Alfred Engelberg, a Florida-based IP lawyer, had a letter in the Financial Times yesterday questioning whether intellectual property protection for pharmaceutical companies had gone too far:

...Seemingly oblivious to a growing chorus of concern about imbalance, trade negotiators for the most developed nations, spurred on by a powerful group of multinational pharmaceutical, software and entertainment giants who see new profit opportunities in emerging markets, seek to impose even greater levels of intellectual property rights protection. In some cases, they are demanding that developing nations impose protection levels that go beyond existing law in their own country. They also seek global harmonisation of patent laws - not for the purpose of raising the quality of patents or the standards of patentability, but rather to make it easier and cheaper to obtain and enforce patents....

As was demonstrated by the Cipro shortage during the anthrax scare of 2001 and recently by the Tamiflu shortage, developed nations will not hesitate to throw their intellectual property regimes overboard to satisfy their national interests. Yet they do not seem to appreciate the burden that excessive intellectual property protections impose on developing nations with fragile economies and limited resources.

The time has come not only for a pause in the imposition of greater levels of intellectual property rights protection but, more importantly, for a careful re-examination of whether the existing rules regarding both the creation and enforcement of those rights are balanced in a manner that truly supports sustainable development.