Introduction
Being a prominent topic at the intersection of business and ethics, intellectual property (IP) rights and protections possess much room for a debate focused on IP’s implications for social responsibility concerns and general business ethics. Intense calls to share specific COVID-19 vaccine recipes with the world to allow their free use exemplify a recent IP-related controversy due to the conflicting interests of pharmaceutical companies and the global unprofessional community (D’Emilio, 2021). As the CEO of a pharmaceutical corporation that has developed its COVID-19 vaccine recipe, I would respond to pressure to share the company’s IP with reference to such requirements’ relative ineffectiveness for its intended purposes. Balancing the considerations of global health and the refusal to make the corporation’s IP and unique vaccine formula information fully available to the world would be the key goal to achieve. To implement this vision, aside from maintaining the corporation’s IP rights, I would propose collaborative projects to low-income countries willing to use the corporation’s achievements for their nations.
Discussion
The call for making vaccine developers’ IP available for public use is advertised as a strategy to eliminate inequality between wealthier and poorer countries in vaccine access. Nevertheless, as pharmaceutical corporations assert, sharing the details of recipes with the world seems a morally good initiative, but it cannot address the lack of the right production equipment in developing nations (D’Emilio, 2021). In my reaction to external pressure, I would reiterate this point and explain that my company’s key contribution to addressing vaccine shortage and fighting disease on a global scale revolves around providing high-quality products. Sharing a specific formula without ensuring the global community’s access to the right manufacturing platforms would mean promoting the production of a questionable product that would not necessarily save lives. Finally, I would openly acknowledge that these unintended consequences are incompatible with the corporation’s commitment to beneficence and the end-user’s well-being.
My response to such calls would also emphasize the requirement’s incompatibility with current IP laws. As per 35 U.S. Code 154, the fact of having a patent issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is supposed to guarantee no less than seventeen years of patent rights (Bently et al., 2022). The Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) restricts regulation-related flexibility and enables WTO members to strengthen IP protections to prevent the unsolicited use of patented technology (Nehru, 2021). In my reaction to the proposal to make IP public, I would also specify overseen international partnerships and vaccine manufacturing projects as circumstances under which partial recipe sharing would be appropriate and acceptable. Speaking on behalf of my corporation, I would agree to allow the use of the patented technology in low-income states facing difficulties but under my corporation’s close supervision. The corporation would send project leaders to the countries willing to participate and set various confidentiality levels for different aspects of its IP. Thus, it would enable the other market to produce the vaccine but without making the vaccine formula public.
A Biblical worldview would also influence my decisions by establishing the deeper morals peculiar to the seemingly ambiguous option of refusing to make the corporation’s IP, including vaccine formulas and manufacturing process details, widely available. The Scripture, despite promoting mutual help and genuine love and compassion for one’s fellow human beings, especially the needy ones, treats self-sufficiency and self-reliance as values and indicators of justice in resource distribution. Specifically, explaining the meaning of taking care of another being, the Bible states that “if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, 2 Thessalonians 3:10). This principle rejects the positive nature of giving the ready-made solutions to the others while also promoting the act of encouraging others to engage in thinking, practice, and coming up with viable solutions. From the considerations of respecting other countries’ self-sufficiency, providing these states with education and meaningful clues so that they can achieve independence from the world’s pharmaceutical leaders seems to be a more appropriate option.
Conclusion
Finally, a Biblical perspective would also inform my decision to offer access to the corporation’s IP only as part of mutually beneficial partnerships. The Bible posits that “two are better than one because they have a good reward for their toil” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Ecclesiastes 4:9). This verse implies that working on promoting positive shifts and changes in collaboration is a righteous way of doing things as it offers opportunities for providing mutual support. These considerations would permeate the request to organize collaborative projects rather than enabling the underserved countries to implement the IP without guidance from the technology’s inventor. The opportunity to communicate with less experienced and tech-savvy pharmaceutical companies in low-income countries, as well as oversee their work with the corporation’s IP, is also crucial to healthcare consumers’ safety.
Response Posts
Hi [Classmate’s Name], thank you for posting this insightful analysis of the assigned scenario; I really like the external references and real-life business cases that you use to illustrate the solution. As I understand, you are in favor of responding to the dilemma with an emphasis on businesses’ moral responsibility rather than purely financial interests. It is a bit different from my proposal to refuse to make the IP public and agree to share it only with trusted foreign pharmaceutical companies, under strict control, and after signing confidentiality agreements. The first point of difference in our analyses is that I mainly relied on 35 U.S. Code 154 as the key guarantee of patent rights to justify my hypothetical company’s refusal to give up the rights to its patented technology (Bently et al., 2022). The law specifies that patents should protect the IP owner’s superiority in making decisions regarding the IP for at least seventeen years. From my perspective, respecting this law is ultimate; the failure to observe it would discourage innovative entities from working hard to improve technology in any field.
The other dissimilarities pertain to how we incorporate the TRIPS agreement and the Bible’s teachings regarding defending the poor. In my analysis, I have emphasized the role of the TRIPS in preventing the IP of national importance from being used worldwide uncontrollably (Nehru, 2021). This consideration has led me to conclusions regarding the company’s ability to keep exercising its rights. I definitely agree with the Biblical principles that you have selected, but my perspective emphasizes teaching and promoting change rather than providing the disadvantaged state with all solutions without encouraging their own technological development. As the Bible teaches, “the righteous care about justice for the poor” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Proverbs 29:7). As a CEO, I would definitely see justice as access to opportunities for development and progress instead of becoming dependent on access to another entity’s solutions and inventions.
Reference List
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. Web.
Bently, L., Sherman, B., Gangjee, D., & Johnson, P. (2022). Intellectual property law (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Nehru, R. (2021). Vaccine patent waiver: A step towards a COVID-free equal world. International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, 4(4), 1050-1054. Web.
D’Emilio, F. (2021). Moderna has no plans to share its COVID-19 vaccine recipe. AP News. Web.