Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Pfizer’s appeals make it sound as though the frame­work of intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rules and phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal monop­o­lies is a com­mon-sense glob­al order whose ben­e­fits to human soci­ety are appar­ent. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Pfizer’s appeals make it sound as though the frame­work of intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rules and phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal monop­o­lies is a com­mon-sense glob­al order whose ben­e­fits to human soci­ety are appar­ent. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Pfizer Helped Create the Global Patent Rules. Now It's Using Them to Undercut Access to the Covid Vaccine.

The pharmaceutical company is opposing a proposal at the World Trade Organization to expand vaccine access to poor countries.

Sarah Lazare

 by In These Times

The phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal giant Pfiz­er, whose Covid-19 vac­cine with Ger­man part­ner BioN­Tech was approved Decem­ber 11 for emer­gency use in the Unit­ed States, has emerged as a vocal oppo­nent of a glob­al effort to ensure poor coun­tries are able to access the vac­cine. In Octo­ber, India and South Africa put for­ward a pro­pos­al that the World Trade Orga­ni­za­tion (WTO) pause enforce­ment of patents for Covid-19 treat­ments, under the organization’s intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty agree­ment, ​Trade-Relat­ed Aspects of Intel­lec­tu­al Prop­er­ty Rights,” or TRIPS. Now sup­port­ed by near­ly 100 coun­tries, the pro­pos­al would allow for the more afford­able pro­duc­tion of gener­ic treat­ments dur­ing the dura­tion of the pan­dem­ic. As wealthy coun­tries hoard vac­cine stocks, and one study warns a quar­ter of the world’s pop­u­la­tion won’t get the vac­cine until 2022, the pro­pos­al — if approved — could poten­tial­ly save count­less lives in the Glob­al South.

But so far, the Unit­ed States, the Euro­pean Union, Britain, Nor­way, Switzer­land, Japan and Cana­da have suc­cess­ful­ly blocked this pro­pos­al, in a con­text where delay will almost cer­tain­ly bring more deaths. The phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try, con­cerned with pro­tect­ing its prof­its, is a pow­er­ful part­ner in this oppo­si­tion, with Pfiz­er among its lead­ers. ​The (intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty), which is the blood of the pri­vate sec­tor, is what brought a solu­tion to this pan­dem­ic and it is not a bar­ri­er right now,” Albert Bourla, chief exec­u­tive of Pfiz­er, declared last week. And in a Decem­ber 5 arti­cle in The Lancet, Pfiz­er reg­is­tered its oppo­si­tion to the pro­pos­al, say­ing, ​a one-size-fits-all mod­el dis­re­gards the spe­cif­ic cir­cum­stances of each sit­u­a­tion, each prod­uct and each country.”

Pfizer’s appeals make it sound as though the frame­work of intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rules and phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal monop­o­lies is a com­mon-sense glob­al order whose ben­e­fits to human soci­ety are appar­ent. But, in real­i­ty, these inter­na­tion­al norms are rel­a­tive­ly recent, and were shaped, in part, by Pfiz­er itself. From the mid-1980s to the ear­ly 1990s, the com­pa­ny played a crit­i­cal role in estab­lish­ing the very WTO intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rules that it is now invok­ing to argue against free­ing up vac­cine sup­plies for poor coun­tries. The ​blood of the pri­vate sec­tor” that Bourla appeals to is not some nat­ur­al state of affairs, but reflects a glob­al trade struc­ture the com­pa­ny helped cre­ate — to the detri­ment of poor peo­ple around the world who seek access to life-sav­ing drugs.

A cor­po­rate campaign

In the mid-1980s, Edmund Pratt, then chair­man of Pfiz­er, had a mis­sion: He want­ed to ensure that strong intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty (IP) pro­tec­tions were includ­ed in the Uruguay Round of the Gen­er­al Agree­ment on Tar­iffs and Trade (GATT) talks — the multi­na­tion­al trade nego­ti­a­tions that would result in the estab­lish­ment of the WTO in 1995. His cal­cu­lus was sim­ple: Such pro­tec­tions were vital for pro­tect­ing the glob­al ​com­pet­i­tive­ness” — or bot­tom line — of his com­pa­ny and oth­er U.S. indus­tries.

In reality, these international norms are relatively recent, and were shaped, in part, by Pfizer itself.

To his great advan­tage, Pratt had con­sid­er­able insti­tu­tion­al pow­er beyond his imme­di­ate cor­po­rate rank. As authors Cha­ran Dev­ereaux, Robert Z. Lawrence and Michael D. Watkins note in their book, Case Stud­ies in U.S. Trade Nego­ti­a­tion, Pratt served on the Advi­so­ry Com­mit­tee on Trade Nego­ti­a­tions for the Carter and Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tions. In 1986, he co-found­ed the Intel­lec­tu­al Prop­er­ty Com­mit­tee (IPC), which would go on to build rela­tion­ships with indus­tries across Europe and Japan, meet with offi­cials from the World Intel­lec­tu­al Prop­er­ty Orga­ni­za­tion of the Unit­ed Nations, and lob­by aggres­sive­ly — all for the pur­pose of ensur­ing IP was includ­ed in the trade negotiations.

Both glob­al­ly and domes­ti­cal­ly, Pfiz­er played an impor­tant role in pro­mot­ing the idea that inter­na­tion­al trade should be con­tin­gent on strong intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rules, while cast­ing coun­tries that do not fol­low U.S. intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rules as engag­ing in ​pira­cy.” As Peter Dra­hos and John Braith­waite note in their book Infor­ma­tion Feu­dal­ism, ​Like the beat of a tom-tom, the mes­sage about intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty went out along the busi­ness net­works to cham­bers of com­merce, busi­ness coun­cils, busi­ness com­mit­tees, trade asso­ci­a­tions and busi­ness bod­ies. Pro­gres­sive­ly, Pfiz­er exec­u­tives who occu­pied key posi­tions in strate­gic busi­ness orga­ni­za­tions were able to enroll their sup­port for a trade-based approach to intel­lec­tu­al property.”

It was not a giv­en, at the time, that intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty would be includ­ed in trade nego­ti­a­tions. Many Third World coun­tries resist­ed such inclu­sion, on the grounds that stronger intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rules would pro­tect the monop­oly pow­er of cor­po­ra­tions and under­mine domes­tic price con­trols, as explained in Case Stud­ies in U.S. Trade Nego­ti­a­tion. In 1982, Indi­an Prime Min­is­ter Indi­ra Gand­hi told the World Health Assem­bly, ​the idea of a bet­ter ordered world is one in which med­ical dis­cov­ery will be free of all patents and there will be no prof­i­teer­ing from life and death.” The Chris­t­ian Sci­ence Mon­i­tor report­ed in 1986, ​Brazil and Argenti­na have spear­head­ed a group that has blocked US attempts to include intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty pro­tec­tion in the new round of talks.”

But Pratt had pow­er­ful allies, includ­ing IBM chair­man John Opel, and their efforts played an impor­tant role in secur­ing the inclu­sion of TRIPS — which sets intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rules — in the GATT nego­ti­a­tions. Pratt, for his part, took some cred­it for the devel­op­ment. ​The cur­rent GATT vic­to­ry, which estab­lished pro­vi­sions for intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty, result­ed in part from the hard-fought efforts of the U.S. gov­ern­ment and U.S. busi­ness­es, includ­ing Pfiz­er, over the past three decades. We’ve been in it from the begin­ning, tak­ing a lead­er­ship role,” Pratt declared, accord­ing to the book, Whose Trade Orga­ni­za­tion? A Com­pre­hen­sive Guide to the WTO.

Dur­ing the TRIPS nego­ti­a­tions, the IPC played an active role in orga­niz­ing cor­po­rate lead­ers in the Unit­ed States, as well as Europe and Japan, to sup­port strong intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rules. By the time the WTO was for­mal­ly estab­lished, and the TRIPs Agree­ment con­clud­ed, Pratt was no longer chair­man of Pfiz­er. But his con­tri­bu­tion, and the role of Pfiz­er, was still strong­ly felt. As Dev­ereaux, Lawrence and Watkins note, one U.S. nego­tia­tor said it was Pratt and Opel who ​basi­cal­ly engi­neered, pushed, and cajoled the gov­ern­ment into includ­ing IP as one of the top­ics for nego­ti­a­tion” in the first place.

The WTO’s TRIPS Agree­ment, which went into effect in 1995, would go on to be the ​most impor­tant agree­ment on intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty of the 20th cen­tu­ry,” Dra­hos and Braith­waite write. It brought most of the world under min­i­mum stan­dards for intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty, includ­ing patent monop­o­lies for phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies, with some lim­it­ed safe­guards and flex­i­bil­i­ty.

Dean Bak­er, econ­o­mist and co-founder of the Cen­ter for Eco­nom­ic and Pol­i­cy Research (CEPR), a left-lean­ing think tank, tells In These Times, ​TRIPS required devel­op­ing coun­tries, and coun­tries around the world, to adopt a U.S.-type patent and copy­right rule. Pre­vi­ous­ly, both had been out­side trade agree­ments, so coun­tries could have what­ev­er rules they want. India already had a well-devel­oped phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try by the 1990s. Pre-TRIPS, India did­n’t allow drug com­pa­nies to patent drugs. They could patent process­es, but not drugs.”

Cut­ting off access to medicines

TRIPS brought prof­its to phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies and ​raised phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal costs in the U.S. and fur­ther restrict­ed the avail­abil­i­ty of life­sav­ing drugs in WTO devel­op­ing coun­tries,” accord­ing to cor­po­rate watch­dog group Pub­lic Cit­i­zen. This dynam­ic played out ruth­less­ly dur­ing the AIDS cri­sis, which was in full swing as the WTO was cre­at­ed. ​It took the South African gov­ern­ment almost a decade to break the monop­o­lies held by for­eign drug com­pa­nies that kept the coun­try hostage, and kept peo­ple there dying,” wrote Achal Prab­ha­la, Arjun Jayadev and Dean Bak­er in a recent piece in the New York Times.

One could make a map of global poverty, lay it over a map of vaccine access, and it would be a virtual one-to-one match.

It is dif­fi­cult to think of a clear­er case for sus­pend­ing intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty laws than a glob­al pan­dem­ic, a posi­tion that is cer­tain­ly not fringe in today’s polit­i­cal con­text. In addi­tion to a swath of glob­al activists, main­stream human rights groups and UN human rights experts have added their voic­es to the demand for a sus­pen­sion of patent laws. Their calls fol­low the glob­al jus­tice move­ment of the 1990s and ear­ly 2000s, which focused on the tremen­dous role of the WTO, along with oth­er glob­al insti­tu­tions like the World Bank and Inter­na­tion­al Mon­e­tary Fund, in expand­ing the pow­er of cor­po­ra­tions to under­mine domes­tic pro­tec­tions, from labor to envi­ron­ment to pub­lic health. The out­sized pow­er of the Unit­ed States and U.S. cor­po­ra­tions in the WTO — on dis­play in the block­ing of the pro­pos­al for a patent waiv­er — has been a key point of criticism.

Pfiz­er is not alone in stak­ing out its oppo­si­tion to paus­ing intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rules. Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try trade groups and indi­vid­ual com­pa­nies — includ­ing Mod­er­na, which is behind anoth­er lead­ing Covid-19 vac­cine — have all come out in full force against the pro­pos­al for reprieve from strin­gent intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rules.

The influ­ence of the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try is enor­mous,” Bak­er tells In These Times. ​Need­less to say, Trump is going to go with the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try. Even Biden is going to be hear­ing from the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try and will be hard pressed to do some­thing they don’t like. There’s no one oth­er than the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try who’s going to stand up against this. They’re the ones that are push­ing it.”

The phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try is fight­ing to hoard life-sav­ing infor­ma­tion about vac­cines and Covid-19 treat­ments despite the tremen­dous role of pub­lic funds in enabling their devel­op­ment. Pfizer’s part­ner BioN­Tech, for exam­ple, received sig­nif­i­cant pub­lic fund­ing from Ger­many. But at an esti­mat­ed cost of $19.50 per dose for the first 100 mil­lion dos­es, the vac­cine is like­ly too cost­ly for many poor coun­tries, par­tic­u­lar­ly in light of its expen­sive stor­age require­ments. Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­ny AstraZeneca, which pro­duced a vac­cine with Oxford, has made some com­mit­ments to increase access to poor coun­tries, and it says it won’t make a prof­it from the vac­cine dur­ing the pan­dem­ic. But it ​has retained the right to declare the end of the pan­dem­ic as ear­ly as July 2021,” Prab­ha­la, Jayadev and Bak­er note.

Indeed, the data emerg­ing indi­cates what could have been pre­dict­ed months ago: One could make a map of glob­al pover­ty, lay it over a map of vac­cine access, and it would be a vir­tu­al one-to-one match. ​The U.S., Britain, Cana­da and oth­ers are hedg­ing their bets, reserv­ing dos­es that far out­num­ber their pop­u­la­tions,” the New York Times reports, ​as many poor­er nations strug­gle to secure enough.” This is a log­i­cal out­come for a sys­tem designed from the onset to rein­force long-exist­ing pow­er struc­tures informed by an entrenched lega­cy of colo­nial­ism. Regard­less of ​intent,” once again major­i­ty black and brown coun­tries, by and large, are left to suf­fer and die while wealthy Glob­al North coun­tries far exceed their need­ed capac­i­ty (although this is no guar­an­tee of equi­table dis­tri­b­u­tion with­in Glob­al North countries). 

Giv­en the risk that we could see a glob­al apartheid of vac­cine dis­tri­b­u­tion, in which poor coun­tries con­tin­ue to face dev­as­tat­ing loss while rich coun­tries pur­sue herd immu­ni­ty, vague assur­ances of cor­po­rate benev­o­lence are not enough. As Bak­er puts it, ​Why would­n’t you want every vac­cine avail­able as wide­ly as possible?”

Frank Car­ber and Han­nah Faris con­tributed research to this article.

© 2021 In These Times
Sarah Lazare

Sarah Lazare

Sarah Lazare is web editor at In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

70% of Americans Support Deciding State Abortion Rights by Ballot Measure: Poll

After an "enormous victory" in Kansas, some progressives argue that ballot measures "are the next frontier" for protecting access to reproductive healthcare.

Jessica Corbett ·

Judge Rules Walgreens 'Substantially Contributed' to San Francisco Opioid Crisis

"Walgreens knew its system to detect and stop suspicious orders was nonexistent but continued to ship opioids at an alarming pace to increase profits," said an attorney for the California city.

Brett Wilkins ·

Historic Climate Bill, Say Clear-Eyed Critics, Still 'Pours Gasoline on the Flames'

"This was a backdoor take-it-or-leave-it deal between a coal baron and Democratic leaders in which any opposition from lawmakers or frontline communities was quashed," said one activist.

Jessica Corbett ·

Doctors Against Oz Launch Campaign Denouncing GOP Candidate as 'Quack'

"ShamWow guy + stethoscope = Dr. Oz," said John Fetterman, the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Pennsylvania.

Julia Conley ·

70+ Economists Say US Must Return $7 Billion Stolen From Afghan People

"The people of Afghanistan have been made to suffer doubly for a government they did not choose," says a new letter.

Kenny Stancil ·

Common Dreams Logo