Breaking patent law Îcovenant' corrupt policy by short-sighted

United States and international intellectual property law appear to have become the villain of the week for anti-capitalist Naderite propagandists like Ms. Lee and Ms. Hall (Wednesday, "Brazil's war between HIV and profit"). As with virtually all the emotionally charged and sound bite driven "people before profit" crowd, they invariably decry harsh aspects of international trade, but fail miserably to see the big picture.

Patents are a covenant between a government and its people. The Founding Fathers recognized the need "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" by authorizing the patent and copyright system in the Constitution.

Inherent in this and every other bargain is that both parties give something and get something in return. The quid pro quo of a patent is that it promotes disclosure of a useful invention, which after a period of time passes to the public domain, and in return, the inventor is substantially rewarded. A statutory monopoly, super-competitive prices and a possibly limited supply are all part of the calculus, but they are costs that society is willing to bear in return for promoting innovation.

Access can be achieved without resorting to killing the golden goose by overhauling the patent system. There are provisions in U.S. and international law that may address the tension between the need to access medicine and the preservation of the IP system. 28 U.S.C. 1498, which was nearly invoked during last year's anthrax scare, authorizes the government to infringe a patent or allow a competitor to infringe when deemed necessary in the public interest. Also, the November 2001 Doha meeting of the WTO led to implementation of language in the international TRIPS agreement that will promote licensing of patented medicines to developing countries.

Breaking a drug patent is certainly no panacea. The central African nations where HIV is most prevalent have no patent system to speak of. Their people are without access to medicine not because greedy drugs companies are shutting off the supply because they can't foot the bill, but because their corrupt governments steal everything that isn't nailed down and resell it on the black market.

To be sure, this practice may result in a temporary price break, but where's the incentive for innovation? What happens when drug resistance builds or the virus mutates? Will the next revolutionary drug come from the Johnny-come-lately outfits or from the companies that invested their time, energy and talent in developing something new and useful? If their discoveries can be copied at will, why should they even bother?

Tom McDermott
James E. Rogers College of Law
registered patent agent

Holding anti-war position doesn't equal condoning Anti-Semitism

It is a severe mistake made by Daniel Hatch when he decides to equate opposition to an American attack on Iraq with anti-Semitism. Saying that there is no distinction between "Don't attack Iraq" and "Stone the Jews" is incomprehensible (Wednesday, "Mideast center forum on Iraq only anti-Semitic propaganda").

I could not agree more with Mr. Hatch that the audience member in question was anti-Semitic. His message was filled with hate and was deplorable. I was dismayed when his statement was applauded at all. However, the applause came from a tiny minority of those present and was not representative of 500 people in attendance, the professors on the panel or the organizers. Audience participation is an unpredictable creature that allows many viewpoints to be expressed that may or may not coincide with the feelings of the panelists and attendees.

Because this was an academic forum and not a Jerry Springer show (or even a political convention), it was appropriate for the panel to refuse to dignify the remarks in question with a response of any sort. Their silence was not the same as if the panel had all stood up and cheered themselves, as Mr. Hatch believes.

I am ashamed that the outrageous comments of one person have received undue attention. We must allow everyone to speak; however, I chose to ignore the racist comments that occurred that night. Dozens of other questions were asked of the panelists that encouraged discussion in a productive way. The forum was a very positive event that served to inform people on a topic of paramount importance. The panelists should be commended for the way they conducted themselves both in their presentation of information and refusal to allow the event to be hijacked by an extremist that deserves no further attention.

Paul Snodgrass
history senior

ÎDownright ignorant' to treat panel's Îfacts' as propaganda

We are writing in response to Daniel Hatch's Wednesday letter ("Mideast center forum on Iraq only anti-Semitic propaganda"). Mr. Hatch needs to differentiate between the views of the panelists and the views of the audience members exercising their first amendment rights on Monday's forum on Iraq.

The panel of experts, requested to speak by the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, presented students with factual information on many aspects of the situation in Iraq today. Their presentations were in no way "Democratic" or "anti-Semitic" propaganda. We would like to remind Mr. Hatch that this is not a partisan issue, as both Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted in favor of military action in Iraq (if necessary). There are also many conservative Americans who are opposed to U.S. policy on Iraq, including one author of this letter.

Furthermore, regarding Mr. Hatch's accusations of anti-Semitism from the panelists: None of the panelists even focused on Israel, but rather on the present relationship between the U.S. and Iraq. Each of these panelists are obviously advocating education and debate in the hopes of finding a peaceful solution to the problem in Iraq, and to call them anti-Semitic is offensive, disrespectful, and downright ignorant.

The Center for Middle Eastern Studies encourages open dialogue about issues in the Middle East, both within the UA and the Tucson community. Therefore, audience members who chose to pose questions and comments at the forum could not be censored; to do so would defeat the purpose of the forum. By choosing not to respond to the inappropriate comments of one audience member, the panelists showed their disapproval of his ignorant views. In this case, silence spoke louder than words.

In conclusion, we request that Mr.Hatch and anyone who shares his views please differentiate between the views and opinions of the panelists and those of the audience members who chose to respond. The Center for Middle Eastern Studies supports education about all peoples of the Middle East and sponsors activities that promote knowledge of the entire region, including the Arab countries, Iran, Turkey and Israel. This type of education about such a crucial region is exactly what Americans need at this time.

Julia Santucci
Julie Ellison
Suzanne Thomas
Near Eastern studies graduate students