Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Welcome BRIK, welcome judges, welcome spectators to Round 5 of our debate tournament. I would like to welcome my opponent to the debate by offering him an objective and logical debate. May the most reasonable argument prevail. _________________ For my opening statement, I will lay out our argument. Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. A public health concern that could justify violation will be argued. For the purposes of this argument, we will be discussing the United States. patent: A legal document issued by a federal government that grants exclusive rights for the production, sale and profit from the invention of a product or process for a specific period of time. Patents also grant the right to prevent others from copying the invention. (merriam-webster) pharmaceutical: a medicinal drug (merriam-webster) _____________ Governments should have the right to violate patents that have been established with pharmaceutical companies if the violation can be justified with a public health concern. A few public health concerns that will justify such a violation: 1. Epidemic: affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time (merriam-webster) 2. Pandemic affecting USA: occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population (merriam-webster) 3. Biological attack: A biological attack is the deliberate release of germs or other biological substances that can make you sick. Many agents must be inhaled, enter through a cut in the skin or be eaten to make you sick. Some biological agents, such as anthrax, do not cause contagious diseases. Others, like the smallpox virus, can result in diseases you can catch from other people. (http://www.ready.gov...) The government has due right to violate patent laws with a business and create generic versions of their product on the government's own time and money based health concerns like these. All a government would have to do is compensate. Laws related to the legitimacy are as follows: Amendment 5 of the U.S. Constitution: …..nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (http://www.usconstitution.net...) Compulsory Licensing 28 USC 1498, concerning uses of patents or copyrights, when the use is by or for the government. Under this statute the US government does not have to seek a license or negotiate for use of a patent or copyright. Any federal employee can use or authorize the use of a patent or a copyright. The right owner is entitled to compensation, but cannot enjoin the government or a third party authorized by the government, to prevent the use. Any contractor, subcontractor, person, firm, or corporation who receives authorization from the federal government to use patents or copyrights is construed as use by the federal government, and cannot be sued for infringement. (http://www.cptech.org...) Report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Working Group on Research Tools. "Rights of government agencies: As a government agency, NIH may use and manufacture any patented invention, whether or not developed with federal funds, and authorize its use and manufacture by others for the United States, without a license, subject to liability for "reasonable and entire compensation" under 28 U.S.C. ï¿½1498." (http://www.cptech.org...) Therefore, due to a large crisis that would wipe out large sections of our population, leave America economically unstable and unable to defend itself, the government has right to intervene. The United States government would compensate for the patent violation, and this re-imbursement of funds should be appropriate - if the company has a problem it can consult with the laws of eminent domain (explained soon). There would be a massive disservice to its people which its main purpose is to protect if a government were to hold back aid during, say, a biological attack. Eminent domain explanation: The power of a governmental entity (federal, state, county or city government, school district, hospital district or other agencies) to take private real estate for public use, with or without the permission of the owner. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "private property [may not] be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fourteenth Amendment added the requirement of just compensation to state and local government takings. The usual process includes passage of a resolution by the acquiring agency to take the property (condemnation), including a declaration of public need, followed by an appraisal, an offer, and then negotiation. If the owner is not satisfied, he/she may sue the governmental agency for a court's determination of just compensation. The government, however, becomes owner while a trial is pending if the amount of the offer is deposited in a trust account. Public uses include schools, streets and highways, parks, airports, dams, reservoirs, redevelopment, public housing, hospitals and public buildings. (http://www.ready.gov...) Therefore, if the company dislikes its compensation by the government, it can sue the government for losses. During the pending time, though, the government can make massive progress with distribution of said drug and aid the population in need during these horrible circumstances. Therefore, a government can violate a patent if justified by a public health concern. It is clearly established in our law system, and works well enough in our court system if the company wishes to sue for unjust compensation by the government. Regards, Vi Veri