Question

Part I: Do you agree with the compulsory licensing of lifesaving medications to national health emergencies? What are the consequences of compulsory licensing to the patentee and the people in need of these medications (in wealthy and poor countries)? Write a one page explanation of your opinion and conclusion.

Part II: Now assume that instead of medication, it is lifesaving technology -- do you have the same opinions? what would this do to the patentee, the people in need of the technology and the supply/demand of the technology? (for example, artificially created (3D printed biotechnology) organs ready for transplant) Write a one page explanationhow you feel this is different or the same as the scenario in Part I. (Simply answering "it is the same" will earn a credit of 0 pts-you must fully explain your answer) .

Answer 1

Part 1

Compulsory licencing is the process of giving authorisation by the government to a third party to make, market and use particular techniques which have already got patent without the permission of the patent owner.

The compulsory licencing is really a controversial issue. In case compulsory licencing of life savings drugs allows a particular pharmaceutical companies to manufacture and sell the medications. It is considered as a tool to ensure that every one have equal access to these medications at affordable prices. Actually there will be no competition among various pharmaceutical companies.

I think compulsory licencing is not good for health system because:

• This will reduce the availability of medicines, since very few companies are authorised to manufacture and sell.
• This will gradually reduces or not showing improvement in quality of medications, there's monopoly exists and the company does not face competition from others.
• Also, this will reduce the attempts of innovations in enhancing effectiveness or new technological improvements
• Chances of frequent price hikes.
• The particular company may obviously aims for profit, this will affect the quality and prices of medicines.
• Sometimes, there will be a chance of contention between the patent owner and the pharmaceutical company.

Part 2

Life saving technologies are also important in enhancing the effectiveness of patient care.Various technological innovations in health care system such as 3D printing, biotechnology, app enabled blood glucose monitoring system, dialysis, insulin pen and pumps etc. These all technologies enhance effectiveness of life than earlier.

I have same opinion on compulsory licencing of life savings medical technologies too.

• Innovation are the important component in improving various technical advancement in health care. Innovation should be conducted in each and every sector to make it become more competent to deal with new scenarios and new challenges. I think compulsory licencing which reduces the chances of innovations. Once a company possess a monopoly in manufacturing certain technical equipments, threre should not be any motivation to bring new innovations.
• They more focus on their profit and market.
• Also there we cannot find a proper maintenance system for those technologies.
• . Three will also possibility of illegal trading. It will be a platform for impure partnership with government and private companies. More chances of corruption will arises.

Conclusion

In my opinion, compulsory licencing of life savings medications as well as technologies are not good for health care system. Actually it Will decelerate the pace of innovations and quality of the medicines and technologies.