The Bottom Line / Standing up to Washington
Haaretz
Date: Fri., December 03, 2004
By Ora Coren
Industry and Trade Minister Ehud Olmert did something yesterday that few politicians have dared to do: he declared publicly that with all due respect to the U.S. administration, there is a limit to how much Israel will bend to maintain the illusion of good relations. And this time he was right.
What got Olmert's ire up was how Washington handled the Israeli drug development protection law. Israel is trying to adjust the wording of the law to avoid being placed on the U.S.'s priority watchlist for countries that violate patents. However, Israel headed into negotiations thinking both sides would budge a little until the middle ground was found, only to discover the U.S. wasn't planning on any budging.
The battle over drug development protection is much more than just theoretical. Behind it lie financial interests worth billions of dollars, and the discussions mask a commercial struggle between global drug giants and Teva Pharmaceuticals. American companies that develop drugs from scratch - known as ethical drugs - want to delay as much as possible Teva's development of copycat (generic) versions. The ethical drug companies have a justified claim: they invest sometimes billions of dollars in developing drugs, occasionally losing hundreds of millions on failed attempts when a development doesn't pan out, so they should enjoy exclusivity on drugs that do succeed to recoup their investment.
Like the U.S. law, the Israeli bill guarantees five years of protection.
But the drafters of the local law determined that period would be shortened if the protection expired elsewhere in the world. That does suit Teva, but also the state, which hopes to see Israeli patients benefiting as early as possible from new drug developments with the cost to the national healthcare system dropping as quickly as possible. Ethical drugs are far more expensive than their generic counterparts.
Israel did not invent this particular wheel. The U.S., Mexico and Canada all have similar arrangements to reduce the exclusivity period.
There are other disputes with the U.S. administration regarding this law, but they all stem from Washington's willingness to defend U.S. drug companies' corporate interests. Israel claims passionately that the bill meets international criteria and that Washington's approach is destructive.
Olmert had a choice. Fold under the business pressures of the U.S. drug manufacturing sector and sacrifice Teva on the altar of good relations with the U.S. - or stick up for the interests of Teva and other generic Israeli drugmakers and risk getting in trouble with Washington. Olmert went for the second option, even though he knew it could cost Israel an upgrade to the U.S. priority patent violation watchlist.
The upgrade is only an image blow. Therefore, as long as the law meets international standards, Olmert's approach is preferable: an attempt to balance the Israeli drug industry's patent protection interests with those of patients and the state budget.
Source
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
|