Readers may remember the posts we did on Pfizer’s testimony before the US House of Representatives and the ensuing series of correspondence regarding it. (See here, here and here). While that was part of the larger issue of US putting pressure on India to change its pharma patent policies, it has been useful in that the exchange of communication has resulted in an actual articulation of reasons behind allegations, rather than mere unilateral claims and allegations (eg: The Special 301 Report) that have otherwise been present. I believe this is useful (despite the hostility seen in some of the letters), as articulating these claims requires putting forward facts, rather than moving forward on assumptions and rhetoric. And regardless of which ‘side’ one may be on, getting the facts straight is the first step to fact-based policy making. By the same token, understanding that the ‘facts’ are not as straightforward as a party may claim is similarly as important, in order to ensure that questionable assumptions don’t form the basis of ‘fact’ based policy.
As mentioned in one of those earlier posts, Pfizer had responded to Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance’s (IPA) criticism on May 23rd with their 5 page letter here. Last week, on 19th August, the IPA responded with an 8 page letter of their own. We have made the letter available here.
The letter discusses several points that Pfizer had alleged and provides counters to them. In particular, it discusses whether there is discrimination against US companies, India’s “hostile” innovation and investment environment, Section 3(d) and compulsory licenses. It also referred to US’ own patent system, problems that they are facing and actions that they are still taking to improve their patent system – thus calling into question any ‘absolute truth’ about any system that Pfizer sought to contrast India’s patent system against. Strangely though, the letter seems to end abruptly while discussing the recent USITC veto of the ban against Apple imports when it certainly could’ve pointed out the double standards that such a move follows. I’m also a little confused by what seems to be a concession of sorts towards the end of the letter stating that US is the knowledge industry leader of the world and that its IP legislation is arguabley the highest standard of the world.
In any case though, what could’ve ended up as a unilateral allegation of questionable substance before the US House of Representatives, has instead been used by the IPA to create a platform for voicing an alternative view. If nothing else, this helps further the debate for the number of parties watching this dispute.
