Online research in philosophy

Private property forms the bedrock of the business/society relationship in a market economy. In one way or another most societies limitwhat people can claim as property as well as theextent of claims they can make regarding it. In the international arena today intellectual property rights are a focal point of debate. Many developing countries do not recognize the monopoly claims of patents and copyrights asserted by business as legitimate. This paper reviews contemporary areas of dispute and then presents the tasks facing the construction of a fair intellectual property rights regime.

No natural rights theory justifies strong intellectual property rights. More specifically, no theory within the entire domain of natural rights thinking – encompassing classical liberalism, libertarianism and left-libertarianism, in all their innumerable variants – coherently supports strengthening current intellectual property rights. Despite their many important differences, all these natural rights theories endorse some set of members of a common family of basic ethical precepts. These commitments include non-interference, fairness, non-worsening, consistency, universalisability, prior consent, self-ownership, self-governance, and the establishment of zones of autonomy. Such commitments have clear applications pertaining to the use and ownership of created ideas. I argue that each of these commitments require intellectual property rights to be substantially limited in scope, strength and duration. In this way the core mechanisms of natural rights thinking ensure a robust public domain and categorically rule out strong intellectual property rights.

What is “property”? Property Roughly, thing x is the (private) property of agent A if and only if A has exclusive and extensive legal rights of access and / or use for x.

“Access to medicines” is a broad concept. After a review of three authoritative frameworks that help to identify its constitutive components, this essay summarizes the actual situation on the ground in low- and middle-income countries on the basis of recent empirical work. An analysis of survey data from 36 countries concluded that developing countries should promote generic medicines as a key policy option for improving access to medicines. Taking an international perspective to that recommendation, this essay reviews the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and, particularly, how this agreement has been applied in practice. As shown by the experience of Thailand, Brazil, and the Philippines, in order to deal effectively with international pressures for an excessive application of the TRIPS Agreement, some sort of conversion experience appears to be required, which then leads to a switch from a private enterprise, supply-driven approach to a public health vision that insists on universal and affordable access. But moral conviction is not sufficient. In order to muster and sustain the political will to face down international forces, civil society and government offices must be able and ready to show the costs and other adverse consequences of the TRIPS-based model for medicines. This calculation needs to reach beyond the health sector and calls for new alliances, nationally as well as internationally.

Although the idea of intellectual property (IP) rights—proprietary rights to what one invents, writes, paints, composes or creates—is firmlyembedded in Western thinking, these rights are now being challenged across the globe in a number of areas. This paper will focus on one of these challenges: government-sanctioned copying of patented drugs without permission or license of the patent owner in the name of national security, in health emergencies, or life-threatening epidemics. After discussing standard rights-based and utilitarian arguments defending intellectual property we will present another model. IP is almost always a result of a long history of scientific or technological development and numbers of networks of creativity, not the act of a single person or a group of people at one moment in time. Thus thinking about and evaluating IP requires thinking about IP as shared rights. A network approach to IP challenges a traditional model of IP. It follows that the owner of those rights has some obligations to share that information or its outcomes. If that conclusion is applied to the distribution of antiretroviral drugs, what pharmaceutical companies are ethically required to do to increase access to these medicines in the developing world will have to be reanalyzed from a more systemic perspective.

Multilateral and bilateral trade agreements have become important vehicles by which US multinational corporations, through close collaboration with government officials, are striving, amongst other objectives, for increasingly stringent global intellectual property protection (GIPP), particularly over what they term “innovative” pharmaceuticals. This chapter explores the evolution and structural dynamics of GIPP. It particularly considers the hypothesis that GIPP represents a corporate-driven ideology whose legitimacy in a democratic polity is undermined by its uncertain foundation in public health research and inadequate integration with norms of bioethics and health law, including international human rights. This detailed analysis begins with consideration of the domestic evolution of GIPP from within the US patent system. This may reveal how many of its important structural features had their roots in a domestic profit-making ideology. The chapter then examines the critical initial globalization role of the US Trade Act 1974, particularly section 301. This permitted US industry to request an investigation by the US International Trade Commission of foreign nations whose practices allegedly caused it material injury. The Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is analyzed as a mature component of GIPP by which increased intellectual property rights [intellectual monopoly privileges] in particular over pharmaceuticals, were linked with strong trade sanctions. The sophisticated contribution to GIPP made by the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act 2003 (US) is then evaluated, particularly its prohibition of Federal Government medicine price setting and its requirement for a study of pharmaceutical price controls in other developed countries. In each case the extent to which GIPP attempted or failed to integrate its corporate-designed principles with basic norms of bioethics, public health law and international human rights is discussed.

Today there is a growing wave of demands being placed upon the pharmaceutical industry to contribute to improved access to medicines for poor patients in the developing countries. 1 This article aims to contribute to the development of a systematic approach and broad consensus about shared benchmarks for good corporate practices in this area. A consensus corridor on what constitutes an appropriate portfolio of corporate responsibilities for access to medicines -especially under conditions of 'failing states' and 'market failure' 2 – is not only in the interest of the world's poor, but also of corporations that want to contribute to the solution of one of the most significant social problems of our time.

The International Bill of Rights enshrines a right to health, which includes a right to access essential medicines. This right frequently appears to conflict with the intellectual property regime that governs pharmaceutical patents. However, there is also a human right that protects creative works, including scientific productions. Does this right support intellectual property protections, even when they may negatively affect health? This article examines the recent attempt by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to resolve this issue and argues that it fails. This is problematic because it means defenders of the present patent regime can continue using human rights documents to support their position. I offer a new framework for resolving the problem by examining the values that underlie human rights.

The twelfth century canon lawyer Gratian once wrote "Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him you have killed him." If Gratian were alive today, he might take a look at the current state of global health and say, "Succor the woman dying of disease, because if you have not helped her you have killed her." Both of these statements express an ethical obligation: if I have food, and someone else who is hungry does not, I am obligated to share my food. Likewise, if I have medicine, and someone else who is sick does not, I am obligated to share my medicine. Unfortunately, with regard to medicines and other essential products, modern institutions of intellectual property often fail to enforce or even recognize such ethical obligations. In some ways these institutions uphold an even harsher attitude regarding intellectual property than tangible personal property. With food, even if the hungry person receives no bread, he is still permitted to produce his own. With medicines, medical technologies, and other types of goods that are protected by institutions of intellectual property, the law can and often does prevent the sick person from producing her own. This paper contends that current institutions of intellectual property, especially patent law and policy, fail to adequately articulate the ethical obligations of intellectual property rights holders. By drawing on the numerous resources regarding the ethical obligations of property holders present in the Catholic tradition, the paper seeks to determine the obligations of intellectual property rights holders towards others, particularly in the context of ensuring widespread access to essential medicines. By focusing on the language of obligation, a language which is often neglected in rights-oriented debates, I believe we can more clearly understand the role of intellectual property in our society. The only way to ensure ethically defensible institutions of intellectual property is for policymakers, government officials, and those in the legal profession to consider seriously the ethical obligations of intellectual property rights holders, and to allow those obligations to inform their decision making. Additionally, scholars of religious ethics should begin to critically examine the institutions of intellectual property, institutions that have heretofore received only limited scrutiny from religious communities.

In order to achieve more ethical global health outcomes, health policies must be driven by health priorities and should take into account broader health policy requirements, including the needs of specific national health systems. It is thus important to recognize that the division of interests in key policy areas are not necessarily between the priorities of rich and poor countries, but between (1) pharmaceutical industry interests and health policy interests, and (2) national industrial and trade policy interests and public health policies. In this article I will focus on two broad common interests for health policy officials. Both have become important in the context of current global negotiations relating to access to medicines; pandemic influenza; and public health, innovation, and intellectual property rights. These are (1) ensuring access, availability, and the safety of pharmaceuticals, and (2) ensuring that research-and-development efforts respond to public health needs. I argue that these issues are not solely the concern of developing countries because the diminishing national policy space for health in pharmaceutical policies presents a challenge to all governments, including rich ones.