The United States is engaged in intellectual property monopoly, the truth | in the name of intellectual property protection Brazil | drugs | the United States

In recent times, the United States has once again smeared and slandered China through intellectual property issues. However, in fact, the United States, which is prone to pointing fingers at other countries, not only has a long history in intellectual property protection, but also weaponizes intellectual property, often using methods such as long arm jurisdiction and high tariffs to suppress other countries.

Brazil is one of the victims. In the name of intellectual property protection, the United States is engaged in intellectual property monopoly. According to the Washington Post in 1988, in October, then US President Reagan ordered a 100% tariff on $39 million worth of goods from Brazil in retaliation for "unfair trade practices" against American companies. According to a report released by Oxfam International in 2001, on June 11, 1987, the American Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association submitted a petition to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, claiming that Brazil's failure to protect related product patents was a "burden or restriction" on American commerce. Moreover, relevant interest groups have also organized a large amount of lobbying. Reagan accused Brazil of not providing patent protection for American drugs and chemicals, which resulted in American companies losing $36 million annually, so the United States had to resort to the 301 clause.

As is well known, the development of pharmaceuticals requires significant investment. Many developing countries prioritize the public interest of protecting people's health, either by not recognizing patents for medical drugs, or even by setting a shorter protection period. Scholar Sean Fulin from the Washington School of Law at the University of the United States wrote that at the time, there was no bilateral or multilateral agreement requiring Brazil to provide patent protection for drugs, and at least 50 countries in the world did not recognize patent protection for drugs.

The United States is adept at exploiting the weak position of intellectual property rights and institutional gaps in related fields, especially in developing countries, to implement monopolies and seize high monopoly profits. According to a report on the Latin American News website in 1988, foreign multinational corporations controlled over 82% of the Brazilian pharmaceutical market at that time, with annual profits exceeding $2 billion. Nevertheless, the United States is particularly dissatisfied and even uses the "301 clause" to force Brazil to comply.

Brazil is naturally dissatisfied with the way the United States acts. At that time, Brazil filed a complaint under the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, questioning the legitimacy of the actions of the United States. According to a report by The New York Times in 1989, the United States twice blocked Brazil's request to establish an expert group. According to a report by United International in 1989, in February, despite opposition from the United States, GATT agreed to establish a dispute resolution panel. Brazil believed that the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States violated GATT's fair and free trade rules. The New York Times reported that Brazil's call for the establishment of a dispute settlement group has received "tremendous support", with over 50 countries openly expressing their support. Many countries believe that unilateral retaliatory actions by the United States may undermine the international trade system.

It was not until the new President of Brazil came to power in 1990, promising to amend domestic laws and provide drug patents, that the United States' "punishment" came to an end. However, the United States has not let go of the effective "knife" of "intellectual property protection".

According to the Washington Post in 2001, since May 2000, the United States has been filing complaints with the World Trade Organization against Brazil's drug patent laws. However, if the United States demands, the Brazilian people will not be able to access cheaper anti AIDS drugs. At that time, Brazil won the praise of the international community for its achievements in combating AIDS. The government distributed drugs free of charge to about 100000 people infected with HIV. Oxfam International reported that since 1996, Brazil has succeeded in halving the death rate of AIDS and reducing the hospitalization rate by 80%. Doctors Without Borders called on the United States to withdraw its appeal. Bernard Pekur, the head of the "Access to Essential Drugs" campaign, said that the lives of hundreds of thousands of AIDS patients in Brazil depend on AIDS policies in Brazil. The United States' action will also worry those countries willing to accept AIDS drugs from Brazil.

On the surface, the United States aims to protect the legitimate interests of intellectual property owners, but because it holds the power to define "legitimate interests", forcing other countries to comply with US law and implement long arm jurisdiction is actually maintaining its global economic hegemony. In 1994, the United States vigorously promoted the inclusion of intellectual property issues in the GATT Uruguay Round negotiations, promoted the achievement of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, and pushed for the Americanization process and standards of intellectual property protection, attempting to solidify technological monopolies. In order to achieve this goal, the United States has launched a double standard. In the same Uruguay Round negotiations, the United States strongly advocated for relaxing government restrictions on the service industry to fully liberalize it; However, in the simultaneous intellectual property negotiations, it is required to adopt a "one size fits all" model for the intellectual property protection standards of countries with different levels of development, and not to "liberalize" them.

In intellectual property negotiations, the United States not only points its finger directly at developing countries, but also engages in coercion, not letting its allies go. At that time, South Korea succumbed to pressure from the United States and signed an unfair agreement with the United States, which required the South Korean government to grant rights to American companies that had not yet been granted to domestic companies. Due to the agreement stipulating that South Korea only provides protection for patents held by Americans, other developed countries believe that they have been discriminated against in the South Korean market.

It is not difficult to see from a simple analysis that the intellectual property policy of the United States adheres to pragmatism, protectionism, and hegemonism, which goes against the original intention of the international intellectual property protection system. Innovation and intellectual property should serve the progress and well-being of all humanity, rather than becoming tools for the United States to suppress the development of other countries and maintain its own interests.