The Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, an international expert panel chaired by Stanford University law professor John Barton, has concluded a year's work with the publication of a radical and substantial report. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy is available here and is to be presented to the UK's Department for International Development on 17 September.
The Commission, appointed by Clare Short, the UK Secretary of State for International Development, was asked to carry out a thorough review of the implications of intellectual property law for international development. In particular, it looked at how national IPR rules should be framed, at international legal frameworks, and how benefits arising from traditional knowledge can be shared equitably. It considered medicine and agriculture alongside educational materials, computer software, and access to international databases. Commission members visited Brazil, China, India, Kenya and South Africa, and consulted interested parties in London, Brussels, Geneva and Washington DC.
One of their principal recommendations is that developing countries should not be strong-armed into adopting uniform legislation on patents and copyright. The report acknowledges the very different circumstances of countries with, or without, home-grown industries that are capable of benefiting from such legislation. What are now the wealthiest industrial regions, such as the USA and the European Union, applied such laws very flexibly for most of their history, often excluding whole areas of knowledge or discriminating against foreign inventors or authors.
In particular, the report recommends that most developing countries delay the application of patent laws to pharmaceuticals for as long as possible, and exercise their rights to such measures as issuing compulsory licenses for drug manufacture. It notes the example set recently by the United States when it proposed to override the rights of patent holders to secure treatments for anthrax, in the interests of public health and national security. It recommends that international and national laws be reviewed to find ways to secure differential pricing of medicines, related to countries' abilities to pay for them.
The Commission takes the view that public health as a basic human right should not be subordinated to property rights, echoing last year's Doha Declaration of the World Trade Organization (WTO), as reported here. It also observes that the best answer to under-investment in research on diseases affecting large numbers of poor people is greater public investment in research.
When the Commission was first appointed, by the UK Secretary for International Development, Clare Short, there was some comment on the inclusion of a pharmaceutical company executive. Considering what the report now says this arguably strengthens its recommendations, as it seriously undermines the argument that international pharmaceutical companies could not live with its recommendations.
The report has been warmly welcomed by Medecins Sans Frontieres and others campaigning for wider access to treatment. A number of NGOs have argued that patent law is an obstacle to treatment access and links to their materials can be found here.
The full membership of the Commission was: Professor John Barton, Stanford University, USA (Chair); Mr Daniel Alexander, a London barrister specialising in IP law; Prof Carlos Correa, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina; Dr Ramesh Mashelkar FRS, Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Delhi; Dr Gill Samuels, CBE, Pfizer Ltd, UK; Dr Sandy Thomas, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London.