In 2005, cancer patient groups in India used Indian intellectual property law to stop a patent application by Swiss company Novartis for its anti-cancer drug, Glivec. This allowed Indian companies to continue making generic versions at about $2,700 a year, as opposed to Novartis having a monopoly priced version for sale at about $27,000 a year.

Novartis recently appealed the decision in a direct challenge to India's right to use safeguards contained in trade rules agreed by the WTO in 2001 in the interests of public health.

What is Glivec?

Glivec (Gleevec in the US) is an important drug that means the difference between life and death for cancer patients suffering from leukemia (CML), stomach tumors, and other conditions. Glivec is a significant improvement over other forms of treatment and should be as widely available as possible, at affordable prices.

Glivec is a key drug for Novartis worldwide. It's the company's second best selling drug with sales reaching $2.8 billion in 2005 and accounts for 9.6 per cent of Novartis's estimated share value. Research indicates that there are multiple diseases that respond to the drug. In only five years, Glivec is now approved in the US for seven different diseases. There is a danger that the company could apply for a new patent based on these "new uses" elsewhere, which would extend its monopoly and delay availability of affordable generic versions of Glivec for people who need it.

Novartis says that there is virtually no commercial market for Glivec in India and that it is taking the case in part to "align Indian IP laws with TRIPS", The World Trade Organization's agreement on intellectual property. This action is one that will affect India's right to produce not only generic versions of Glivec but also for other new medicines in the future.

What would happen if Novartis were successful in its appeal?

Not only would it increase the price of the drug it would also jeopardize India's generic export industry. India is the world's leading supplier of inexpensive generic medicines to developing countries with approximately 67 percent of its exports going to developing countries. As a result people needing cheaper versions of medicines in many developing countries would lose out.

Oxfam believes that generic competition reduces the price of many patented medicines and makes them much more affordable to poor people in developing countries. Lower prices via generic competition could ensure free or subsidized medicines for millions of poor people through increased public sector funding for health, through health insurance and because many poor people are willing to pay out of pocket for medicines because the health and well being of themselves and their family a top priority.

Amid cheers from a throng of enthusiastic supporters and international media, Make Trade Fair won the day.

Oxfam's trade campaign was launched.

Within hours of the Hong Kong debut, events were held in 25 cities including Brussels, Dublin, Geneva, Mexico City, San Salvador, and Washington, D.C. These events ranged from press conferences and symposiums to a rock concert in London’s Trafalgar Square.

Oxfam's trade campaign seeks to unite concerned citizens around the world in calling for fair trade policies that will help move millions of people out of poverty.

Nobel Prize Professor Amartya Sen, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and musician and social activist Bono were among those who endorsed the campaign. "Oxfam has got it right," said Bono. "It wouldn't cost much to change the rules of trade so that poor countries can work their way out of poverty. But the world's leaders won't act unless they hear enough people telling them."

Also in this issue of EXCHANGE, writers Frances and Anna Lappé discuss their book Hope's Edge: The Next Diet for a Small Planet, and we bring you updates on Oxfam's work with water and sanitation, drought in Ethiopia, and indigenous women in the highlands of Peru who are speaking out after decades of violence.