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.

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 U.S. attempts to include intellectual property protection in the new round of talks.”

​“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.”

A good read, and one from December of 2020 at that (which only furthers their point imo with these events still ongoing).

I really enjoyed the quoted sections, as someone from the USA it’s not something we hear about (India’s different approach to pharam, ins and outs of TRIPS) or think about unless discussing alternate governing systems. Even then I would argue that the idea of IP is pretty ingrained and something the majority just consider normal.

Really like that this situation has brought IP law and regulation more into the light and news space, hopefully it drags into the public consciousness so something can be done.