Tournament: Bentonville Tigers Eye | Round: 1 | Opponent: Alexis Childs | Judge: Colton Gilbert
Contention 1 is Access and Affordability
The high price of medicines makes them unavailable to most of the world
Anand Grover, 12 (Dir., HIV/AIDS Unit of the Lawyers Collective), JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE, AND ETHICS, Summer 2012, 235.
In most of the developing world, it is more profitable to sell drugs to the very wealthy at high prices than it is to sell cheaper drugs to a greater number of people. As a result, medicines remain unaffordable for the vast majority of people in many parts of the world. While this might be an acceptable outcome for certain commodities, such as luxury goods, it is completely unacceptable for life-saving medicines. Therefore, in order to effectively address the global lack of access to medicines, the role pharmaceutical companies play in the international intellectual property regime must be critically examined.
AND
Rich countries have justified increased IPP for medicine under the guise of protecting quality drugs, but all the policy has done is allow Big Pharma to profit and restrict the ability of generics
Moszynski 11 Peter Moszynski- researcher for Globewise Communications, Feb 2011, “New Patent Rules Boost Profits While Safe Drugs Elude the World’s Poor, Says Oxfam,” BMJ, vol. 342, p. d815. www.bmj.com, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d815/
The proliferation of substandard drugs in poor countries is being used as an excuse to tighten rules on intellectual property, boosting the profits of large drug companies while making it harder for poor people to get access to the treatments they need, the charity Oxfam says in a new report. The report, launched in Paris this week in association with Interpol and the World Intellectual Property Organization, says that more than two billion people “lack regular access to affordable and quality medicine.” The World Health Organization estimates that 30 of countries have no functioning drug regulatory authorities. In the absence of effective regulation, says the report, “poor-quality or ‘substandard’ medicines, together with falsified, or fake and falsely labelled, medicines,” may be widely traded and consumed, which can have “devastating consequences for patients and for public health.” The report says that although no conclusive data exist regarding the prevalence of substandard and falsified drugs in the developing world, “studies indicate that in some countries as much as 44 of certain types of medicines, such as anti-malarials, are substandard.” Therefore, it adds, prioritising drug regulation by governments in developing countries, with “the technical and financial support” of rich countries, is “badly needed.” However, the report claims that rich countries, “under the guise of helping to address dangerous and ineffective medicines . . . are pushing for new intellectual-property rules and reliance on police—rather than health regulatory—action.” Rohit Malpani, a senior policy adviser at Oxfam and one of the report’s authors, says that poor countries “are facing a crisis of substandard and falsified medicines that can harm or even kill those who take them.” Yet, rather than help such countries to “address the problem to ensure safe, effective, and quality medicines for all,” rich countries are “putting commercial interests ahead of public health.” Oxfam specifically criticises current moves to expand rules on intellectual property to reduce the availability of counterfeit products that criminally infringe trademarks, arguing that such anti-counterfeit measures are “limited in scope and fail to address the broader public health problem of substandard and falsified medicines which pose a danger to public health but do not necessarily infringe intellectual property rights.” Worse, it says, proposed new anti-counterfeit measures could “stifle the production of and trade in low-cost generic medicines.” The report argues that only a “subset of substandard and falsified medicines in developing-country markets is linked to criminal trademark infringement.” Therefore improved regulation of drugs by poor countries, not enforcement of intellectual property rules, is “the best way to ensure safe, effective, quality medicines,” it concludes. Mr Malpani says that the European Union and the United States continue to focus almost exclusively on eliminating counterfeit drugs, “which form only a small part of this public health problem—but which are a serious concern for their multinational companies.” He says that these companies have used the crisis in the quality of drugs in developing countries as an excuse to push for “new intellectual property rules that will boost the profits of pharmaceutical giants at the expense of affordable medicines for the poor.”
AND
Fundamental research must remain public domain. The advancements into molecular technology means that current patents are no longer about new processes, but the very building blocks of future medicines.
Gubby 20, Helen Gubby, Barrister and senior lecturer at the Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University, September 6th, 2019, “Is the Patent System a Barrier to Inclusive Prosperity? The Biomedical Perspective”, Global Policy, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12730 /
A common argument is that there is a distinction between fundamental research and the application of that research; fundamental research should remain in the public domain, while applications can be the province of patents. That is a misguided distinction. As Eisenberg and Nelson point out, the conventional view that basic research is a public enterprise while applied technology is a private enterprise conducted in the hope of earning profits, ignores the ways in which basic science and applied technology can frequently overlap: public and private interest may then conflict (Eisenberg and Nelson, 2002). Fundamental research can become proprietary. A patent should only give protection to an invention. According to US law, this invention must be ‘useful’ (35 US Code, Section 101) and the European Patent Convention 1973 (EPC) requires that an invention is capable of ‘industrial application’ (Art. 52, EPC). Patent law therefore mandates that there must be a practical application. Consequently, a patent does not extend to a discovery, the terrain of fundamental research, as this is explicitly excluded from patentability. The line between ‘discovery’ and ‘invention’ has, however, become exceedingly thin, if non-existent, with respect to molecular technology. The current position with regard to genes and DNA sequences in effect marks a departure from the traditional doctrine that excluded discoveries from patentability. Genes are not new products; they exist in nature and therefore cannot be invented. Yet today, genes and gene sequences are patented as inventions, being regarded as ‘products’. Even if a use of the gene or sequence is speculative, if a use is plausible at the time the patent is filed the utility requirement is fulfilled. The EPC was amended to be brought into line with the terms of the European Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. This Directive states: An element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, may constitute a patentable invention, even if the structure of that element is identical to that of a natural element.3 Taking an apparently different track, in 2013 the US Supreme Court stated that the mere act of isolating a gene from its surrounding genetic material was not an act of invention. The court did accept synthetic cDNA as patentable, as this was created in the laboratory.4 Scientists have voiced concern that what is often patented has not so much been produced but rather discovered, and is human genetic information rather than an invention (see for a summary of some of these arguments Bergel, 2015). These developments in patent law have created a very real danger: researchers could be barred from accessing fundamental research, which in turn could hinder new knowledge and further innovation. Back in 1998, Heller and Eisenberg warned policy makers to be alert: more upstream rights could block downstream innovation. In this way, the private ownership of biomedical research could lead to fewer useful products for improving human health (Heller and Eisenberg, 1998). If genes and DNA sequences are patent protected, then the patent owner has the right to exclude all others from using that technology. This breach of the discovery/invention distinction is symptomatic of the expansion of patentable subject matter at a global level, extending property claims deep into biology and limiting the scope for accessible treatment and future research (David and Halbert, 2017).
Contention 2 is Structural Violence
International patents and medical clusters are still predominantly located in More Developed Countriess
Dutta et al 19 Soumitra Dutta, Professor of Management and the former founding Dean of the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business at Cornell University, Bruno Lanvin, Executive Director for Global Indices at INSEAD, and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, Head of Section, Economics and Statistics Division, and co-editor of The Global Innovation Index (GII), 2019, “GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2019 Creating Healthy Lives—The Future of Medical Innovation 12th Edition,” Cornell SC Johnson School of Business, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_gii_2019.pdf/
*More Developed Countries = MDC’s
Regarding the quality of publications, rankings are rather stable with the U.S., the U.K., and Germany leading the GII rankings. Among middle-income economies, China takes the top position, followed by India. Regarding international patents, European countries take seven of the top 10 positions—with the three remaining spots going to Israel, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. Among the middle-income economies, China and South Africa take the top two positions, with India and Turkey registering improvements in this indicator. As in the previous two years, the GII 2019 includes a Special Section, which presents the latest ranking of the world’s largest science and technology (SandT) clusters. The top 10 clusters are the same as last year (Table C). Tokyo– Yokohama tops this ranking, followed by Shenzhen–Hong Kong. Figure H shows the concentration of top science and technology clusters worldwide. The U.S. continues to host the largest number of clusters (26), followed by China (18, two more than in 2018), Germany (10), France (5), the U.K. (4), and Canada (4). Australia, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Switzerland all hosted three clusters each. In addition, there are clusters from five middle-income economies in the top 100—Brazil, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation, and Turkey. Compared to last year, almost all Chinese clusters moved up the ranks. Also, compared to last year, there is a notable shift in the distribution of top patenting fields. Coinciding with this year’s GII theme, medical technology is now the most frequent patenting field—present in 19 clusters. Pharmaceuticals dropped to second place. Beijing is the top collaborating cluster for scientific co-authorships, followed by Washington, DC–Baltimore, MD; New York City, NY; Boston–Cambridge, MA; and Cologne, Germany. San Jose– San Francisco, CA is the most frequent top co-inventing cluster, followed by Beijing; Shenzhen–Hong Kong; and New York City, NY. The Chinese Academy of Sciences was the top academic entity for all of Beijing's collaborations. Entities that also drove their clusters’ collaborations were Johns Hopkins University (8, Washington, DC–Baltimore, MD), Columbia University (7, New York City, NY), and Harvard University (6, Boston–Cambridge, MA).
AND
Parents create monopoly pricing
Valentina Vadi, 15 (Prof., Law, Lancaster U.), NYU JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW, Fall 2015, 10.
Pharmaceutical patents create welfare-reducing monopoly rights, which often lead to higher prices due to a lack of competition, making medicines less affordable to the poor. Moreover, by engaging in "ever-greening" practices, pharmaceutical companies often use regulatory processes to extend their monopoly over highly profitable "blockbuster" medicines and further jeopardize access to medicines for the poor. Even where a state adopts emergency measures to limit IP rights to facilitate access to medicines, the state's compliance with international treaty obligations to protect IP rights may be disputed.
AND
Developing countries are excluded through the patent system, and diseases for tropical diseases are the most deterred. In addition, the lack of purchasing power means that patents are not developed within their country as the focus is on high income patent protected countries.
Gubby 20, Helen Gubby, Barrister and senior lecturer at the Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University, September 6th, 2019, “Is the Patent System a Barrier to Inclusive Prosperity? The Biomedical Perspective”, Global Policy, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12730
However, perhaps the largest group of patients excluded from the potential benefits of biomedical research are those in developing countries. Exclusion can originate in the very choice of which drugs pharma companies decide to develop. Their research tends to be market orientated. By the end of the twentieth century, only about one per cent of newly developed drugs were for tropical diseases, such as African sleeping sickness, dengue fever and leishmaniosis (Maurer et al., 2004). Companies aim to make a profit and satisfy shareholders. It is therefore not surprising that expensive RandD will be more geared up to the types of illnesses prevalent in developed countries, as these countries have more capital resources to pay the price for these drugs. As Stiglitz (2006: p. 1279) observed: ‘Poor people cannot afford drugs, and drug companies make investments that yield the highest returns’. Not only does the choice of which drug is developed significantly impact on developing countries: the imposition of stringent requirements for intellectual property protection under the TRIPS agreement is also a factor in access to treatment. This was made explicit in the World Bank report: Nothing is more controversial in TRIPS. It is conceivable that patent protection will increase incentives for RandD into treatments for diseases of particular concern to poor countries. However because purchasing power is so limited in the poorest countries, there is little reason to expect a significant boost in such RandD. Accordingly, many developing countries see little potential benefit from introducing patents. In contrast, potential costs could be significant. (World Bank, 2001, p. 137) The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement in 2001 did confirm the right of countries to use compulsory licences to gain access to medicines. By issuing a compulsory licence, the government gives permission to a third party to produce the patented product or process without the consent of the patent owner. The drug so produced is much cheaper than the brand name drug at the monopoly price. This right has already been exercised on various occasions, for example by the South African authorities in 2003 in order to create more general access to AIDS medicines.
AND
Global IP imbalances harm everyone, and fail to accommodate the needs of developing countries. We must take into consideration the ways in which global differences affect access to medicines.
Chen, 10 Ge Chen, Research Fellow, Institute for International Law and European Law, “Fragmentation of International Law: Its Impact on Access to Knowledge in International Copyright Scenario”, World Intellectual Property Organization, May 27th, 2010, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sme/en/wipo_smes_ge_10/wipo_smes_ge_10_ref_topic10_1.pdf
Under the institutional lens, the redistributive value of knowledge goods is likewise relatively unheeded, though it has been embraced as GPG indispensable to the common progress of the human society. 99 In terms of neoclassical economics public goods are necessitated by the market failure to satisfy certain basic human needs which shall be in turn accommodated by government regulation in its policy of social welfare. 100 However, access rights in IP regimes have immanently covered up the complexity of the redistributive uncertainties entailed in welfare disposition of knowledge goods. 101 In fact, how to ensure that the social benefits of recouping momentum for cumulative innovation from the current system are not diluted or offset by the social costs of deterring free riders with the relentless ratcheting up of IP standards constitutes a critical question which might otherwise adversely impinge on the provision and distribution of other public goods such as education and scientific research. In particular, when the imbalance is magnified on the global scale, the stakes will be considerably higher. 102 Presumably, by disentangling the unnecessarily fettered access to copyrighted works, the legislator could redefine the GPG and help the modern media like the Internet become an open marketplace for ideas and business transactions. 103 While ideas and information should then be used as a resource and management tool that allows the maximization of the value of processes and transactions, 104 an open market in the global trade sphere that distributes knowledge goods shall enable all nations including those with poor financial and innovative capacities to benefit from knowledge transfer. 105 It is the very vision of even distribution of sufficient GPG that has bolstered the uniform pursuit of optimal level of IP protection. 106 Unfortunately, however, the current paradigm of GPG governance fails to accommodate the needs of access to knowledge in developing countries due to the lack of a legitimate and effective regulatory regime that provides institutional backup to centralize and distribute all these global public resources on a uniform scale, which amounts to the “governance gap” on the international plane. 107 While developed countries have always treated knowledge in the form of creative expressions accomplished by their nationals as their exclusive natural resource worthy of strong legal protection, 108 knowledge cartels representing unilateral pursuit of private interests have manoeuvred into the centre of IP decision-making with their poignant lobbying capacities at the domestic level. 109 Moreover, these countries have endeavoured to exert great influence on global norm-setting in copyright fields and managed to impose a universally high standard comparable to their domestic level upon other nations as well. 110 In contrast, developing countries with limited innovation capacities and financial resources often claim that the benefits virtually accrue to consumers and users in other countries and postulate that divergent social and economic contingencies must be taken into consideration if global coordination in knowledge governance is to be made. 111