Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC, USA.
J Law Med Ethics. 2009 Summer;37(2):247-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00369.x.
In this Comment, the author traces the relevant legislative history pertaining to compulsory licensing of patented pharmaceuticals from the TRIPS Agreement of 1994 to the 2003 waiver to, and later proposed amendment of, article 31, which enables poor countries to obtain needed medicines from other countries that possess manufacturing capacity. The Comment then evaluates recent, controversial uses of the relevant legislative machinery as viewed from different critical perspectives. The Comment shows how developing countries seeking access to essential medicines can collaborate in ways that would avoid undermining incentives to innovation and other social costs attributed to compulsory licensing. It ends by defending the legality of recent measures taken to promote public health in developing countries, and by reminding developed countries that unilateral retaliation against such measures is demonstratably illegal under WTO foundational law and jurisprudence.
在这篇评论中,作者追溯了从 1994 年的《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》(TRIPS 协定)到 2003 年豁免和后来提议修订第 31 条的相关专利药品强制许可立法历史,该条允许贫穷国家从拥有生产能力的其他国家获得所需的药品。然后,该评论从不同的批判视角评估了最近对相关立法机制的有争议的使用。该评论表明,寻求获得基本药物的发展中国家可以以避免破坏创新激励和其他归因于强制许可的社会成本的方式进行合作。最后,该评论为促进发展中国家公共卫生的最近措施的合法性辩护,并提醒发达国家,根据 WTO 基础法律和判例法,对这些措施采取单方面报复是明显违法的。