Kenya's Anti-Counterfeiting Act Challenged As Violating The Right To Health
from the confusing-generics-with-counterfeits dept
As a bunch of countries continue to negotiate ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, in secrecy, Kenya already has its own Anti-Counterfeit Act. Michael Geist points us to the news that that particular law is now being challenged in Kenya for violating peoples "right to health." The issue is worth following, because it will almost certainly become an issue assuming ACTA moves forward. Whenever we discuss ACTA, it's inevitable that someone stops by to say that anti-counterfeiting is really, really important to stop dangerous counterfeit drugs from being sold, potentially harming people. Now, I have no doubt that counterfeit drugs may be a serious problem -- but if that's the problem, we should target a narrow attack on that problem alone, not some wider "anti-counterfeiting" effort.We've already seen that lobbyist-funded and promoted reports on the "counterfeiting problem" are widely exaggerated, and any real "problem" is much smaller than the numbers that get tossed around. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that counterfeit products quite frequently lead to purchases of the real product in the future (i.e., people aren't "fooled" into buying counterfeits -- they know they're buying counterfeits). But that's with things like luxury goods. What about drugs?
Well, we've already seen that big pharmaceutical companies conveniently like to use anti-counterfeiting laws not to stop dangerous counterfeit drugs, but to destroy legitimate generic drugs. It's not about making sure that drugs and people are safe -- but quite the opposite. It's about limiting competition so that these pharma firms can jack up prices even higher.
And that's the issue in Kenya. About 90% of the drugs in Kenya are generics -- for a very good reason. Those drugs are much cheaper and are helpful in saving many lives. The Kenyan anti-counterfeit law makes counterfeiting a criminal issue, rather than a civil one, and gives the power to police and border officials, who have no way of knowing counterfeit from generic, so often label generic drugs as being counterfeits. There are plenty of good reasons to try to stop counterfeit drugs from hitting the market, but if that's the real problem, any solution should be narrowly focused on that specific problem. Unfortunately, since it's quite often the big pharmaceutical lobbyists who help write and push through these bills, that's not how it works at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: counterfeiting, drugs, generics, kenya, laws
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Question
The lobbyists...I'm not sure. I kind of think they just think about the job and not make the connection that what they're talking about is affecting real, living human beings. As for the execs...well, I for one have no problem believing those that run corrupt companies such as Bayer AG et al know full well they're killing people and are probably just happy that those people have darker skin.
Those IG Farben habits die hard, after all....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
That's bullshit. I can blame everyone that is participating in these deplorable practices. If the government said we could murder one another if it meant a job promotion, I can still blame those that decide to take advantage of that allowance.
I can blame all of them. And I do....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
I'm not saying these companies are devoid of blame--obviously, they don't have the public welfare in mind at all and sometimes take the lobbying route where they don't need to with a little innovation--but they do it because the government makes it the path of least resistance to making money(which is what businesses exist for, as they should). You don't bitch and moan about companies that have no power to do any of this and exist to make money(as they should), you bitch about the government for actually doing it when it exists to make a fair set of rules and doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
I don't know how things happen in Kenya, but ACTA is alive everywhere, and the people with the power to stop it are the ones most affected by it, yet they do nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
I think you're right on both accounts. Most of the lobbyists are mercenary... But the execs really do believe that the end result is more good than harm. It takes tremendous self-rationalization (and self-delusion at times). But the execs I've talked to at pharma companies all do seem to genuinely believe their position to be the proper one. Or they're very good actors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opposite
Those are not opposites. The opposite of "making sure that drugs and people are safe" is "making sure that drugs and people are not safe".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are the execs responsible for phulic anything
That company owns the public NOTHING, and that company has something the public WANTS. Why shouldnt the company look out for themselves?
In my business I treat my customers well and I look out for them because in turn they pay me and I can better look out for myself. My customers wouldn't look out for me, their loyalty is only there until someone else comes along and does more for less.
Of course I am going to look out for myself, and protect what will make me more money. I owe noone anything and noone owes me anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are the execs responsible for phulic anything
Sure. As a company. But that's different then having laws passed that favor the company over the public welfare. Gov't's *are* supposed to be concerned about the public welfare.
I never said that companies should be concerned about the public welfare -- but it should also be noted that pharma companies QUITE FREQUENTLY use the "public welfare" argument in their own defense. If they're going to use it, it's totally fair to call them on it, is it not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
um wait a minute
copyrights and patents were originally granted BY THE PUBLIC to the creator so he could garner SOME COMPENSATION
not hijack us and cause fatalities, not gouge and cause economic terrorism.
NOT create big holding companies that do not pay the artists they themselves actually counterfeit ( see the 6 billion lawsuit in Canada on the CRIA - the canuck version of the riaa )
SO people are dying because of these bastards....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It may be heartless, but that's teh way of business. welcome to capatilism.
If you don't like move to a socialist country, and hope they make counterfit the drugs.
but if the pharma companies don't make the money, research will stop and new drugs to treat those willing to pay won't be available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
General vs. specific laws
My purpose here is not to argue for or against either position. (My first impulse is to agree with both, actually.) I just want to point out that one of your positions could be used in arguments against the other to claim that you don't follow consistent principles. Perhaps you could find a way to sharpen your statements on both of these positions so that your opponents could not so easily make use of one in arguments against the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]