Thread by @hhesterm

Allow me to tell you a short story of pharma patents in world trade. The story start in the old days of GATT. Where patents were decidedly not part of world trade law (thread)

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1375910686128230407

In those old days, it was a decision of each country whether to grant patents or not. Each country had to think "will this be a good choice for us? an incentive for research? Or actually counterproductive exclusivity?"

But in some developing countries this was perceived as unfair. In the US some thought "we pay higher prices for innovation. You just get it for free". Pharma patents were central to the debate.

In the 1980s the US accused Brazil of not respecting pharma patents. Brazil unsurprisingly argued we do not have to under the GATT. nytimes.com/1989/02/22/bus…

And then along came the Uruguay round. The developed world wanted IP to enter the world trade system. The developing world didn't really. The mandate was a diplomatic compromise.

Industry build a coalition to lobby for IP. The outcome was an agreement that makes patent protection mandatory. Compulsory licenses are allowed - under conditions. What does that mean?

Basically a state can under certain conditions allow others to produce the patented product, one of the conditions is you have to pay for that. The conditions are in Art. 31 TRIPS.

And again pharma patents were at the core of this debate. And US pharma was amongst the main forces in lobbying here.

HIV drugs were one of the major fighting points here, where drug companies charged exorbitant prices. The fights about this fill books.

One of the infamous episodes here is that India made granting patents a bit more stringent - in compliance with TRIPS - and the US made banning clauses like the Indian one an item in their trade negotiations.

So this changed position is both stunning and welcome.

If you want to read more, there is of course always this book... global.oup.com/academic/produ…

One final clarification: people often get confused about patents and say "Brazil breaks a US patent." That is incorrect. Patents are territorial. A UK patent is valid for the UK. It grants no protection elsewhere. But the same company might hold a similar patent in Brazil.