NationStates Jolt Archive

OBSERVING that when a new life-saving drug is developed, the developing company retains a monopoly on sales due to patent laws.

FURTHER OBSERVING that this monopoly can, at present, last for longer than twenty years, preventing the widespread use of new drugs, especially in developing countries where they are needed.

PROPOSING a plan to ensure the availability of potentially life-saving drugs to needy nations

1) The maximum number of years a company can hold patent to a life-saving drug shall be reduced to ten, after which they must make the manufacturing procedure public.
2) If a nation is suffering from an epidemic that can be cured by a drug under copyright, the maximum number of years for which that patent can be held shall be reduced to five. (See resolution number 77, Epidemic Prevention Protocol, for the definition of an epidemic.) If the epidemic is cured in less than five years, the patent shall be returned to the original company for the remainder of the five years.
3) Governments shall offer funding and/or tax cuts to companies developing life-saving drugs. These benefits must be large enough to ensure companies will continue to profit from said research.
4) Developing nations without the funds to supply such benefits may appeal to the United Nations for financial aid.

DEFINING life-saving drugs as medicines that can prevent the death of human beings by combating bacterial or viral infections, or other medical conditions. This includes vaccinations that can prevent deadly diseases.

RECOGNIZING that this may harm some companies, but believing that the worldwide health benefits will far outweigh the costs.

ENCOURAGING all companies and countries to continue medical research, and to help developing countries provide healthcare for their people.



Support this proposal here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/07246/page=UN_proposal/start=70)

This is fine for you to implement in your nation, but ours wants nothing to do with it.

First, there is no specific time for patent expiration in International Law. The UCPL (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=44) doesn't specify what the lifetime of a patent or copyright may be, only that they are the same for all nations within the UN. (Damn, gotta put in a repeal for that one).

Second, the time from the inception of the patentable idea to actual production and distribution can be well over 10 years. Hasty testing results in human problems (remember Thalidomide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide)?). Clinical trials in excess of ten years are common. By this proposal, the inventing company would be forced to publicly release the manufacturing process before it had even been determined to be viable, much less safe. Not only would they get zero return on their investment, they could be dumping a flawed concept on the world. You've allowed no checks and balances against this.

Third, the idea of zero return on investment. Our government IS corporations, and one of the biggest is BioPharm of Frisbeeteria. Government money doesn't just appear out of thin air, it comes from somewhere - in our case, the very company your proposal affects. Should this pass, all of Frisbeeteria's pharmaceutical R&D will be shut down, immediately. If there is no profit in a venture, we won't do it. Period. The potentially life-saving drugs that our scientists are developing will be poured down the drain. The notes and files will be destroyed to keep competitors from stealing our ideas and getting a free run-up on development time. There will be no more drugs coming from our labs. EVER.

We will cease development work on drugs that aren't considered life-saving, as our competitors will propose that they are cases where they can be used to save a life, thus getting our work for free. We will discontinue production of existing non-life-saving drugs, as there might be undiscovered serendipitious effects that could be considered life-saving in the future. In short, we will be forced by economic necessity to eliminate our pharmaceuticals industry.

When you destroy the incentives to create (in this case, money), you dramatically reduce the number of valid creations. This won't just hurt companies, it will hurt people. It will hurt our employee-citizens. It will hurt our schools, as the employment pool for scientists dries up. It will cascade throughout the business chain as manufacturers, distributors, and retailers lose an essential industry. Most of all, it will hurt the sick people whose hope depends on that yet-undiscovered cure for their ailment.

In case I haven't made myself clear, we oppose this proposal. Well-intentioned or not, it will actively harm the very condition it is intended to help.