Guennif Samira
Dev World Bioeth. 2017 Aug;17(2):90-99. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12124. Epub 2016 Oct 4.
While compulsory licensing (CL) is described in the TRIPS agreement as flexibility to protect public health by improving access to medicines in developing countries, a recent literature contends adversely that CL may harm public health. Therefore, this article intends to evaluate the usefulness of CL in the South through the prism of obligations and goals entrusted to patent holders (the effective and non-abusive exploitation of patents in order to achieve industrial and health developments) and in light of experiences in Thailand and Brazil regarding access to antiretroviral drugs. In this way, it shows that the obligations assigned to patent holders were better served by the recipients of CL and brought significant health and industrial benefits in the two high middle-income countries. In particular, CL allowed the scaling-up of free and universal access to antiretroviral drugs by assuring the financial sustainability of these public health programs endangered by monopolistic practices from patent holders.
虽然《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》(TRIPS协定)将强制许可描述为一种灵活性措施,旨在通过改善发展中国家药品的可及性来保护公众健康,但最近的文献却提出了相反的观点,认为强制许可可能会损害公众健康。因此,本文旨在通过专利持有人所承担的义务和目标(为实现产业和健康发展而有效且非滥用性地利用专利)这一视角,并结合泰国和巴西在获取抗逆转录病毒药物方面的经验,来评估强制许可在南方国家的效用。通过这种方式,本文表明,强制许可的接受方更好地履行了赋予专利持有人的义务,并在这两个高中等收入国家带来了显著的健康和产业效益。特别是,强制许可通过确保这些受到专利持有人垄断行为威胁的公共卫生项目的财务可持续性,使得免费和普遍获取抗逆转录病毒药物的规模得以扩大。