L’accès aux médicaments antirétroviraux en contexte de crise de la santé publique et les obstacles posés par le droit international de la propriété intellectuelle

Chaque année, près de 2,7 millions de nouvelles infections au virus de l’immunodéficience humaine (VIH) sont rapportées et près de 2 millions de personnes en meurent (1). Les experts observent toutefois que les pics des nouvelles infections et de la mortalité annuelle sont maintenant derrière nous (1) et que les chiffres montrent une diminution globale de l’incidence du VIH/sida au niveau mondial (2). Un plus grand accès aux médicaments antirétroviraux (ARV) et une baisse de leur prix en faveur des populations des pays en développement (PED) est en grande partie responsable des progrès récents. Les ARV, en plus d’être les médicaments préconisés par les médecins  partout dans le monde pour un traitement efficace de la maladie, jouent un important rôle préventif en diminuant notablement les probabilités de transmission du virus (2, 3).

L’accès aux ARV est donc capital pour les PED, dont les populations ont les plus hauts taux d’incidence (4). Il y a près de dix ans, les ARV n’étaient que peu ou pas accessibles aux victimes de la maladie dans les PED, coûtant près de 10 000 $ par année pour chaque patient (5, 6). La société civile ainsi que certains membres de la communauté médicale internationale, outrés par l’attitude des grandes compagnies pharmaceutiques[1], ont donc dû prendre les choses en main afin de modifier l’ordre du jour politique global et  réitérer l’importance d’agir contre les ravages que…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Special Contribution: A New Protocol To Stop Biopiracy: Worth a Standing Ovation?

Nailed it: Environment Minister Ryu Matsumoto raises the hammer to end the COP10 conference in Nagoya. KYODO PHOTO, Japan Times Sunday, Oct. 31, 2010

On Saturday morning, October 28 2010 the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in the midst of a standing ovation by the Parties present.

This Protocol is intended to comply with the 3^rd objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which is the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources with the custodians of biodiversity. This Protocol is being hailed by delegates and nongovernmental organizations as one of the most important measures the world has ever taken against biopiracy.

Indeed, for many decades, pharmaceutical and cosmetics firms, and the agricultural and biotech industries have manufactured everyday products (drugs, toothpaste, makeup, etc.) consumed in our developed countries using plants or organisms from such places as the tropical rain forests of Latin America and Southeast Asia without acknowledging their origin or sharing the profits with Indigenous peoples and local communities whose knowledge made the development of these products possible[1]. Even worse, companies have patented over the last decades traditional products that were developed with the knowledge of Indigenous peoples and local communities without…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Power, Politics, and the Adoption of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

Intellectual Property Watch (IP Watch) recently reported that discussions of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) broke down due to disagreement between developed and developing countries.[i] This is but a current example of the ongoing conflict between developed and developing countries over international patent law. The recent origins of this conflict stem from adoption of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994. Under TRIPs, the approximately 150 member states of the WTO committed to adopt, inter alia, global minimum standards for intellectual property (IP) laws.

TRIPS has been controversial from the start. Developing countries and advocates for the ‘intellectual commons’ are of the view that TRIPS jeopardizes developing country access to knowledge and essential medicines that are critical to their well-being and growth.[ii] In contrast, some developed countries, in particular the US, are of the view that TRIPS did not go far or fast enough in establishing a global IP regime: the US is pushing developing countries to accept standards that go further than TRIPS in the bilateral and regional free trade agreements that have flourished as WTO negotiations have stalled.[iii]

The developing countries have legitimate concerns. They are net technology importers and must thus establish and maintain IP systems which will be of little benefit to them…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Kangaroos and Ambush Marketing

Canada has recently enacted brand-new intellectual property legislation in preparation for the 2010 Olympic Games in Vancouver. The legislation targets ambush marketing, a topic about which Canadians know very little. Teresa Scassa, speaking at McGill’s Law Faculty last Friday, explained that ambush marketing is when a company carefully builds an association in the minds of the public between the company’s trademark and a major event – misleading its audience into falsely believing the company is an official sponsor.

One of the first cited examples of ambush marketing occurred during the 1984 Olympic Games, where Fuji was an official sponsor of the games but its commercial objectives were undermined by Kodak’s sponsorship of a major television broadcast and its association as the ‘official film’ of the US track team. Here Kodak used legitimate sponsorships to foster Olympic associations, but it seems big companies’ creative and legally-savvy marketers can always find ways to link their brand with an event.  Interestingly, the situation reversed itself for the 1988 Olympic Games, showing Kodak was perfectly willing to officially sponsor the event, while Fuji was equally willing to use ambush marketing techniques.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) claims the rise of ambush marketing has been undermining the commercial objectives of official sponsors and consequently attracting sponsors is now a more difficult task for event organizers. In response, countries are compelled…

Continue reading this entry ➔