US backs waiving intellectual property rules on vaccine

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
Post Reply
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19609
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

US backs waiving intellectual property rules on vaccine

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Nevermind that surrendering IP could disincentivize businesses taking risks in the future, wouldn't the immediate risk be a race to gobble up scarce raw materials used to produce the vaccines?

US backs waiving intellectual property rules on vaccines
https://apnews.com/article/intellectual ... eb6fe4f1e5
US backs waiving intellectual property rules on vaccines
By JAMEY KEATEN and ZEKE MILLER

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration on Wednesday joined calls for more sharing of the technology behind COVID-19 vaccines to help speed the end of the pandemic, a shift that puts the U.S. alongside many in the developing world who want rich countries to do more to get doses to the needy.

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai announced the government’s position, amid World Trade Organization talks about a possible temporary waiver of its protections that would allow more manufacturers to produce the life-saving vaccines.

“The Administration believes strongly in intellectual property protections, but in service of ending this pandemic, supports the waiver of those protections for COVID-19 vaccines,” Tai said in a statement.

She cautioned that it would take time to reach the required global “consensus” to waive the protections under WTO rules, and U.S. officials said it would not have an immediate effect on the global supply of COVID-19 shots.

In a tweet, the director of the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, John N. Nkengasong, said the Africa CDC welcomed the waiver and called the decision “leadership in action.” He added: “History will remember this decision as a great act of humanity!”

Tai’s announcement came hours after WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala spoke to a closed-door meeting of ambassadors from developing and developed countries that have been wrangling over the issue, but agree on the need for wider access to COVID-19 treatments.

MORE ON THE PANDEMIC
– COVID's US toll projected to drop sharply by the end of July
– On social media, memories pop up from a pandemic still going
– Remote learning still widespread even after Biden hits goal
The WTO’s General Council took up the issue of a temporary waiver for intellectual property protections on COVID-19 vaccines and other tools, which South Africa and India first proposed in October. The idea has gained support among some progressive lawmakers in the West.

More than 100 countries have come out in support of the proposal, and a group of 110 members of Congress — all fellow Democrats of Biden — sent him a letter last month that called on him to support the waiver.

Opponents — especially from industry — say a waiver would be no panacea. They insist that production of coronavirus vaccines is complex and can’t be ramped up by easing intellectual property. They also say lifting protections could hurt future innovation.

Stephen Ubl, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said the U.S. decision “will sow confusion between public and private partners, further weaken already strained supply chains and foster the proliferation of counterfeit vaccines.”

Dr. Michelle McMurry-Heath, chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization trade group, said in a statement that the decision will undermine incentives to develop vaccines and treatments for future pandemics.

“Handing needy countries a recipe book without the ingredients, safeguards, and sizable workforce needed will not help people waiting for the vaccine,” she said.

Pfizer declined to comment on Biden’s announcement, as did Johnson & Johnson, which developed a one-dose vaccine meant to ease vaccination campaigns in poor and rural areas. Moderna and AstraZeneca didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

The companies have made some efforts to provide vaccine doses to poor countries at prices well below what they’re charging wealthy nations.

For instance, Johnson & Johnson agreed last week to provide up to 220 million doses of its vaccine to the African Union’s 55 member states, starting in this year’s third quarter, and agreed in December to provide up to 500 million vaccines through 2022 for low-income countries via Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance.

Shares of Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson — huge companies with many lucrative products — fell less than 1% on the news. But Moderna, whose vaccine is the company’s only product, fell 6.2% in late-afternoon trading before gaining back two-thirds of a percent in after-hours trading.

It remained unclear how some countries in Europe, which have influential pharmaceutical industries and had previously shared U.S. reservations about the waiver, would respond.

WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell said a panel on intellectual property at the trade body was expected to take up the waiver proposal again at a “tentative” meeting later this month, before a formal meeting June 8-9. That means any final deal could be weeks away at best.

Authors of the proposal have been revising it in hopes of making it more palatable.

Okonjo-Iweala, in remarks posted on the WTO website, said it was “incumbent on us to move quickly to put the revised text on the table, but also to begin and undertake text-based negotiations.”

“I am firmly convinced that once we can sit down with an actual text in front of us, we shall find a pragmatic way forward” that is “acceptable to all sides,” she said.

Co-sponsors of the idea were shuttling between different diplomatic missions to make their case, according to a Geneva trade official who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. A deadlock persists, and opposing sides remain far apart, the official said.

The argument, part of a long-running debate about intellectual property protections, centers on lifting patents, copyrights and protections for industrial design and confidential information to help expand the production and deployment of vaccines during supply shortages. The aim is to suspend the rules for several years, just long enough to beat down the pandemic.

The issue has become more pressing with a surge in cases in India, the world’s second-most populous country and a key producer of vaccines — including one for COVID-19 that relies on technology from Oxford University and British-Swedish pharmaceutical maker AstraZeneca.

Michael Yee, a Jefferies Group biotech analyst, wrote to investors that the key access issues for developing countries aren’t patents or price, but an inadequate supply of the materials needed and the know-how to produce the vaccines and keep quality high — which one of Johnson & Johnson’s contract manufacturers in the U.S. failed to do, ruining millions of doses.

“Manufacturing supplies, raw materials, vials, stoppers, and other key materials are in limited supply for 2021,” and may still be next year and beyond, Yee wrote. That’s partly because it takes time to make all those components, and Moderna and Pfizer have commitments to buy them “from major suppliers in huge bulk over the foreseeable future.”

He added that Pfizer previously sought authorization to sell its vaccine to India, which rejected its application and asked that additional studies be run. The U.S., European Union and many other countries have given that emergency authorization.

Proponents, including WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, note that such waivers are part of the WTO toolbox and insist there’s no better time to use them than during the once-in-a-century pandemic that has taken 3.2 million lives, infected more than 437 million people and devastated economies, according to Johns Hopkins University.

“This is a monumental moment in the fight against COVID-19,” Tedros said in Wednesday statement. He said the U.S. commitment “to support the waiver of IP protections on vaccines is a powerful example of American leadership to address global health challenges.”
easyrider16
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
Posts: 3795
Joined: Nov 10th, '19, 15:56

Re: US backs waiving intellectual property rules on vaccine

Post by easyrider16 »

Couple of thoughts:

1) many of these companies received government money to develop these vaccines; seems only fair that in exchange they give up some IP rights

2) this is temporary and limited to other countries, right? So their patents are still in place here, and they will resume once the pandemic is over?

3) is it a manufacturing issue or a supply issue? If the latter, I'm not sure how this would help.

On balance, a temporary IP waiver given the circumstances of a worldwide pandemic seems okay, and probably wouldn't deter companies from pursuing vaccine research. I imagine pfizer, moderna, etc have all done pretty well so far with this, and this kind of waiver is likely to be exceedingly rare.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


User avatar
spanky
Site Admin
Posts: 6381
Joined: Nov 4th, '04, 20:50
Location: 40.768N 73.982W

Re: US backs waiving intellectual property rules on vaccine

Post by spanky »

This is a tough one. While I think we, as a nation, have a responsibility to help out less fortune countries, we also have a responsibility to protect IP.

Why can’t the US based companies produce the vaccine overseas? Even if that requires the foreign governments to force their pharma companies to relinquish control of the local manufacturing to the US companies? All in the spirit of saving lives. No?

I’m pretty sure Pfizer didn’t take any US money.
Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, then overwhelm you with their experience.

"I have noticed that when you post, you often say more about yourself than the topic you chose to speak about." -The Suit
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19609
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: US backs waiving intellectual property rules on vaccine

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

spanky wrote: May 7th, '21, 16:20Why can’t the US based companies produce the vaccine overseas?
They do. It’s a supply issue first and manufacturing issue second. I don’t see how sharing our IP addresses the root issues. Not to mention mRNA is still new and most companies don’t have the manufacturing ability.

I think this is a “feel good” act that won’t have a material impact on COVID.

You’ve got countries like India that said no to the mRNA vaccines and now we’re going to give our IP so they can make it themselves? Seems to be cutting our nose off to spite our face.
User avatar
spanky
Site Admin
Posts: 6381
Joined: Nov 4th, '04, 20:50
Location: 40.768N 73.982W

Re: US backs waiving intellectual property rules on vaccine

Post by spanky »

XtremeJibber2001 wrote: May 7th, '21, 17:21
spanky wrote: May 7th, '21, 16:20Why can’t the US based companies produce the vaccine overseas?
They do. It’s a supply issue first and manufacturing issue second. I don’t see how sharing our IP addresses the root issues. Not to mention mRNA is still new and most companies don’t have the manufacturing ability.

I think this is a “feel good” act that won’t have a material impact on COVID.

You’ve got countries like India that said no to the mRNA vaccines and now we’re going to give our IP so they can make it themselves? Seems to be cutting our nose off to spite our face.
What I meant by that was, “using other companies’ facilities” overseas.

These mRNA vaccines are cutting edge technology. There could be significant medical advances (e.g., cancer treatments) and I don’t think these companies are going to easily give up that potential revenue. IMO, rightfully so.

Edit: and if it is a supply issue, sharing the tech is meaningless.
Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, then overwhelm you with their experience.

"I have noticed that when you post, you often say more about yourself than the topic you chose to speak about." -The Suit
easyrider16
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
Posts: 3795
Joined: Nov 10th, '19, 15:56

Re: US backs waiving intellectual property rules on vaccine

Post by easyrider16 »

Remember patent and copyright information is made public. If this mRNA stuff is protected by patent and/or copyright, everyone already has the information on how it works. They're just not legally allowed to use it. A temporary waiver would allow companies to use the IP for a limited time, after which they again would have to cease using it. So it's a very limited giveaway. Given the pandemic, this seems reasonable. However if it really is a supply issue rather than manufacturing capacity, I agree it wouldn't help.

The below article seems to suggest that the manufacturers really aren't concerned about this sort of waiver, but also that it's not likely to make a difference because (1) the real issue is supply not manufacturing capacity, and (2) it's unlikely competitors could ramp up to produce vaccines quickly enough to undercut the billions of doses the current manufacturers have in the pipeline now. Frankly it seems like it would be a waste for other companies to try, as by the time they ramp up, moderna, pfizer, j&j, etc. will have already made enough to meet demand. In short, sounds like a feel good thing with limited practical impact.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/06/covid-v ... ivers.html

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk





XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19609
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: US backs waiving intellectual property rules on vaccine

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

spanky wrote: May 7th, '21, 19:01
XtremeJibber2001 wrote: May 7th, '21, 17:21
spanky wrote: May 7th, '21, 16:20Why can’t the US based companies produce the vaccine overseas?
They do. It’s a supply issue first and manufacturing issue second. I don’t see how sharing our IP addresses the root issues. Not to mention mRNA is still new and most companies don’t have the manufacturing ability.

I think this is a “feel good” act that won’t have a material impact on COVID.

You’ve got countries like India that said no to the mRNA vaccines and now we’re going to give our IP so they can make it themselves? Seems to be cutting our nose off to spite our face.
What I meant by that was, “using other companies’ facilities” overseas.

These mRNA vaccines are cutting edge technology. There could be significant medical advances (e.g., cancer treatments) and I don’t think these companies are going to easily give up that potential revenue. IMO, rightfully so.

Edit: and if it is a supply issue, sharing the tech is meaningless.
Historically, India has been responsible for more than 50% of the worlds vaccine manufacturing. There’s nothing stopping those plants from forging agreements with drug companies to produce the mRNA vaccines. However, transporting them may prove difficult.

It’s all symbolic / feel good for now ... except it will create more problems with supply.
Post Reply