By Вen Li
They say tragedy brings out the best and worst in people. Nothing demonstrates that truism better than our actions in the wake of
September 11. While the U.S. government scrambled quickly to put billions of dollars into the already ailing airline and travel industries, they quietly tried to subvert the rights of other companies in the name of protecting the public good.
The most obvious and outrageous transgression against a company’s rights occurred when both the American and Canadian governments decided to ignore Bayer’s patent on the anthrax drug Cipro by soliciting alternative, unlicensed manufacturers to produce the drug at a lower cost.
Patents, copyrights and other intellectual property rights are wonderful tenets conceived by the U.S. founding fathers and enshrined in their constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
But according to the American and Canadian governments, this is not the case. Bayer could not, or would not, supply the drug in the quantities they demanded. Hence they went to outside companies. By some leap of logic, both governments believed that companies new to making the drug could produce it reliably, and in larger quantities than Bayer–who has years of experience manufacturing it–and sell it to the American and Canadian governments for much less than what Bayer asked.
While it’s difficult to conclude that increasing Cipro supplies contributes negatively to the general welfare, the governments’ means of doing so were wrong. Negotiating by threatening to bend laws for competitors could only result in legal action by Bayer.
Despite brief demonization by both the government and the media for attempting to protect its rights, Bayer was right to defend the ability to profit from its intellectual property. However, whether by design or by fate, Bayer could not emerge from the situation victoriously.
According to Bayer’s own press release, prior to settling with the governments, they were defending their ability to sell the drug at up to $1.87 US per pill. Had they not settled for a measly $0.95 US per pill, the American government could have revoked Bayer’s patent on Cipro and farmed out production to competitors who claim to be able to produce the drug cheaper.
Why was this threat not discussed when the government and media demonized Bayer for corporate hoarding? Regardless of whether it was the right thing to do for the people, Bayer settled on defending
its bottom line, thus protecting its shareholders interests. Otherwise, shareholders might have sued for managerial incompetence in failing to maximizing profits.
This type of strong-arm tactic to remove inconvenient rights and freedoms is incompatible with the intent of the Constitution and America’s war in Afghanistan. We cannot claim to stand for liberty if we lash out at our own people–companies are composed of hard-working people after all–for performing their raison d’etre.
If we are willing to neglect the rights of a company that has faithfully supplied pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and countless other goods to the U.S. for over 50 years, who might be next?
Feedback on this article can be sent to opinions@gauntlet.ucalgary.ca.