This is third and final part on “Framing debates on IP & Health”. Part I and Part II can be accessed by clicking on the links above. I want to use this series to argue that the manner in which IP debates are framed in the health context, play a large role in claim-staking, even if the claims used are ones that ought to have no role in IP policy. Further, that this manner of framing is more useful to […]
Framing debates on IP – Part III Read More »
This is part 2 of a 3 part series on “Framing debates on IP & Health”. As mentioned in part I, I want to use this series to argue that the manner in which IP debates are framed in the health context, play a large role in claim-staking, even if the claims used are ones that ought to have no role in IP policy. Further, that this manner of framing is more useful to the traditional ‘access’ side of the
Framing debates on IP & Health – Part II Read More »
This is the first of a 3 part post. In this series, I want to argue that the manner in which IP debates are framed in the health context, play a large role in claim-staking, even if the claims used are ones that ought to have no role in IP policy. Further, that this manner of framing is more useful to the traditional ‘access’ side of the debate than it is to the ‘innovator’ side – and that despite being more
Framing debates on IP & Health – Part I Read More »
In a shocking development, Livelaw reports that as of last month, Professor N.S.Gopalakrishnan has been removed as Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) Chair Professor at Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) without any reason being disclosed. As those in the IP community would know, Prof Gopalakrishnan is one of the foremost authorities and an internationally recognized expert in the field. One would be hard-pressed to convincingly argue that the Chair position would have even existed at CUSAT had
Two MHRD IP Chair Professors axed; Reasons unknown Read More »
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
SpicyIP subscribers recently received a short blurb from Shamnad on this FT article regarding the hypocrisy of stamping ‘national interest’ considerations as valid only when certain countries declare it. Aside from the hypocrisy of declaring ‘national interest’ valid only when certain nations declare it – let’s not forget that India’s ‘national interest’, declared problematic by the US, is for providing its patients with access to life saving medicines – while US’ ‘national interest’, that is presumably valid, is for ensuring
Ghost Post: Samsung v. Apple Presidential Enforcement Veto Read More »
The Global Innovation Index, released today, saw India ranked 66th this year – 2 ranks lower than their 2012 rank and 4 lower than its 2011 rank. The index, available here, is prepared by WIPO, Cornell and INSEAD with Knowledge Partners, Booz & Company, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), du and Huawei. As per their Press Release: “Despite the economic crisis, innovation is alive and well. Research and development spending levels are surpassing 2008 levels in most countries and
India 66th on Global Innovation Index 2013 Read More »
Part I of this looked into some of the claims that Pfizer has made. This part looks into what that testimony has led to. 170 Members of US Congress write to Obama criticizing India’s IP regime The effects of Waldron’s testimony, no doubt combined with other lobbying efforts, have led to 170 US Members of Congress writing to President Obama, urging him to ensure ‘these issues are raised at the highest levels of the Indian Government and that they are
Part II: Pfizer’s testimony leads the way as US pressure on India increases Read More »
Readers may remember our recent coverage of Pfizer’s Chief IP Counsel, Roy Waldron’s testimony before a hearing of the US House of Representatives and the heated exchange that followed between Waldron and the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) thereafter. Waldron’s main allegations were that the Indian Pharmaceutical patent regime flouted international trade rules and abused the compulsory license system and recommended that the US government use all means at its disposal to get India in line. IPA responded with a strong
Part I: Pfizer’s testimony leads the way as US pressure on India increases Read More »
Some great news came out of Marrakesh last night as negotiators and civil society took to social media to celebrate consensus finally being reached on the Treaty for the Visually. KEI also put out a short clip of the reactions and congratulations going around just after the agreement was reached – available here. Mr Raghavender, Registrar of Copyrights and part of India’s delegation, is at 2:15 and he notes that “it’s a great day in the history of Copyright law
Agreement reached on Treaty for the Visually Impaired! Read More »
