Intellectual Property Rights and the Rights of the Poor - Term Paper Example

Intellectual Property Rights and the Rights of the Poor The issue of intellectual property (IP) and its associated regulations and laws have become acontentious issue in the academic world, particularly as it relates to research and development in developing countries. Because the more advanced countries have more resources, the contention is that they are able to buy IP rights to any body of research in the world, and restrict access to such research at will. In the field of medical and genetic research particularly, the issue has been that the developing world is restricted from the benefits of research. These restrictions are largely created by an imbalance of property and patent rights in favour of rich countries. Concomitantly, such restrictions lead not only to a lack of access to research information in developing countries, but also to a lack of motivation within these countries to further conduct research and development for the benefit of the local community and also of worldwide community. Ultimately, the body of human knowledge and development is restricted in this way. This points has been made by a variety of experts in the field. Dugie Standeford1 for example cites the statements of Professors Joseph Stiglitz and John Sulston2 in this regard. According to these academics, the current patent system is to be citicised for the way in which it restricts rather than disseminates information. Furthermore, it also stifles the development of science and innovation, particularly involving professionals and other great minds from developing countries. Standeford distinguishes between physical property rights and IP regimes. Whereas physical property can be restricted in terms of benefits to others, an intangible phenomenon such as knowledge cannot be so restricted. IP regimes however attempts to do precisely this. Although some believe that IP regimes drive innovation by means of protecting the rights of the innovator, others hold that the pace of science is impeded by the danger of law suits as a result of any new innovations. Furthermore, the expense of building upon existing knowledge is simply not possible for some of the most worthy scientists residing in the poorer countries. This leads to monopolies on bodies of knowledge, which puts it in the hands of the privileged few, while those who might truly benefit have no access or means to further the existing research. In addition, Standeford makes the point that private and social returns are not in accord in terms of IP regimes. This for example restricts the benefits that citizens may gain from research to the rich, whereas the poor is marginalized and restricted from benefits, particularly in the medical field. Standeford mentions the Human Genome Project3 in this regard. In general, Standeford's point is that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening on both the local and the global scale as a result of IP regimes. The repercussions of these extend to more than only innovation; it also concerns health benefits and access, where developing countries are struggling to gain access to generic medicines as a result of IP regimes. Authors such as Ron Layton4, on the other hand, takes a slightly different perspective of IP regimes. While agreeing that the current system hardly benefits developing countries, Layton is of the opinion that IP regimes could ultimately be to their advantage, if implemented in a targeted way. The author for example suggests exporting IP rights in terms of products in art and research; this would benefit the economy of the country, and result in funding for further research. In terms of medical research and access to healthcare and medicine, however, it is doubtful how IP exports will be beneficial to these countries. Indeed, IP exports might even compound the problem as it already manifests itself. Indeed, exported IP rights and products will further restrict the public and social benefit from certain areas of knowledge. In this way, Standeford's point regarding monopolies remain: monopolising certain areas of knowledge makes it the sole property of a certain sector of society; whether this sector resides in a developing or developed country. In genetic and medical research, this means that access to certain areas of the body of knowledge remains restricted, and integration is limited. Limited integration means that existing knowledge is not used to build further research and development; instead, isolated pockets of knowledge arise, none of which integrate with or build upon the others. Helfer5 addresses the profound changes that IP regimes and organizations have undergone during the 1990s. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), for example was a single intergovernmental organization that governed the protection of intellectual property throughout the world. The mainly flexible system of property rights negotiated under this organization developed into a stricter model of agreements that would mainly benefit industrialized countries via IP exports to other countries. Once again, these exports were restricted to other rich countries, as it was a profit-seeking endeavour. Charuworn & Cohen6 specifically address the pharmaceutical aspect of IP rights. The authors note that patent protection for pharmaceutical products in developing countries has been hampered not only by financial, but also by humanitarian concerns. According to the authors, expensive drugs are protected by patents in the developing world, resulting in profits for the companies that market them and the countries that develop them. In this way, rich countries benefit, and rich patients benefit from the highest quality drugs. To remedy this, the authors suggest that developing countries should be included in multilateral intellectual property treaties. This, according to their model, will encourage research on inexpensive treatments, and have greater social benefits than solely extending IP rights and exporting these to the rich. The authors' views therefore appear to correlate with Layton's, in that IP agreements are not necessarily a disadvantage for poorer countries. If implemented correctly, they can have certain benefits, not only for the countries involved, but also on the social and humanitarian platforms. Henry Gabrowski7 mention the problem of a lack of IP and patent protection for developing countries as one of the reasons for their lack of access to adequate healthcare. Implementing these for developing countries is proposed as a cure for the current situation. In conclusion, authors appear to be in agreement that the current patent and IP regime system is inadequate to meet the needs of the global community. Various proposals are suggested in order to remedy the problem. The most workable and realistic of these appear to be an inclusive agreement system, by which multinational companies can protect their own IP rights, even as they benefit society at large. It is unrealistic to expect companies to do away with IP agreements entirely. Nonetheless, restrictions should not be so limiting that only a certain sector of society profit, and that property owners benefit only in terms of profit. In today's global society, it is also important to take into account humanitarian issues. All businesses and IP owners should have as a significant component of their work the improvement of the global human condition. Bibliography Charuworn, Anita & Cohen, Linda. 2004. Patented Drugs, Generic Alternatives and Intellectual Property Regimes in Developing Countries. Center for the Study of Democracy. http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=1037&context=csd Helfer, Laurence R. Nesting and Complexity in the International Intellectual Property Regime. Vanderbilt University Law School. http://www.princeton.edu/smeunier/Helfer%20memo.pdf Grabowski, Henry. 2005. Increasing R&D Incentives for Neglected Diseases. In International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime by Keith Eugene Maskus & Jerome H. Reichman. Cambridge University Press. Layton, Ron. 2004. Enhancing Intellectual Property Exports through Fair Trade. In Poor People's Knowledge by J.M. Finger Philip Schuler. World Bank Publications Standeford, Dugie. 2008. Intellectual Property Regime Stifles Science and Innovation, Nobel Laureates Say. Intellectual Property Watch, 7 July. http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.phpp=1129 Wright, Brian D. & Pardey, Philip G. 2006. Changing intellectual property regimes: implications for developing country agriculture. Int. J. Technology and Globalisation, Vol. 2, Nos. 1/2. http://are.berkeley.edu/wright/IJTGWP1.pdf Read More