IP: Talking points on Cipro patent dispute

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:03:17 -0400
> From: James Love <love () cptech org>
> To: "Farber, David" <farber () cis upenn edu>
>
>
> Talking points on Cipro patent dispute
> October 24, 2001 , version 1.0
>
> James Love <love () cptech org>
> cell 1.202.361.3040
> http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/cl/cipro/
>
> 1.  The need for generic ciprofloxacin depends upon three factors.
>
>    a.  Can terrorists deliver anthrax to large numbers of people?
>    b.  Do the terrorists have access to strains of anthrax that are
> resistance to other (cheaper and widely available) antibiotics?
>    c.  Could an attack take place before Bayer could deliver large
> quantities of cipro?
>
> 2.   Based upon what we know, there is a non-zero chance that all of
> these things could happen.  In fact, no one knows what the probability
> is, but it clearly not a trivial risk, given the consequences.
>
> 3.  There is evidence that the Russians have developed strains of
> Anthrax that are resistant to ordinary antibiotics.
>
> 4.  The Federation of American Scientists say that 100 kilos of Anthrax
> could kill 1 to 3 million persons.
> (http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/bw/agent.htm#b02).  Many have pointed out
> that this is difficult, but it is also not impossible. There is no
> evidence that the terrorists can do this, but there is also no evidence
> that they cannot do this.
>
> 5.  Secretary Thompson says we need medications for 10 million persons.
> At the 120 pill recommended course of treatment for ciprofloxacin, this
> is 1.2 billion pills.  Bayer says it can produce 2 million per day.  At
> this rate it would take 600 days to supply 1.2 billion pills.  The US is
> now saying it will only provide 10 doses of ciprofloxacin, and then
> switch to a cheaper antibiotic.  The rationale for switching is not
> clear, particular if we face an attack with a disease resistant
> strain.
>
> 6.  Apparently 5 generic companies have already received US FDA
> clearance for the quality of their ciprofloxacin, and could immediately
> be asked to manufacture the drug.
>
> 7.  The US government already has the right to use patents without a
> license, under 28 US 1498.
> (http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/cl/us-1498.html), an authority which is
> often used for other patents.  The US could also pass HR 1708, which
> would address the problems in 1498 regarding compensation.
>
> 8.  The US can clearly address supply issues faster with six suppliers,
> than with one. (see http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/cl/cipro/)
>
> 9.  The US is cutting corners on public health to protect its
> negotiating position in the Doha WTO meeting on November 9-13, where the
> issue of compulsory licensing of drugs, and imports under a compulsory
> license where a country does not have domestic capacity for production,
> is a central issue, with the US, Canada and the EU opposing the Africa
> group.
>
> 10.  Americans are being put at risk in order to protect the
> pharmaceutical companies in Africa and other developing countries.
>
> 11.  The entire dispute is about how much risk we are willing to
> undertake to protect the idea that patents are more important than
> public health.  Thompson and others are rolling the dice, hoping we
> don't need ciprofloxacin.  I hope they are right and we don't need
> ciprofloxacin, but I don't think we should take unncessary risks with
> the public health, and certainly not to make a polemical point over
> patent rights.
>
>
> --
> James Love
> Consumer Project on Technology
> P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love () cptech org
> voice: 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176 mobile 1.202.361.3040
> _______________________________________________
> Info-policy-notes mailing list
> Info-policy-notes () lists essential org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/info-policy-notes


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/