Well, the first discussion panel, Public
Health, was completely dominated by the IP sceptics.
"IP sceptic," by the way, is a label I've been using with increasing frequency for these people. They deny that they are opposed to intellectual property--they always throw that out as a disclaimer--but then they go on to oppose virtually every specific application of intellectual property.
So they reject the label "anti-IP," but when I've used the label "IP sceptic" no one has objected.
So, rather than being balanced, the first panel was completely IP sceptic. I was expecting at least a modicum of balance.
Summary:
So you can see the lack of balance in the panel.
"IP sceptic," by the way, is a label I've been using with increasing frequency for these people. They deny that they are opposed to intellectual property--they always throw that out as a disclaimer--but then they go on to oppose virtually every specific application of intellectual property.
So they reject the label "anti-IP," but when I've used the label "IP sceptic" no one has objected.
So, rather than being balanced, the first panel was completely IP sceptic. I was expecting at least a modicum of balance.
Summary:
- Sisule Musungu from the South Centre gave the justification for a reconsideration of the mission of WIPO. He argued that other int'l organizations have moved to a "balanced" and "evidence-based" model for considering IP policy, but that WIPO is "out-of-touch with the new reality" and simply make assumptions about IP without evidence. He implied too close of a relationship between WIPO and the pharmaceutical industry by referencing a document that he alleged appeared on the WIPO website on the same day that it appeared on the website of a pharmaceutical company.
- Richard Wilder, an attorney in DC, is in the business of negotiating public/private partnerships for drug development, and promoted the idea.
- Richard Hare from Ranbaxy first said that Ranbaxy wants to move from a generics company to an R&D-based pharmaceutical company. He gave what I thought was an astonishing presentation. He was commenting on India's new patent law, and his comments all sounded like he was talking from the assumption that the entire audience was IP-sceptical. His presentation was designed to assure us all that the new patent law wasn't going to cause Ranbaxy any concern at all, other than "we may have to be a bit more clever." He pointed out all the grey areas in the legislation, and stated that they would be able to find a judge somewhere in India who would favor them in any legal challenges. The new law will still allow them to reverse-engineer already-patented products, but will then allow them to protect their copycat product. Some quotations: "These patents won't stop you", "We can basically ignore the patent", "The law is going to help us a lot", "Lots of grey in the new law", "We're going to be able to keep doing what we're doing", "We don't think this will slow us down".
- Mohga Smith from OXFAM said the existing IPR system "works in the North but not in the South." She said WIPO should not be encouraging developing nations to adopt TRIPs earlier than their obligation to do so by 2016, but rather that WIPO should be teaching them how they can exploit all their exceptions. "WIPO needs to wake up to the reality of the developing world" she said. We don't need "higher standards" for IP. She closed with a sad story about how friends with identical medical conditions received treatment and survived in the developed world, but died without adequate treatment in the developing world. "Is this the kind of world we want to live in?" she asked.
So you can see the lack of balance in the panel.