Shaping Global Rules

Proprietary Pharmaceutical Companies as Global Political Actors

Bibliographic Data

ID12566876
AuthorsValbona Muzaka (0000-0002-3268-9506, University of Sheffield, corresponding author)
Year2009
Volume14
Issue2
Pages289-301
Publication date2009-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueNew Political Economy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1356-3467 • E-ISSN: 1469-9923
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/13563460902826039
OpenAlexW2097472352
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited15

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes Two such studies were widely circulated to state negotiators and civil society groups before and during the WTO Doha Ministerial in 2001 (Bombelles 2001 Bombelles, T. (2001), ‘Facts and figures on patenting and access in Africa’, Presentation of a report of an August 2001 PhRMA survey on patents in Africa, American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics (ASLME) Conference on Law and Human Rights, Philadelphia, PA, 30 September. [Google Scholar]; Attaran and Gillespie 2001 Attaran, A. and Gillespie-White, L. 2001. Do Patents for Antiretroviral Drugs Constrain Access to AIDS Treatment in Africa. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(15): 1886–92. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]); also see the Consumer Project on Technology (2001) Consumer Project on Technology. 2001. Comment on the Attaran/Gillespie-White and PhRMA surveys of patents on antiretroviral drugs in Africa Available from: http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/africa/dopatentsmatterinafrica.html [Accessed 15 September 2008] [Google Scholar]. According to data from Fortune 500, available at http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/industries/21/index.html [Accessed 14 September 2008]; and Med Ad News (2008) Med Ad News. 2008. “21st Annual Report: Belt Tightens on Big Pharma”. Available from: http://www.pharmalive.com/magazines/medad/view.cfm?articleID=5067 [Accessed 17 September 2008] [Google Scholar], http://www.pharmalive.com/magazines/medad/?date=09%2F2005 [Accessed 14 September 2008]. That is, apart perhaps from the growth of the US market, which slowed down during the 2000s. See for instance Med Ad News (2008) Med Ad News. 2008. “21st Annual Report: Belt Tightens on Big Pharma”. Available from: http://www.pharmalive.com/magazines/medad/view.cfm?articleID=5067 [Accessed 17 September 2008] [Google Scholar]. A ‘blockbuster’ drug is one that works for the majority of the patients with a certain condition and achieves sales of over US$1 billion per year. The 1980s represented the first time in history of the pharmaceutical industry that some companies derived up to 50 per cent of their profits from one ‘blockbuster’ drug only. Some of these points are highlighted by various authors: see, for instance, Sell (2003) Sell, S. 2003. Private power, public law: the globalization of intellectual property rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], Matthews (2002) Matthews, D. 2002. Globalising Intellectual Property Rights: the TRIPs Agreement, London: Routledge. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar] and Watal (2001) Watal, J. 2001. Intellectual property rights in the WTO and developing countries, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International. [Google Scholar]. Unlike ‘pipeline’ protection, the ‘mailbox’ provision intends to freeze the novelty requirement for the granting of pharmaceutical patents for products that were filed after the TRIPs agreement came into force (1995), but which would not benefit from patent protection in countries where this protection is not available until a later date if the mailbox mechanism is not provided. As the GATT secretariat explained to the pharmaceutical companies distressed over the long transition periods granted to developing countries, ‘for all practical purposes the economic effect on the grant of product patents for pharmaceuticals will be as if the obligation to grant product patents were effective in all countries on the day of entry into force’ of the TRIPs agreement (see Gorlin 1999 Gorlin, J. 1999. “An analysis of the pharmaceutical-related provisions of the WTO TRIPS (Intellectual Property Agreement)”. Intellectual Property Institute, London [Google Scholar]). See USTR Special 301 lists, website www.ustr.org. Parallel importing or parallel trade of patented medicines which consists of the exportation and importation of such medicines through distribution channels other than those authorised by the patent holders. PPCs are particularly concerned about parallel trade given their practice of price discrimination and the high value of pharmaceuticals per unit weight, which makes it worthwhile to parallel trade them in other countries even for minor price differences. For a discussion of these cases and Panel decisions, see Reichman (1998) Reichman, J. H. 1998. Securing Compliance with the TRIPs Agreement after US vs India. Journal of International Economic Law, 1(4): 585–601. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar] and Trebilcock and Howse (2005) Trebilcock, M. J. and Howse, R. 2005. The regulation of international trade, 3, Edited by: Trebilcock, M. J. and Howse, R. London: Routledge. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. Article 31(f) of the TRIPs agreement on Other Use without the Consent of the Right Holder stipulates that ‘any such use shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic market of the Member authorizing such use’. The countries that ‘agreed’ to opt out were: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. Additionally, 10 countries expecting (in 2003) accession to the EU agreed to use the system as importers only in cases of national or other extreme cases of urgency, upon which accession they would opt-out completely. These are: the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia. Finally, 14 other countries agreed to use the system only in cases of national emergency. These include high-income developing countries: Hong Kong, China, Israel, Korea, Kuwait, Macao China, Mexico, Qatar, Singapore, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan Penghu Kinmen and Matsu, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. The list can be found in WTO (2003) WTO (2003), Chair's Statement, WTO General Council meeting minutes, WT/GC/M/82, 13 November 2003. [Google Scholar]. For reactions to these compulsory licences, see http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/ [Accessed 18 September 2008]

Family medicine · Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV · Library science · Political science · Politics · Biotechnology and Related Fields · Intellectual Property and Patents · Law · Medicine · Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub