[Ip-health] First thoughts on the petition to the Medicines Patent Pool Foundation

Jérôme Martin jeromemartin at samizdat.net
Tue Oct 11 02:06:35 PDT 2011


James,

>But given your suggestion to reconsider our public reaction and role in
these debates, I >have to ask, what constraints do you recommend?  What
is "legitimate and >constructive"? 

I think the answer is in my fist email  : 

        'Telling, as you just did, that some concerns are not accurate
without
justifying asserting that the criticisms, questions and demands of 200
activists are not realistic, calling these crucial questions "technical"
to explain that you have no time to adressit, adressing the concerns by
the leitmotiv of the
"pragmatism" ("this is not possible, trust me, I know better, and if we
criticize and
demand too many emprovements, it would destroy everything") : these has
nothing  to do with a balanced reaction in a legitimate debate.'

So let's go on with the debate, in a way you are able off - I can see
that with your answer - but certainly not in the way of your first
email. 


>We are saying what
>we honestly believe on something we have worked on for 9 years.  

Many people are claiming the authorship of the Patent Pool these days.
If we want to be able to talk to each other in a constructive way, we
need to be able to put that aside. 
The MPPF is not an activist project anymore, it is institutional, funded
by public money with results expected. There is no reason that we should
not treat it the way we treat other programs. There is a gap between the
ideal project you had and what it is now, and we have to remain a little
bit clear-sighted.  
Having worked on for 9 years gives you an expertise and a legitimity.
But you also need to consider other points of view without disqualifying
them a priori : focusing during 9 years on precise themes may avoid to
see hudge problems than other experts and activists, though not working
inside for 9 years, point out. We have to be capable of still being
objective and to listen to others. For instance, the way the
Consultative Forum was organized and the program totally locked, in a
way that any debate was almost impossible, gives the impression that
expertise from other point of views are not very welcome. 

Jérôme Martin
Act Up-Paris

Le lundi 10 octobre 2011 à 18:37 -0400, Jamie Love a écrit :
> Dear  Jérôme Martin,
> 
> 
> Last I checked, I was an activist.  And, whether there are 200 or
> 200,000 signatures on a petition, part of having a "debate" is having
> people express their opinions.    That includes the people who signed
> the petition.  That also includes others.  To do justice to the issues
> raised in the petition takes at least a little bit of time.
> 
> 
> I noted some of the areas where we agree with the petition, and there
> are other areas where I think the petition presents a compelling
> case.  In some other areas, we don't think the petition presents a
> balanced view of the license.  One concerns is this statement in
> the petition:
> 
> ==========
> 3) The undermining of the free and full use of TRIPS flexibilities by
> countries through restrictive provisions in the licences including: 
> 
> 
> (b) the imposition of restrictions on the use of compulsory licenses
> (CLs) by requiring the prior permission of Gilead, thus affecting both
> importing and exporting countries (and placing additional barriers on
> the use of the August 30 Decision); 
> ===========
> 
> 
> It is true that the MPP sub-license does require an agreement, but not
> to obtain a CL, but rather on such things as the "requirements of such
> law, rule or regulation" and the "affect" on the agreement, or
> "regarding the existence, scope and content of such compulsory
> license," noting that such agreement may "not to be unreasonably
> withheld."  
> 
> 
> ----------------
> 
> 
> 7.3 Law Compliance
> (c) Conflicts. None of the parties shall be required to take any
> action or perform any obligation under this Agreement to the extent
> that such action or obligation is in direct conflict with any
> applicable law, rule or regulation, including rights or obligations
> created as a result of a government issuance of a compulsory license
> relating to API or Product, provided, however, that Gilead and
> Licensee are in agreement (with such agreement not to be unreasonably
> withheld) regarding (i) the requirements of  such law, rule or
> regulation, and (ii) the affect that such law, rule or regulation has
> on such action or obligation required under this Agreement.
> ----------------
> 
> 
> 10.3  Gilead Right to Terminate
> 
> 
> (d) For further clarity, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary
> in this Agreement, it shall not be deemed to be a breach of the
> Agreement for Licensee to supply an API or Product outside the
> Territory into a country where (i) the government of such country has
> issued a compulsory license relating to such API or Product allowing
> for the importation of such API or Product into such country, provided
> Licensee and Gilead are in agreement (with such agreement not to be
> unreasonably withheld) regarding the existence, scope and content of
> such compulsory license and/or (ii) the Government of India has issued
> a compulsory license allowing for the export of an API or Product from
> India and into such country, provided that (Y) there are no Patents
> containing a valid claim covering the use, import, offer for sale or
> sale of such API or such Product in such country or a compulsory
> license has also been issued by the relevant authorities of such
> country and (Z) Licensee and Gilead are in agreement (with such
> agreement not to be unreasonably withheld) regarding the existence,
> scope and content of such compulsory license.
> -------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think the petition will be
> read by some to suggest that Gilead gets to agree on a compulsory
> license being issued, and that certainty is not the case.  This is
> very important, and worth focusing on.  Are there different ways to
> write such a clause?  Maybe.  Do people have examples one can look
> at?  I personally did not think the issue raised in the petition was a
> problem in the license.  Indeed, I thought it was a very big
> achievement from the MPP to get this clause in the license.  It
> changes the restrictive nature of the earlier Gilead license --  the
> one that KEI had earlier (2007) filed an antitrust compliant about
> with the FTC.   
> 
> 
> I do appreciate the point in the petition that Gilead can to raise
> paragraph 6 issues, but I don't think they will get far if the CL for
> export is issued under India law.  
> 
> 
> Another point is the following.  The petition says the licenses harm
> LDCs by:
> 
> 
> ---------------
> (a) circumventing the 2016 TRIPS deadline for least developing
> countries (LDCs) by allowing royalties on medicines supplied to them,
> even though these countries do not have to impose patents on essential
> medicines until 2016; 
> --------------
> Strictly speaking, one might (and some have) argue that the license
> only requires royalties be paid in India, if India has a patent, and
> not in countries where the product is exported to.  But I agree with
> the petition on the broader point.  As a practical matter, by limiting
> production to India, the license is designed to ensure that royalties
> are paid everywhere in the licensed areas.  And I agree that it is
> unfortunate that the license does this    But I don't think this has
> anything to do with the 2016 TRIPS extension in LDCs, or for that
> matter, for LDC countries in general.  Almost all LDCs already
> grant pharmaceutical product patents, and as the patent landscape
> documents show, lots of patents are filed in LDC countries, not only
> by big pharma, but even by Universities and generic drug companies.
>  Moreover, I think that LDC countries are big beneficiaries of the
> voluntary licenses, because you don't have to sort through the legal
> issues in LDCs --  the voluntary license includes all of the LDCs.
>  Plus, even the paragraph 6 provisions are much easier for LDC
> countries to comply with.  So the petition takes a general point about
> paying royalties everywhere, and makes it look as if this is something
> attacking LDC countries.  I don't think that deepens people's
> understanding of the license. 
> 
> 
> It is late for me, given some other big deadlines I have.  But we can
> comment more later.  In general however, I don't want to sound
> entirely negative, because we are not.  The petition raises lots of
> points, and often does so with clarity and power.   We are not signing
> the petition, due to some differences we have with the analysis,
> and in the tone and strategy, including what we see as unnecessary
> attacks on the patent pool staff and board.  
> 
> 
> >>So you should reconsider this public reaction : it is still time
> to accept a legitimate and 
> >>constructive debate, and to act properly with your partners.
> 
> 
> Jérôme Martin, I find parts of your note unnecessarily insulting.
> But given your suggestion to reconsider our public reaction and role
> in these debates, I have to ask, what constraints do you recommend?
>  What is "legitimate and constructive"?  We are saying what
> we honestly believe on something we have worked on for 9 years.  
> 
> 
> I think the petition contributes to the debate, even though we don't
> agree with everything it says.  I would hope you would listen to us,
> as we listen to others.  
> 
> 
>  Jamie
>   
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Jérôme Martin
> <jeromemartin at samizdat.net> wrote:
>         So, James, what do you suggest now ? To close the debate ? and
>         to the
>         stupid activists to shut up because YOU only know better ? Is
>         it what
>         that you call "moving forward" ? Do you think that all the
>         activists
>         that have signed are just silly ?
>         
>         This rhetoric is unbearable.
>         
>         Once again, we NEED answers to the questions otherwise we are
>         not
>         supporting anything and not going anywhere any longer.
>         
>         Telling, as you just did, that some concerns are not
>         accurate without justifying it, asserting that the criticisms,
>         questions
>         and demands of 200 activists are not realistic, calling these
>         crucial
>         questions "technical" to explain that you have no time to
>         adress it,
>         adressing the concerns by the leitmotiv of the
>         "pragmatism" ("this is
>         not possible, trust me, I know better, and if we criticize and
>         demand
>         too many emprovements, it would destroy everything") : these
>         has nothing
>         to do with a balanced reaction in a legitimate debate.
>         
>         So you should reconsider this public reaction : it is still
>         time to
>         accept a legitimate and constructive debate, and to act
>         properly with
>         your partners.
>         
>         Jérôme Martin
>         Act Up-Paris
>         
>         Le lundi 10 octobre 2011 à 14:51 -0400, Jamie Love a écrit :
>         
>         > Below is a link to a 2,227 word petition begin circulated
>         about the
>         > medicines patent pool, probably with considerable input from
>         IMAK and the
>         > ITPC.
>         >
>         > http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mpp/
>         >
>         > The petition is highly critical of the MPP.  It has at this
>         point a large
>         > number of signatures.   While we agree with some parts of
>         the long petition,
>         > we disagree with other parts, and will not be signing the
>         petition.   In our
>         > opinion, some parts of the petition repeat assertions that
>         are not accurate,
>         > and do not provide a helpful or balanced view of what the
>         Gilead licenses
>         > did and did not do.  In some other areas, we agree with the
>         concerns set out
>         > in the petition, for example, as regards the importance of
>         permitting
>         > generic product outside of India -- a topic that we also
>         think can be
>         > modified.
>         >
>         > When we have some time to go over the technical details, we
>         will comment
>         > further.  But in general, the petition will be seen by many,
>         including those
>         > in UNITAID, as part of an effort to kill the patent pool, or
>         remove its
>         > current leadership.  If this effort succeeds, where does
>         that leave
>         > everyone?
>         >
>         > In theory, the licenses could have been better, and indeed,
>         Gilead may agree
>         > to further amendments -- for example, to allow products from
>         some countries
>         > outside of India.  However, the sweeping changes in the
>         licenses that are
>         > set out the petition, while desirable, were not about to
>         happen, and I
>         > think, won't happen, without something more substantial
>         changing the
>         > negotiation.    People can set the bar higher -- but setting
>         the bar too
>         > high means no licenses at this point.
>         >
>         > If the patent pool is stopped from negotiating further
>         licenses, either
>         > telling them to stop or by setting the bar too high to get
>         further licenses,
>         > I would ask, why is that a good thing?
>         >
>         > There are some people who want to (a) change national laws
>         to eliminate
>         > patents on drugs, and failing that to (b) invalidate patents
>         that have been
>         > granted, and failing that to obtain (c) voluntary or (d)
>         compulsory licenses
>         > (in different sequences).    No one that has signed the
>         petition and no one
>         > that has not signed the petition is going to eliminate all
>         of the laws
>         > requiring the granting of patents, even in LDC countries
>         (Since 2001, there
>         > has NOT been a rush to change patent laws in LDCs).  No one
>         is going to
>         > invalidate relevant patents on HIV drugs in 150 countries.
>          No one is going
>         > to obtain compulsory license in all countries where patents
>         exist, and
>         > without some big change in the negotiating strategy, no one
>         is going to
>         > obtain voluntary licenses for all products and all
>         countries.  For the tens
>         > of millions of persons living with HIV, all of these
>         mechanisms are
>         > important.
>         >
>         > As I noted earlier, in some areas, we agree with the
>         petition.  KEI has long
>         > taken the position that the MPP should issue standardized
>         licenses, and that
>         > the various proposals for the license should be presented
>         for everyone to
>         > review  and comment, before they are signed.  The MPP is a
>         norm setting
>         > process, and it should be open and inclusive.
>         >
>         > The MPP can operate in a more transparent manner than it
>         has, although, in
>         > defense of the patent pool, it has had an open door, and
>         always been willing
>         > to meet with people, take calls, and answer questions.  It
>         is only recently
>         > than many groups have begun to engage on the technical
>         details, and that
>         > discussion has not always been well informed on some key
>         issues.
>         >
>         > But even with a transparent process, there is the reality
>         that the major
>         > patent owners are not all ready to give up their patent
>         claims in all
>         > developing countries.  This is not the fault of the patent
>         pool.   A good
>         > strategy going forward needs to address this reality, and
>         present a feasible
>         > path for access to persons living with HIV.
>         >
>         > Without some game changing innovations in the negotiating
>         strategy, the
>         > patent pool licenses from big drug companies will only cover
>         some products
>         > and some countries.   In our opinion, the most important
>         thing to push for
>         > in the licenses is that the licenses are open, not bundled,
>         and that they
>         > freely permit license holders to challenge patents, patent
>         laws, and obtain
>         > compulsory licenses.   The MPP licenses did this.  The many
>         countries left
>         > outside of the license area have to have a strae lundi 10
>         octobre 2011 à 18:37 -0400, Jamie Love a écrit :
Dear  Jérôme Martin,
> 
> 
> Last I checked, I was an activist.  And, whether there are 200 or
200,000 signatures on a petition, part of having a "debate" is having
people express their opinions.    That includes the people who signed
the petition.  That also includes others.  To do justice to the issues
raised in the petition takes at least a little bit of time.
> 
> 
> I noted some of the areas where we agree with the petition, and there
are other areas where I think the petition presents a compelling case.
In some other areas, we don't think the petition presents a balanced
view of the license.  One concerns is this statement in the petition:
> 
> ==========
> 3) The undermining of the free and full use of TRIPS flexibilities by
countries through restrictive provisions in the licences including: 
> 
> 
> (b) the imposition of restrictions on the use of compulsory licenses
(CLs) by requiring the prior permission of Gilead, thus affecting both
importing and exporting countries (and placing additional barriers on
the use of the August 30 Decision); 
> ===========
> 
> 
> It is true that the MPP sub-license does require an agreement, but not
to obtain a CL, but rather on such things as the "requirements of such
law, rule or regulation" and the "affect" on the agreement, or
"regarding the existence, scope and content of such compulsory license,"
noting that such agreement may "not to be unreasonably withheld."  
> 
> 
> ----------------
> 
> 
> 7.3 Law Compliance
> (c) Conflicts. None of the parties shall be required to take any
action or perform any obligation under this Agreement to the extent that
such action or obligation is in direct conflict with any applicable law,
rule or regulation, including rights or obligations created as a result
of a government issuance of a compulsory license relating to API or
Product, provided, however, that Gilead and Licensee are in agreement
(with such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld) regarding (i) the
requirements of  such law, rule or regulation, and (ii) the affect that
such law, rule or regulation has on such action or obligation required
under this Agreement.
> ----------------
> 
> 
> 10.3  Gilead Right to Terminate
> 
> 
> (d) For further clarity, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary
in this Agreement, it shall not be deemed to be a breach of the
Agreement for Licensee to supply an API or Product outside the Territory
into a country where (i) the government of such country has issued a
compulsory license relating to such API or Product allowing for the
importation of such API or Product into such country, provided Licensee
and Gilead are in agreement (with such agreement not to be unreasonably
withheld) regarding the existence, scope and content of such compulsory
license and/or (ii) the Government of India has issued a compulsory
license allowing for the export of an API or Product from India and into
such country, provided that (Y) there are no Patents containing a valid
claim covering the use, import, offer for sale or sale of such API or
such Product in such country or a compulsory license has also been
issued by the relevant authorities of such country and (Z) Licensee and
Gilead are in agreement (with such agreement not to be unreasonably
withheld) regarding the existence, scope and content of such compulsory
license.
> -------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think the petition will be
read by some to suggest that Gilead gets to agree on a compulsory
license being issued, and that certainty is not the case.  This is very
important, and worth focusing on.  Are there different ways to write
such a clause?  Maybe.  Do people have examples one can look at?  I
personally did not think the issue raised in the petition was a problem
in the license.  Indeed, I thought it was a very big achievement from
the MPP to get this clause in the license.  It changes the restrictive
nature of the earlier Gilead license --  the one that KEI had earlier
(2007) filed an antitrust compliant about with the FTC.   
> 
> 
> I do appreciate the point in the petition that Gilead can to raise
paragraph 6 issues, but I don't think they will get far if the CL for
export is issued under India law.  
> 
> 
> Another point is the following.  The petition says the licenses harm
LDCs by:
> 
> 
> ---------------
> (a) circumventing the 2016 TRIPS deadline for least developing
countries (LDCs) by allowing royalties on medicines supplied to them,
even though these countries do not have to impose patents on essential
medicines until 2016; 
> --------------
> Strictly speaking, one might (and some have) argue that the license
only requires royalties be paid in India, if India has a patent, and not
in countries where the product is exported to.  But I agree with the
petition on the broader point.  As a practical matter, by limiting
production to India, the license is designed to ensure that royalties
are paid everywhere in the licensed areas.  And I agree that it is
unfortunate that the license does this    But I don't think this has
anything to do with the 2016 TRIPS extension in LDCs, or for that
matter, for LDC countries in general.  Almost all LDCs already grant
pharmaceutical product patents, and as the patent landscape documents
show, lots of patents are filed in LDC countries, not only by big
pharma, but even by Universities and generic drug companies.
Moreover, I think that LDC countries are big beneficiaries of the
voluntary licenses, because you don't have to sort through the legal
issues in LDCs --  the voluntary license includes all of the LDCs.
Plus, even the paragraph 6 provisions are much easier for LDC countries
to comply with.  So the petition takes a general point about paying
royalties everywhere, and makes it look as if this is something
attacking LDC countries.  I don't think that deepens people's
understanding of the license. 
> 
> 
> It is late for me, given some other big deadlines I have.  But we can
comment more later.  In general however, I don't want to sound entirely
negative, because we are not.  The petition raises lots of points, and
often does so with clarity and power.   We are not signing the petition,
due to some differences we have with the analysis, and in the tone and
strategy, including what we see as unnecessary attacks on the patent
pool staff and board.  
> 
> 
> >>So you should reconsider this public reaction : it is still time to
accept a legitimate and 
> >>constructive debate, and to act properly with your partners.
> 
> 
> Jérôme Martin, I find parts of your note unnecessarily insulting.
But given your suggestion to reconsider our public reaction and role in
these debates, I have to ask, what constraints do you recommend?  What
is "legitimate and constructive"?  We are saying what we honestly
believe on something we have worked on for 9 years.  
> 
> 
> I think the petition contributes to the debate, even though we don't
agree with everything it says.  I would hope you would listen to us, as
we listen to others.  
> 
> 
>  Jamie
>   
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Jérôme Martin
<jeromemartin at samizdat.net> wrote:
> So, James, what do you suggest now ? To close the debate ? and to the
>         stupid activists to shut up because YOU only know better ? Is
it what
>         that you call "moving forward" ? Do you think that all the
activists
>         that have signed are just silly ?
>         
>         This rhetoric is unbearable.
>         
>         Once again, we NEED answers to the questions otherwise we are
not
>         supporting anything and not going anywhere any longer.
>         
>         Telling, as you just did, that some concerns are not
>         accurate without justifying it, asserting that the criticisms,
questions
>         and demands of 200 activists are not realistic, calling these
crucial
>         questions "technical" to explain that you have no time to
adress it,
>         adressing the concerns by the leitmotiv of the
"pragmatism" ("this is
>         not possible, trust me, I know better, and if we criticize and
demand
>         too many emprovements, it would destroy everything") : these
has nothing
>         to do with a balanced reaction in a legitimate debate.
>         
>         So you should reconsider this public reaction : it is still
time to
>         accept a legitimate and constructive debate, and to act
properly with
>         your partners.
>         
>         Jérôme Martin
>         Act Up-Paris
>         
>         Le lundi 10 octobre 2011 à 14:51 -0400, Jamie Love a écrit :
>         
>         > Below is a link to a 2,227 word petition begin circulated
about the
>         > medicines patent pool, probably with considerable input from
IMAK and the
>         > ITPC.
>         >
>         > http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mpp/
>         >
>         > The petition is highly critical of the MPP.  It has at this
point a large
>         > number of signatures.   While we agree with some parts of
the long petition,
>         > we disagree with other parts, and will not be signing the
petition.   In our
>         > opinion, some parts of the petition repeat assertions that
are not accurate,
>         > and do not provide a helpful or balanced view of what the
Gilead licenses
>         > did and did not do.  In some other areas, we agree with the
concerns set out
>         > in the petition, for example, as regards the importance of
permitting
>         > generic product outside of India -- a topic that we also
think can be
>         > modified.
>         >
>         > When we have some time to go over the technical details, we
will comment
>         > further.  But in general, the petition will be seen by many,
including those
>         > in UNITAID, as part of an effort to kill the patent pool, or
remove its
>         > current leadership.  If this effort succeeds, where does
that leave
>         > everyone?
>         >
>         > In theory, the licenses could have been better, and indeed,
Gilead may agree
>         > to further amendments -- for example, to allow products from
some countries
>         > outside of India.  However, the sweeping changes in the
licenses that are
>         > set out the petition, while desirable, were not about to
happen, and I
>         > think, won't happen, without something more substantial
changing the
>         > negotiation.    People can set the bar higher -- but setting
the bar too
>         > high means no licenses at this point.
>         >
>         > If the patent pool is stopped from negotiating further
licenses, either
>         > telling them to stop or by setting the bar too high to get
further licenses,
>         > I would ask, why is that a good thing?
>         >
>         > There are some people who want to (a) change national laws
to eliminate
>         > patents on drugs, and failing that to (b) invalidate patents
that have been
>         > granted, and failing that to obtain (c) voluntary or (d)
compulsory licenses
>         > (in different sequences).    No one that has signed the
petition and no one
>         > that has not signed the petition is going to eliminate all
of the laws
>         > requiring the granting of patents, even in LDC countries
(Since 2001, there
>         > has NOT been a rush to change patent laws in LDCs).  No one
is going to
>         > invalidate relevant patents on HIV drugs in 150 countries.
No one is going
>         > to obtain compulsory license in all countries where patents
exist, and
>         > without some big change in the negotiating strategy, no one
is going to
>         > obtain voluntary licenses for all products and all
countries.  For the tens
>         > of millions of persons living with HIV, all of these
mechanisms are
>         > important.
>         >
>         > As I noted earlier, in some areas, we agree with the
petition.  KEI has long
>         > taken the position that the MPP should issue standardized
licenses, and that
>         > the various proposals for the license should be presented
for everyone to
>         > review  and comment, before they are signed.  The MPP is a
norm setting
>         > process, and it should be open and inclusive.
>         >
>         > The MPP can operate in a more transparent manner than it
has, although, in
>         > defense of the patent pool, it has had an open door, and
always been willing
>         > to meet with people, take calls, and answer questions.  It
is only recently
>         > than many groups have begun to engage on the technical
details, and that
>         > discussion has not always been well informed on some key
issues.
>         >
>         > But even with a transparent process, there is the reality
that the major
>         > patent owners are not all ready to give up their patent
claims in all
>         > developing countries.  This is not the fault of the patent
pool.   A good
>         > strategy going forward needs to address this reality, and
present a feasible
>         > path for access to persons living with HIV.
>         >
>         > Without some game changing innovations in the negotiating
strategy, the
>         > patent pool licenses from big drug companies will only cover
some products
>         > and some countries.   In our opinion, the most important
thing to push for
>         > in the licenses is that the licenses are open, not bundled,
and that they
>         > freely permit license holders to challenge patents, patent
laws, and obtain
>         > compulsory licenses.   The MPP licenses did this.  The many
countries left
>         > outside of the license area have to have a strategy to
obtain access to the
>         > new drugs.  The MPP licenses do make them better off in one
important way --
>         > they create a competitive source of supplies, in the event
that they can
>         > obtain a paragraph 6 request from India to supply their
markets.  No one
>         > thinks this is perfect.  But people who are being negative
should set out
>         > the alternatives.
>         >
>         
>         
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         Ip-health mailing list
>         Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
>
http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>         
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
> http://www.keionline.org, +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040,
Geneva Mobile: +41.76.413.6584, efax: +1.888.245.3140.  Sometimes I am
using my MaxRoam number: +447937390810 
> twitter.com/jamie_love
> 
> 
>         tegy to obtain access to the
>         > new drugs.  The MPP licenses do make them better off in one
>         important way --
>         > they create a competitive source of supplies, in the event
>         that they can
>         > obtain a paragraph 6 request from India to supply their
>         markets.  No one
>         > thinks this is perfect.  But people who are being negative
>         should set out
>         > the alternatives.
>         >
>         
>         
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         Ip-health mailing list
>         Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
>         http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
> http://www.keionline.org, +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040,
> Geneva Mobile: +41.76.413.6584, efax: +1.888.245.3140.  Sometimes I am
> using my MaxRoam number: +447937390810 
> twitter.com/jamie_love
> 
> 





More information about the Ip-health mailing list