Changing the IP Debate

Intellectual property rights have been in the news quite a bit recently in light of the ongoing controversy over Novartis' pursuit of patent rights for its cancer drug Gleevec in India as well as Abbott's announcement that it will not register any new drugs in Thailand following the government's decision to issue compulsory licenses for two AIDS medications as well as a common drug for heart disease. In my mind, these cases represent a fundamental shift in the IP debate away from its origins as part of the broader discourse on HIV/AIDS in Africa. Instead, India and Thailand - both lower-middle-income countries - seem to have taken a much broader interpretation of their rights under the TRIPs agreement, extending its application beyond just ARVs to include chronic and non-communicable diseases. As pharmaceutical companies attempt to navigate these muddy waters, they are now forced to re-evaluate the line between charitable social responsibility and real market development - and so as I see it, the slope between providing drugs now and incentivizing future innovation just got a whole lot more slippery.