[Ip-health] US India Joint Statement

Michael H Davis m.davis at csuohio.edu
Wed Oct 1 09:10:57 PDT 2014


In civil society all of this would be characterized as criminal racketeering and extortion. I have long said, as you know Jamie,  that the pharmaceutical companies are criminal, starting with their taxes and on to their regulatory behavior. Why anyone would trust the figures they bandy about for drug development is beyond me.


_______________________________________


Prof. Mickey Davis
216/687-2228(phone)
917/771-0235 (cell)

Mailing Address:
Cleveland State University
2121 Euclid Avenue, LB 234
Cleveland, OH 44115-2214

Campus Location:
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
1801 Euclid Avenue
Law Building, LB 234

Admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No. 45,863


-------- Original message --------
From: Jamie Love
Date:10/01/2014 11:26 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Baker, Brook"
Cc: leena menghaney ,accesscampaignstaff at googlegroups.com,Rohit Malpani ,ip-health at lists.keionline.org,Shailly Gupta ,Developmental Critique of IP ,"Silverman, Ed"
Subject: Re: [Ip-health] US India Joint Statement

Ed, to add to what Brooks has said, I would say that the United States has
a great number of the bilateral agreements, most of which take place in
secret. The White House, USTR and USPTO and a few power members of the
Congress collect "asks" from Pharma and MPAA lobbyists, Microsoft, Intel,
GE, Monsanto,  and a few other companies, and then they deliver these asks
behind closed doors.

I'll give you a few examples as to how these talks take place.  In South
Africa, USTR linked the outcome on legislation on parallel trade in drugs
to resolution of a dispute over tariffs on exports of steel from South
Africa to the United States.  It was, in the words of health officials in
South Africa, a threat to cause layoffs in South Africa, if legislation
passed on parallel trade.  In the Dominican Republic, the threat concerns
tariffs and quotes on agricultural or textiles products.

In Brazil, the United States now has a right to be consulted before the
Brazil government grants a compulsory license.   (Imagine this the other
way around).  The United States asks companies in Europe to increase
reimbursements on specific drugs (behind closed doors).  These are only a
few examples.

The United States likes to set up formal mechanisms to deliver superpower
pressure on behalf of K Street lobbyists who pay for campaigns by US
politicians. Patient groups in India should indeed be concerned about this
committee.  It is very clearly going to be used to pressure India to expand
liberal grants of drug patents in India, and to block or restrain the use
of compulsory licenses on drug patents.    Note also that President Obama,
Vice President Biden, a couple of Secretaries of Commerce, a Secretary of
State (or two), Michael Froman at USTR and for the last head of the USPTO
all personally intervened in India following the compulsory license on
Bayer's $65,000 drug for liver and kidney cancer.

Jamie



On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Baker, Brook <b.baker at neu.edu> wrote:

> The U.S. consistently advances higher intellectual property protections
> through its trade working groups and trade partnership groups.  It is
> significant that this sentence is embedded in the section on economic
> growth and increasing foreign direct investment, as US IP industries and
> the USTR promote heightened intellectual property rights and strengthened
> enforcement mechanisms as being key to investor confidence and ultimately
> to innovation itself.  FDI and innovation are also always rhetorically
> tied to strong IPRs despite inclusive evidence that typically shows that
> most low- and middle-income countries do not benefit economically from IP
> maximization since they are net importers of IP goods and since the path
> to technological development is ordinarily through copying and incremental
> innovation - development tools that are severely undermined by IP monopoly
> rights and their related restrictive licensing agreements.
>
> More specifically, this working group will give the US a dedicated forum
> to continue to pressure India to adopt TRIPS-plus IP measures, including
> repeal of section 3(d) of the India Patents Act, adoption of data
> exclusivity/monopolies, patent term extensions, and restrictions on the
> use of compulsory licenses.  There will also be efforts to strengthen
> enforcement measures and investor rights including investor/state dispute
> resolution.  The US, in particular, will work to eliminate local working
> requirements that India is seeking to use to promote its own technological
> development.  The fact that this working group will have "decision-making"
> powers is particularly problematic as it places the US fox in the Indian
> chicken coop.
>
> Brook
> Professor Brook K. Baker
> Northeastern U. School of Law
> Affiliate, Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy
> 400 Huntington Ave.
> Boston, MA 02115 USA
> Honorary Research Fellow, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, S. Africa
> Senior Policy Analyst Health GAP (Global Access Project)
> Alternate NGOs Board Member UNITAID
> (w) 617-373-3217
> (cell) 617-259-0760
> (fax) 617-373-5056
> skype: brook_baker
> b.baker at neu.edu
>
>
>
>
> On 10/1/14 7:29 AM, "Silverman, Ed" <Ed.Silverman at wsj.com> wrote:
>
> >Can you please explain why this is seen as disturbing? Can you elaborate?
> >Thanks
> >Ed S
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ip-health [mailto:ip-health-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf
> >Of leena menghaney
> >Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 7:20 AM
> >To: ip-health at lists.keionline.org; Developmental Critique of IP; Shailly
> >Gupta; Rohit Malpani; accesscampaignstaff at googlegroups.com
> >Subject: [Ip-health] US India Joint Statement
> >
> >Hidden in this statement issued by Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi together is a
> >very disturbing development:
> >
> >" Agreeing on the need to foster innovation in a manner that promotes
> >economic growth and job creation, the leaders committed to establish an
> >annual high-level Intellectual Property (IP) Working Group with
> >appropriate decision-making and technical-level meetings as part of the
> >Trade Policy Forum."
> >
> >Available at
> >
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/30/us-india-joint-state
> >ment
> >
> >
> >--
> >Leena Menghaney
> >Mobile: 9811365412
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ip-health mailing list
> >Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> >http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ip-health mailing list
> >Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> >http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/donate.html
KEI DC tel: +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040, Geneva Mobile:
+41.76.413.6584, twitter.com/jamie_love
_______________________________________________
Ip-health mailing list
Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org



More information about the Ip-health mailing list