Alternative approaches to IP regulation
Official Australian policy (produced by the ARC, AVCC, NHMRC, DETYA, etc etc in 2001; National Principles of Intellectual Property Management of Publicly Funded Research) says very little about the implications of Australian patenting and licensing policies for promoting access to essential medicines in developing countries.</br>
In fact there is a wide range of alternatives to the exclusive patent model, many of which could contribute to to promoting wider access. These include: non-exclusive patenting; open source licensing conditions; patent pools; and the medical prize proposal.
Open source licensing is of particular relevance to publicly funded research institutions who undertake much of the cost of developing new pharmaceuticals.
Chaifetz, S., et al., Closing the access gap for health innovations: an open licensing proposal for universities. 2007. Globalisation and Health 3:1, p. 1. [web link]</br>
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines [web link]. Statement of Principles [Principles]</br>
Report of WHO Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health [Web link]</br>
Brewster et al (2005) [Innovation Strategy Today]</br>
ICRISAT Policy on IPRs [IP management]</br>
Possible role for patent pooling in managing SARS [Patent Pooling]</br>
Patent pools [Patent Pools]</br>
Anti-commons in biomedical research [Anticommons]</br>
Stiglitz on the Medical Prize Fund [BMJ]</br>
