African AIDS epidemic, and persisting epidemics of tuberculosis, dengue fever, malaria, and typhoid in other developing countries, it is vital that these countries have access to more affordable drugs. Some also add to this argument that patent protection actually reduces innovation and invention by limiting competition. Many NGOs link the debate over patent exemption to larger divisions between the rich and poor nations, arguing that patent protections reinforce inequality in the world.

Some public health analysts have voiced their concern that the debate on intellectual property rights and public health distracts from more important problems that limit access to health care in developing countries. They argue that to improve public health, developing countries need help improving access to health services, increasing health education, eliminating corruption and inefficiency, and improving sanitation within the country.