Soon before the World Trade Organization meeting in Qatar in 2001, South Africa’s Health Minister called the high prices for life saving medicines a “crime against humanity”. His objection is not so much the protective patent and copy right as much as the excessive resulting prices by industrialized developed countries. The drug companies quickly dropped the claims to avoid disgrace. Subsequently, they claimed they also could not compete with generic drugs. They either closed their plants or withdrew investment from the country. More recently a Canadian author, Emily Somme, has recently filed a suit in San Francisco saying that the characters in “Peter Pan” are now in the public domain. They are no longer protected by a USA copyright awarded in 1920. Somme’s lawyer claimed that she had offered to pay royalties but was rebuffed. The crux of the issue is that all the characters in “Peter Pan” appear to be patented in the USA until the year 2023, and a British act of Parliament extends royalty rights in perpetuity. However, in Canada, “Peter Pan falls within the public domain”.
The issue of intellectual property in the WTO faces considerable criticism from all members. This is understandable. A win-win situation requires just and fair recognition that “creativity” deserves to be protected and rewarded fairly but not exorbitantly. Most, if not all “inventions” are produced in rich developed members in WTO who also pass the laws. It is no surprise that the poor partners ask for mercy! The difference therefore is not on the principle of rewarding the provider of the service. Nor is it limited to the complaints about the exorbitant charges. It extends to the belief that the patent systems in the countries of the advanced rich members are antiquated and need reform.
It is felt that patent offices lack the resources to evaluate inventions or distinguish their suitability or grading. The available legal models are inconsistent, illogical and antiquated. Furthermore, they are more to the advantage of the holders, rather than the public at large. Admittedly, there is no sense in inventions without protection. But “setting” on “precedents” that are clear exploitations of the consumers cannot be defended. On this issue, the world hears whispers of reason from most poor partners in WTO. However, the big complaints come from a limited number of poor partners on specific medical products that relate to Aids. The developed partners keep a deaf ear. This may be to assist the multinationals to receive their pound of flesh from the last poor dying patient!
It is stated that “Einstein made more money, at least directly, from his more than 40 refrigerator patents than from the general theory of relativity”. Charles Dickens apparently did not do so well. “He was upset that he received no compensation when his work was copied in the USA which did not honor foreign copyright”.
Reaching square deals by members of WTO on many issues is a remote dream. This is not only because of the “haves” and have-nots”. Apparently most WTO members are closely monitored by their governments. The WTO member that really matters most, expects to benefit all along. A recent example is cited this week by Reuters. It states,” In a report to the USA Congress released on Tuesday the administration noted that the US had generally benefited from the WTO dispute settlements, but it made it clear it shared the view that some panels rulings had gone too far, which could jeopardize support for WTO”.
Arab News Features 6 January 2003
