Striking balance between social need and profit
Given how disputes over intellectual property rights have become a major irritant in India's economic engagement with the rest of the world, the Modi Government has done well to begin tackling the issue head-on. Especially since the new administration is placing trade and commerce at the heart of India's foreign policy, an effective IPR regime that is in keeping with international standards and also conscious of domestic interests, is the need of the hour. The Union Government has already promised such a regime within the next couple of months, and, additionally, is also working on a one-on-one basis with partner countries to iron out long-standing differences. At the top of the list is the US which has repeatedly complained that India's existing IP laws are regressive and, in some cases, violative of international laws. In fact, ever since the Office of the US Trade Representative began publishing its annual Special 301 Report — which assesses the state of IP protection in countries with which the US does business — India has been on its priority watch-list. This year, the USTR threatened to downgrade India's rating and also announced an out-of-turn review, which could be a prelude to unilateral sanctions. Hopefully, the new bilateral mechanism to look into these contentious issues, announced during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent US trip should stave off a crisis, and also allow enough time and space to resolve the issues for the long term.
The Special 301 Report lists five areas of major concern: Copyright and piracy, patents and regulatory data protection, trademarks and counterfeit, trade secrets, and localisation trends. In each of these cases, India either lacks legal protection or that existing laws are not adequately enforced. Some cases, however, are more contentious than others — such as patents in the field of pharmaceuticals. An important case in point is the Supreme Court's landmark 2012 judgement in the Novartis case that allowed a local drug manufacturer to produce and sell a patented cancer medicine without the patent holder's permission. Such ‘evergreening' of drugs helps drastically reduce the price of otherwise prohibitively expensive, life-saving medicines. Understandably, it is opposed by big pharmaceutical companies who argue that they invest millions of dollars to develop these medicines and, therefore, have the right to profit from their sale. But there is also an equally strong argument, put forth not just by India but Governments of other developing countries which must protect the interests of millions of poor citizens as well, that the larger public good comes before individual profit. In such cases, a middle ground has to be found. Besides, an effective IPR regime is not just about keeping big corporates happy; it is as much about supporting innovation and entrepreneurship in the country. For example, India's lax piracy laws in the field of media and entertainment hurt foreign and domestic businesses alike.