search engine

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Is the patents bill good for India

Global pressure, coercion, ignorance, cowardice and conspiracy and not national interest are forcing India's Parliament to amend our exemplary Patents Act 1970 under threat from WTO and its TRIPS treaty.America's Super 301 places India on 'priority watch' threatening sanctions.

India has buckled supinely. Public debate was throttled. Signing WTO was deliberately not fully discussed in Parliament.Bills to implement TRIPS are being cascaded through on voice votes and minimum attention. The Joint Committee (1999-2001) ignored most suggestions and toed the line - with many legal stalwarts barely attending meetings. Parliament became Geneva's rubber stamp.The issues are simple. A patent is a monopoly which, in a free trade treaty is, itself a contradiction. But, we know that 60-90 % of patents are, and will be, owned by foreigners.

Why has India followed TRIPS to grant 20-year monopolies to foreigners through patents? The argument that research will stop without the incentive of luxurious returns is bogus.Research gets huge tax benefits. Good returns follow in 3-4 market years. India's sovereign Parliament could have declared a shorter patent of 5-10 years from the date of sealing.To protect public health, patents should be given only for molecules. Patented combinations can last forever. Researchers are troubled by issues relating to micro-organisms, genetic research and steps in basic research being patented.This will stifle basic research. Doha required stronger compulsory licensing provisions, fixed royalties of around 4 % and better public interest provisions enabling a modified licence of right as scheduled by the government for health, food and energy and research.Poor nations with ailing needs should be empowered to break corporate monopolies at will to meet their needs. The Parliament cannot mindlessly translate treaty into law.American law declares that its law will prevail over the WTO. India would have been better off telling WTO that its sovereign parliament does not accept certain provisions.It was cowardice not to do so. The promise of a possible third amendment is illusory. Yet, another ruse.

No comments: