Comments for Stronger Patent Protections Will Take Lives, Not Save Them at http://www.rcreader.com , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments http://www.rcreader.com Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:28:15 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/stronger-patent-protections-will-take/#comment-1552 “Limited Compulsory Licensing as an Solution to Patented Green Technologies” The article “Hot Debate Over Technology Issues” by Martin Khor (The Star newspaper, Malaysia--26th Oct 2009 at page N43) raised a crucial discussion concerning the issue of patented green/climate-friendly technologies. Several notable leaders have raised pertinent concerns over the barriers posed by patented green technologies which should not be subjected to criticism in the first place because the whole objective of the patent system is to provide incentive towards wealth & knowledge creation in the area of sciences & technologies as guaranteed under the TRIPS Agreement i.e. Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The proposal that patented green technologies be exempted from patent protection is tempting but legally destructive in the long-term period as this run counter to private R&D market demand which calls for strict adherence to full patent protection granted under the respective national patent law. Further proposal that such patented green technologies be considered as ‘global public goods’(GPGs) is also an anti-thesis to the objectives of a global patent system even for green technology. If accepted at all, the other equally problematic issue is in identifying what constitutes GPGs taking into view the fact that there is currently no global consensus pertaining to the characterization and scope of such GPGs even within developed bloc. Another issue raised by proponents for relaxation of patented green technologies is the possible use of Compulsory Licensing(CL) under the patent law in the respective country by the government. If this issue is raised at the upcoming Copenhagen Conference (Dec 2009), which is highly possible, the counter-argument is that such patented GPGs can only be acquired by the government if it can proved that the patented GPGs in question has not been made available to the public at a fair price and that there is a national emergency that necessitate such compulsory acquisition, which is an onerous burden indeed notwithstanding such allowance under national patent law. Although limited compulsory licensing is possible, it is not to be considered as an effective solution at all due to equal legal protection granted to patent rights holder during the CL period. These are amongst the contentious issues that must be resolved if there is to be any real progress towards a more sustainable agreement in carbon reduction and global climate salvation. …………………………….. Jeong Chun Phuoc* Lecturer-in-Law Jeongphu@yahoo.com - Jeong Chun Phuoc Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:23:42 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/stronger-patent-protections-will-take/#comment-575 Assume there are 100 different medicines to cure AIDS. About 1/4 of them can cure AIDS in 7 to 10 years; another 1/4 can cure eradicate the disease in 5 to 6 years; another 1/4 can do the job in 3 to 4 years; another 1/4 can control the disease in 1 to 2 years. But among the "top 25" medicines, about half are effective but have some adverse side-effects to people who have other diseases (diabetic, have hypertension, etc.) and the other half are plain effective. Which of those medicines will be issued compulsory license (CL) by governments? The bottom 3/4, even if they are cheap and can also fight the disease? Not a bit. It's those in the top 10 or 15 most effective medicines, which are also among the most expensive. And this tells us one thing: the selective application of CL is driven by envy, by the simple desire for more government intervention. Huge investments by innovator companies don't matter. What matters is to spot who among those innovator companies have the most effective medicines, then disrespect their patent and intellectual property rights, copy the effective medicines for use by government corporations or selected (if not crony) generics manufacturers who spent very small, if ever, in expensive R&D. Then the state that issued the CL is now a "hero" and the innovator companies who invented the effective drugs are now the "villains". Wow, great deal! This is the business environment that Mr. Weissman and his fellow activists want to be propagated. - Nonoy Oplas, Philippines Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:29:38 +0100