Indian Government Should Be Applauded for Recognizing Need to Protect Private Property Rights in Costly Drug Patents

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/Govt_may_use_compulsory_licensing_for_drug_companies_only_in_emergency/rssarticleshow/2921237.cms

Govt may use compulsory licensing for drug companies only in emergency


3 Apr, 2008


By Sanjeev Choudhary & Khomba Singh,


Economic Times from TNN

NEW DELHI: Global drug companies that under attack from Indian generic companies and healthcare groups on compulsory licensing (CL) issue can breathe easy. The government will not invoke CL unless the country is faced with an epidemic-like situation. It feels that the recent applications for CL may not be able to convince the government to take the extreme step. Hyderabad-based Natco Pharma has recently applied for CL to export generic versions of two cancer drugs —Roche’s Tarceva and Pfizer’s Sutent—to Nepal.


“We are not in favour of CL unless there is an extraordinary problem. There is no point in going in for CL unless there is an epidemic which impacts a large chunk of the population, and needs immediate solution, ” a senior official of DIPP (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion), the nodal government department which oversees patent offices in India told ET.


On being asked if a disease like cancer may qualify under CL, he said, “It may not.” In addition to Natco Pharma, an NGO Cancer Patient’s Aid Association (CPAA) with the support of Indian and global NGOs is planning to demand CL for about 20 cancer drugs.


CPPA say that the cost of patented cancer drugs are highly expensive and deny access to treatment to thousands of cancer patients in the country. Once a drug gets patent, the government provides the innovator company with exclusive marketing rights of the drug for 20 years from the date of grant of the patent.


However, under the product patent laws in India and other countries, the government can invoke CL to enable non-patent drug makers to manufacture and sell patented drugs in national or public interest. The government is of the view that the provision in the law for CL is there to deal with extraordinary situations and safeguard national interest.


“Research-based companies invest millions of dollars and several years of research to develop new products and secure their patent. We respect genuine research and can’t infringe upon any company’s patent rights without much reason, ” the official added.


The government’s thinking seems to be in sync with the views of research-based drug companies. Organisation of pharmaceutical manufacturers and producers (OPPI) (which represents research based companies in India) VP Tapan Ray said, “CL is a provision in the patent law which the government can use to meet the demand in unusual circumstances like epidemic for a limited period. CL should not be invoked for anything else. If it is invoked for any other reason, the whole sanctity of patent gets lost.”

Russian Duma Speaker Recognizes Need For Government Support of Small Inventors to Promote Market Advance of Sciences

http://www.eurasiabio.org/media/news/duma_speaker__gryzlov_advocates__the__state_support_of_inventors/

Duma speaker Gryzlov advocates the state support of inventors




RIA Nowosti


Дата: 28.03.2008




Duma speaker and the "United Russia" leader Boris Gryzlov believes that the state has to substantially increase the assistance of creative people , to enlarge the financing of research and construction ventures.


He pointed out that presently the financing of research and construction works in Russia totals 1% of the GNP while the correspondent figure in developed countries is 4-6 times higher.


The inventions presenting the frontier of the science demand substantial assets to be implemented and the inventors usually badly lack the money.

Improve Europe's Business Climate Plus Adopt Regional Patents: This Will Spur Company R&D Investment!!

Improving the Business Climate Will Spur European Company R&D Investments



By Lawrence A. Kogan





March 10, 2008




The synopsis provided by Bruno van Pottelsberghe in his recent Financial Times Leaders & Letters article “Europe must use its head on academic research” (3-7-08) is true concerning the unrealized potential of Europe’s antiquated R&D framework and the lag that it places upon the region’s technological and economic growth, inconsistent with the stated political goals of the Lisbon Agenda.
[SEE: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85f21278-eb97-11dc-9493-0000779fd2ac.html ].


Professor van Pottlesberghe is most correct when he states, “the bottom line is that the EU needs now to adopt a common European patent - under discussion for 30 frustrating years- and spend more, and more wisely, on academic research...” I previously drew a similar conclusion in my article (“European universities learn importance of technology transfer” 9-29-06) in explaining why North American universities’ technology transfer offices had realised ‘a sixfold return’ in R&D spending, far greater than those realized in Europe.



Apart from the monies dedicated to R&D, I then stated that “Due credit must be given to the underlying US common law legal system, which recognises and protects temporary but exclusive private intellectual property right ownership in the know-how that underlies and is reflected in such research. Private intellectual property (e.g. a patent) is important precisely because knowledge is an intangible good that is not readily susceptible to valuation.”
[SEE: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b48c96c-4f99-11db-9d85-0000779e2340.html ].


However, that is the reality in North America, not Europe. The present ‘free movement of knowledge / ‘fifth freedom’ movement which increasingly pervades European public consciousness is likely to derail the enactment of region-wide patent legislation, just as it already impairs new thinking on how to spur the growth of innovative companies to carry that R&D to market.



I would thus add to my earlier conclusions the observation that government R&D spending and protection of patents alone cannot provide the necessary stimulus for business-driven innovation. What is also essential is the enactment of laws that facilitate entrepreneurship; i.e., the taking of economic risks, such as business formation and expansion, and incentives to reinvest company earnings.



In other words, apart from political rhetoric, European governments must create an actual economic enabling environment that promotes ‘doing business’ in Europe and then get out of the way. Unfortunately European countries, apart from Denmark, Ireland and the UK, which have reduced government funding of R&D, have not been too skilled in this endeavor.



If the 2007 World Bank’s Doing Business Report is any indication, it is only these countries that made it into the ‘top 10’ rankings. Indeed, a review of the report will show that, with respect to each of the following key metrics, most EU member states were laggards - the costs of: starting a business, dealing with licenses, workers, property rights, obtaining credit, protecting investors, paying taxes, cross-border trade, enforcing contracts, and closing a business. http://www.doingbusiness.org/EconomyRankings/Default.aspx?direction=desc&sort=1



To be more specific, only three EU member states besides those mentioned above made it into the ‘top 20’ - Finland (13), Sweden (14) and Estonia (17), while most of the remainder made it into the ‘top 50’ - Latvia (22), France (31), Slovakia (32), Portugal (37), Spain (38), Luxembourg (42), Hungary (45), Bulgaria (46), Romania (48) – with some even falling into the ‘top 100’ - Italy (53), Czech Republic (56), Poland (74) and Greece (100)!



Arguably, this report strongly suggests that the inability of EU member state governments to promote business-friendly enabling environments may correlate positively with EU business’ relatively low investment in research. Therefore, before the participants at this week's grandiose EU summit commence their obsessive over-thinking about the European R&D model, they should also consider how to improve the climate for business. Perhaps, this may provide the true answer to the principal question posed by Professor van Pottelsberghe: “What, then, should the EU and governments do to get business to invest more in research?”