In an exchange on the i+a listserve, I asked Professor Pogge if the decision to reject open licensing was in part because he was concerned about opposition from certain elements of the pharmaceutical industry. This was his response, shared here with permission:
The Global Ministerial Forum on Research for Health is meeting in Bamako, Mali from November 17-19, 2008. This Ministerial is organized by the Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED), Global Forum for Health Research, the Republic of Mali, the United Nations Cultural, Scientific and Educational Organization (UNESCO), the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), and coordinated by the Bamako 2008 Secretariat.
In their recent book on the Health Impact Fund,* Aidan Hollis and Thomas Pogge discuss a number of issues. This is what they say about compulsory licensing of patents.
Page 53-54
In their recent book on the Health Impact Fund,* Aidan Hollis and Thomas Pogge discuss a number of issues. This is what they say about S.2210 (110th Congress), Senator Sanders’ proposal for the Medical Innovation Prize Fund.
Page 105-106
Medical Innovation Prize Act of 2007
In book on the Health Impact Fund,* Aidan Hollis and Thomas Pogge discuss why voluntary licensing of patents is not required.
Page 22
Voluntary Licensing
Aidan Hollis and Thomas Pogge discuss Intellectual Property and the HIF.*
Intellectual Property
KEI will later issue a more detailed comment on the Health Impact Fund. One of the key issues that will be addressed is the way that Hollis and Pogge propose turning the prize fund proposals that are based upon open licensing of patents into something that reinforces the monopoly supply chain.
We understand that one motivation for doing this was to attract support from some large pharmaceutical companies, and the European governments that protect them.
WHO has announced the names for the Expert Working Group on R&D financing
We don’t know everyone on the list, but for the people that we do know, we are generally impressed. The WHO seems to have created a body with considerable expertise and reputation, and included people who will consider new ideas. This seems like a very good start.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) divides its norm setting work among several committees. The 17th meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) met last week, and considered several topics, including the first in-depth effort to consider a work program on limitations and exceptions for copyright. This work program, first proposed formally by Chile (SCCR/13/5) among WIPO member states, is a work in progress. Continue Reading
Two quick points about the WIPO press release for SCCR 17:
1. The press release does not mention the term “trans-border” (a reference to export and import), even though this was referred to in the context of L&E for distance education in the SCCR conclusions. Clearly the EU opposition to the New Zealand text on “application to the international exchange of materials in accessible formats” made an impression on the WIPO Secretariat.