輝瑞的權力 Pfizer’s Power Public Citizen 20201019 Taimocracy翻譯

【縛雞之論】
以下文章，是網友席禁評轉介的，感謝。
所以，一般疫苗保密協定的期限是5年！現在大概過了2年了？

Pfizer’s Power    Public Citizen 20201019  Taimocracy翻譯 https://www.citizen.org/article/pfizers-power/#_ftn25

In February, Pfizer was accused of “bullying” governments in COVID vaccine negotiations in a groundbreaking story by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.[1] A government official at the time noted, “Five years in the future when these confidentiality agreements are over you will learn what really happened in these negotiations.”[2] 2 月，輝瑞公司在調查新聞局的一篇開創性報導中被指控在 COVID 疫苗談判中「欺負」政府。 [1] 當時的一位政府官員指出，「五年後，當這些保密協議結束時，您將了解這些談判中真正發生的事情。」[2]

Public Citizen has identified several unredacted Pfizer contracts that describe the outcome of these negotiations. The contracts offer a rare glimpse into the power one pharmaceutical corporation has gained to silence governments, throttle supply, shift risk and maximize profits in the worst public health crisis in a century. We describe six examples from around the world below.[3] Public Citizen 已經確定了幾份描述這些談判結果的未被塗黑的輝瑞契約。 這些契約讓人們難得一見，一家製藥公司在百年來最嚴重的公共衛生危機中獲得了讓政府沉默、限制供應、轉移風險和最大化利潤的能力。 我們在下面描述了來自世界各地的六個案例。 [3]

TABLE 1: SELECT PFIZER CONTRACTS REVIEWED[4]  檢視部份輝瑞契約

Pfizer’s demands have generated outrage around the world, slowing purchase agreements and even pushing back the delivery schedule of vaccines.[16] If similar terms are included as a condition to receive doses, they may threaten President Biden’s commitment to donate 1 billion vaccine doses.[17] 輝瑞的要求在引起了全世界的憤怒，各國減緩採購協議，甚至延遲疫苗的交付時間表。 [16]如果將類似條款作為接受疫苗的條件，它們可能會威脅拜登總統捐贈 10 億劑疫苗的承諾。 [17]

High-income countries have enabled Pfizer’s power through a favorable system of international intellectual property protection.[18] High-income countries have an obligation to rein in that monopoly power. The Biden administration, for example, can call on Pfizer to renegotiate existing commitments and pursue a fairer approach in the future. The administration can further rectify the power imbalance by sharing the vaccine recipe, under the Defense Production Act, to allow multiple producers to expand vaccine supplies.[19] It can also work to rapidly secure a broad waiver of intellectual property rules (TRIPS waiver) at the World Trade Organization.[20] A wartime response against the virus demands nothing less. 高收入國家通過有利的國際智慧財產權保護體系啟用了輝瑞的力量。 [18]高收入國家有義務控制這種壟斷力量。例如，拜登政府可以呼籲輝瑞重新談判現有承諾，並在未來採取更公平的方法。政府可以通過根據《國防生產法》共享疫苗配方來進一步糾正權力不平衡，以允許多個生產商擴大疫苗供應。 [19]它還可以迅速確保世界貿易組織廣泛豁免智慧財產權規則（TRIPS 豁免）。 [20]對病毒的戰時反應要求不低。

1.     Pfizer Reserves the Right to Silence Governments.  輝瑞保留政府閉口的權利

In January, the Brazilian government complained that Pfizer was insisting on contractual terms in negotiations that were “unfair and abusive.”[21] The government pointed to five terms that it found problematic, ranging from a sovereign immunity waiver on public assets to a lack of penalties for Pfizer if deliveries were late. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism soon published a scathing story on Pfizer’s vaccine negotiations.[22] 1 月，巴西政府抱怨輝瑞公司在談判中堅持「不公平和濫用」的契約條款。[21] 政府指出了它認為有問題的五個條款，從對公共資產的主權豁免權豁免到缺乏 如果交貨延遲，輝瑞公司將受到處罰。 調查新聞局很快發表了一篇關於輝瑞疫苗談判的尖刻故事。 [22]

Less than two months later, the Brazilian government accepted a contract with Pfizer that contains most of the same terms that the government once deemed unfair.[23] Brazil waived sovereign immunity; imposed no penalties on Pfizer for late deliveries; agreed to resolve disputes under a secret private arbitration under the laws of New York; and broadly indemnified Pfizer for civil claims.[24]不到兩個月後，巴西政府接受了與輝瑞公司的契約，其中大部分條款與政府曾經認為不公平的條款相同。 [23] 巴西放棄主權豁免； 輝瑞公司不會因延遲交貨而受到處罰；同意根據紐約法律透過秘密私人仲裁解決爭議；並廣泛賠償輝瑞公司的民事索賠。 [24]

The contract also contains an additional term not included in other Latin American agreements[25] reviewed by Public Citizen: The Brazilian government is prohibited from making “any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of [the] Agreement” or commenting on its relationship with Pfizer without the prior written consent of the company.[26] Pfizer gained the power to silence Brazil. 該契約還包含一項未包含在由 Public Citizen 審查的其他拉丁美洲協議[25] 中的附加條款：禁止巴西政府發布「任何有關協議的存在、主題或條款的公告」或評論 未經公司事先書面同意，其與輝瑞的關係。 [26] 輝瑞獲得了讓巴西閉口的權力。

Brazil is not alone. A similar nondisclosure provision is contained in the Pfizer contract with the European Commission and the U.S. government.[27] In those cases, however, the obligation applies to both parties. 巴西並非孤例。輝瑞與歐盟委員會和美國政府簽訂的契約中也包含類似的保密條款。 [27] 但是，在這些情況下，該義務適用於雙方。

For example, neither Pfizer nor the U.S. government can make “any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of this Agreement, the transactions contemplated by it, or the relationship between the Pfizer and the Government hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other.”[28] The contract contains some exceptions for disclosures required by law. It is not clear from the public record whether Pfizer has elected to prohibit the U.S. from making any statements thus far. The E.C. cannot include in any announcement or disclosure the price per dose, the Q4 2020 volumes, or information that would be material to Pfizer without the consent of Pfizer.[29] 例如，輝瑞公司和美國政府均不得「在未經事先書面同意的情況下，就本協議的存在、標的或條款、本協議擬進行的交易或輝瑞公司與政府之間的關係發布任何公告」。另一個。「[28] 該契約包含一些法律要求的披露例外情況。從公開記錄來看，輝瑞公司是否選擇禁止美國迄今發表任何聲明尚不清楚。未經輝瑞同意，E.C. 不得在任何公告或披露中包含每劑的價格、2020 年第四季度的產量或對輝瑞很重要的資訊。 [29]

2.    Pfizer Controls Donations.  輝瑞控制捐贈

Pfizer tightly controls supply.[30] The Brazilian government, for example, is restricted from accepting Pfizer vaccine donations from other countries or buying Pfizer vaccines from others without Pfizer’s permission.[31]  The Brazilian government also is restricted from donating, distributing, exporting, or otherwise transporting the vaccine outside Brazil without Pfizer’s permission.[32] 輝瑞嚴格控制供應。 [30] 例如，巴西政府被限制不能接受其他國家的輝瑞疫苗捐贈或未經輝瑞許可從其他國家購買輝瑞疫苗。 [31] 巴西政府也被限制未經輝瑞公司許可的情況下不得捐贈、分發、出口或以其他方式將疫苗運送到巴西境外。 [32]

The consequences of noncompliance can be severe. If Brazil were to accept donated doses without Pfizer’s permission, it would be considered an “uncurable material breach” of their agreement, allowing Pfizer to immediately terminate the agreement.[33] Upon termination, Brazil would be required to pay the full price for any remaining contracted doses.[34] 不遵守規定的後果可能很嚴重。 如果巴西在未經輝瑞許可的情況下接受捐贈的劑量，將被視為對他們協議的「不可回復實質性違約」，從而使輝瑞可以立即終止協議。 [33] 終止後，巴西將被要求為任何剩餘的契約劑量支付全價。 [34]

3.    Pfizer Secured an 「IP Waiver「 for Itself.  輝瑞為自己確保拋棄智慧財產權

The CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, has emerged as a strident defender of intellectual property in the pandemic. He called a voluntary World Health Organization effort to share intellectual property to bolster vaccine production “nonsense” and “dangerous.”[35]  He said President Biden’s decision to back the TRIPS waiver on intellectual property was “so wrong.”[36] “IP, which is the blood of the private sector, is what brought a solution to this pandemic and it is not a barrier right now,” claims Bourla.[37] 輝瑞的首席執行官Albert Bourla 已成為大流行中智慧財產權的堅定捍衛者。他稱世界衛生組織自願分享智慧財產權以支持疫苗生產是「無稽之談」和「危險的」。 [35] 他說，拜登總統支持對智慧財產權的 TRIPS 豁免的決定「非常錯誤」。 [36] 「智慧財產權是私營部門的血液，它為這一流行病帶來了解決方案，現在它不是障礙，」Bourla 聲稱。 [37]

But, in several contracts, Pfizer seems to recognize the risk posed by intellectual property to vaccine development, manufacturing, and sale. The contracts shift responsibility for any intellectual property infringement that Pfizer might commit to the government purchasers. As a result, under the contract, Pfizer can use anyone’s intellectual property it pleases—largely without consequence. 但是，在幾份契約中，輝瑞似乎認識到智慧財產權給疫苗開發、製造和銷售帶來的風險。這些契約將輝瑞可能對政府購買者承諾的任何智慧財產權侵權責任轉移。因此，根據契約，輝瑞可以隨意使用任何人的智慧財產權——基本上不會產生任何後果。

At least four countries are required “to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer” from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, damages, costs, and expenses related to vaccine intellectual property.[38] For example, if another vaccine maker sued Pfizer for patent infringement in Colombia, the contract requires the Colombian government to foot the bill. At Pfizer’s request, Colombia is required to defend the company (i.e., take control of legal proceedings.)[39] Pfizer also explicitly says that it does not guarantee that its product does not violate third-party IP, or that it needs additional licenses. 至少有四個國家需要「賠償、捍衛輝瑞並使輝瑞免受任何和所有與疫苗智慧財產權相關的訴訟、索賠、行動、要求、損害、成本和費用」。 [38]例如，如果另一家疫苗製造商在哥倫比亞起訴輝瑞公司侵犯專利權，則契約要求哥倫比亞政府買單。應輝瑞公司的要求，哥倫比亞必須為公司辯護（即控制法律訴訟。）[39] 輝瑞公司還明確表示，它不保證其產品不侵犯第三方智慧財產權，或者它需要額外的許可.

Pfizer takes no responsibility in these contracts for its potential infringement of intellectual property. In a sense, Pfizer has secured an IP waiver for itself. But internationally, Pfizer is fighting similar efforts to waive IP barriers for all manufacturers.[40] 輝瑞在這些契約中對其可能侵犯智慧財產權的行為不承擔任何責任。 從某種意義上說，輝瑞已經為自己獲得了智慧財產權豁免。但在國際上，輝瑞也在努力為所有製造商放棄智慧財產權壁壘。 [40]

4.    Private Arbitrators, not Public Courts, Decide Disputes in Secret.  私人的仲裁者，而非公開的法院，決定爭端要保持秘密

What happens if the United Kingdom cannot resolve a contractual dispute with Pfizer? A secret panel of three private arbitrators—not a U.K court—is empowered under the contract to make the final decision.[41] The arbitration is conducted under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Both parties are required to keep everything secret: 如果英國無法解決與輝瑞的契約糾紛怎麼辦？ 由三名私人仲裁員組成的秘密小組——不是英國法院——根據契約有權做出最終決定。 [41] 仲裁是根據國際商會 (ICC) 的仲裁規則進行的。雙方都必須保密：

The Parties agree to keep confidential the existence of the arbitration, the arbitral proceedings, the submissions made by the Parties and the decisions made by the arbitral tribunal, including its awards, except as required by Law and to the extent not already in the public domain.[42]  雙方同意對仲裁的存在、仲裁程序、雙方提出的意見和仲裁庭作出的決定，包括其裁決保密，除非法律要求和尚未公開的範圍內 .[42]

The Albania draft contract and Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Peru agreements require the governments to go further, with contractual disputes subject to ICC arbitration applying New York law.[43] 阿爾巴尼亞的契約草案和巴西、智利、哥倫比亞、多米尼加共和國和秘魯的協議要求政府走得更遠，契約糾紛受國際商會仲裁適用紐約法律。 [43]

While ICC arbitration involving states is not uncommon, disputes involving high-income countries and/or pharmaceuticals appear to be relatively rare.[44] In 2012, 80% of state disputes were from Sub-Saharan Africa, Central and West Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe.[45] The most common state cases were about the construction and operation of facilities.[46] In 2020, 34 states were involved in ICC arbitrations.[47] The nature of state disputes is not clear, but only between 5 to 7% of all new ICC cases, including those solely between private parties, were related to health and pharmaceuticals.[48] 雖然涉及國家的 ICC 仲裁併並不少見，但涉及高收入國家和/或藥品的爭議似乎相對較少。 [44] 2012 年，80% 的國家爭端來自撒哈拉以南非洲、中亞和西亞以及中歐和東歐。 [45] 最常見的各國案例是關於設施的建設和運營。 [46] 2020 年，34 國參與了國際商會仲裁。[47] 國家糾紛的性質尚不清楚，但只有 5% 至 7% 的所有新的國際刑事法院案件，包括那些僅在私人當事方之間發生的案件，與健康和藥品有關。 [48]

Private arbitration reflects an imbalance of power. It allows pharmaceutical corporations like Pfizer to bypass domestic legal processes. This consolidates corporate power and undermines the rule of law. 私人仲裁反映了權力的不平衡。 它允許輝瑞等製藥公司繞過國內法律程序。這鞏固了公司的權力並破壞了法治。

5.    Pfizer Can Go After State Assets.  輝瑞能追逐國家資產

The decisions reached by the secret arbitral panels described above can be enforced in national courts.[49] The doctrine of sovereign immunity can sometimes, however, protect states from corporations seeking to enforce and execute arbitration awards. 上述秘密仲裁小組達成的決定可以在國家法院執行。 [49] 然而，主權豁免原則有時可以保護國家免受尋求強制執行和執行仲裁裁決的公司的侵害。

Pfizer required Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and Peru to waive sovereign immunity.[50] In the case of Brazil, Chile and Colombia, for example, the government “expressly and irrevocably waives any right of immunity which either it or its assets may have or acquire in the future” to enforce any arbitration award (emphasis added).[51] For Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, this includes 「immunity against precautionary seizure of any of its assets.「[52] 輝瑞要求巴西、智利、哥倫比亞、多米尼加共和國和秘魯放棄主權豁免。 [50] 例如，在巴西、智利和哥倫比亞的情況下，政府「明確且不可撤銷地放棄其或其資產在未來可能擁有或獲得的任何豁免權」以執行任何仲裁裁決（強調）。 [51 ] 對於巴西、智利、哥倫比亞和多米尼加共和國，這包括「豁免對其任何資產進行預防性扣押。」[52]

Arbitral award enforcement presents complex questions of law that depend on the physical location and type of state asset.[53] But the contract allows Pfizer to request that courts use state assets as a guarantee that Pfizer will be paid an arbitral award and/or use the assets to compensate Pfizer if the government does not pay.[54] For example, in U.S. courts, these assets could include foreign bank accounts, foreign investments, and foreign commercial property, including the assets of state-owned enterprises like airlines and oil companies.[55] 仲裁裁決的執行提出了複雜的法律問題，這些問題取決於國有資產的物理位置和類型。 [53] 但契約允許輝瑞公司要求法院使用國有資產作為保證輝瑞公司將獲得仲裁裁決和/或在政府不支付的情況下使用資產補償輝瑞公司。 [54] 例如，在美國法院，這些資產可能包括外國銀行賬戶、外國投資和外國商業財產，包括航空公司和石油公司等國有企業的資產。 [55]

6.    Pfizer Calls the Shots on Key Decisions.  輝瑞在關鍵決定上得發號施令

What happens if there are vaccine supply shortages? In the Albania draft contract and the Brazil and Colombia agreement, Pfizer will decide adjustments to the delivery schedule based on principles the corporation will decide. Albania, Brazil, and Colombia 「shall be deemed to agree to any revision.「[56] 如果疫苗供應短缺怎麼辦？在阿爾巴尼亞契約草案和巴西和哥倫比亞協議中，輝瑞將根據公司決定的原則決定對調整交付時間表。阿爾巴尼亞、巴西和哥倫比亞「應被視為同意任何修訂。」[56]

Some governments have pushed back on Pfizer’s unilateral authority for other decisions. In South Africa, Pfizer wanted to have the “sole discretion to determine additional terms and guarantees for us to fulfill the indemnity obligations.”[57] South Africa deemed this “too risky” and a “potential risk to [their] assets and fiscus.” [58] After delays, Pfizer reportedly conceded to remove this “problematic term.”[59] 一些政府已經推翻了輝瑞在其他決定方面的單方面權力。在南非，輝瑞希望「自行決定為我們履行賠償義務確定額外條款和保證。」[57] 南非認為這「風險太大」並且「對 [他們的] 資產和財政構成潛在風險」[58] 據報導，在延遲之後，輝瑞公司承認刪除了這個「有問題的術語」。[59]

But others have not been as successful. As a condition to entering into the agreement, the Colombian government is required to “demonstrate, in a manner satisfactory to Suppliers, that Suppliers and their affiliates will have adequate protection, as determined in Suppliers’ sole discretion” (emphasis added) from liability claims.[60] Colombia is required to certify to Pfizer the value of the contingent obligations (i.e., potential future liability), and to start appropriating funds to cover the contingent obligations, according to a contribution program.[61] 但其他人並沒有那麼成功。作為簽訂協議的條件，哥倫比亞政府必須「以供應商滿意的方式證明，供應商及其附屬公司將獲得充分的保護，由供應商自行決定」（強調）免於責任索賠.[60]根據一項捐款計劃，哥倫比亞需要向輝瑞證明或有義務的價值（即潛在的未來負債），並開始撥款以支付或有義務。 [61]

Pfizer’s ability to control key decisions reflects the power imbalance in vaccine negotiations. Under the vast majority of contracts, Pfizer’s interests come first. 輝瑞控制關鍵決策的能力反映了疫苗談判中的權力失衡。在絕大多數契約下，輝瑞的利益是最優先的。

A Better Way  較好的方式

Pfizer’s dominance over sovereign countries poses fundamental challenges to the pandemic response. Governments can push back. The U.S. government, in particular, can exercise the leverage it holds over Pfizer to require a better approach. Empowering multiple manufacturers to produce the vaccine via technology transfer and a TRIPS waiver can rein in Pfizer’s power. Public health should come first. 輝瑞對主權國家的主導地位對應對大流行病構成了根本性挑戰。政府可以反擊。尤其是美國政府，可以運用其對輝瑞的影響力，要求採取更好的方法。通過技術轉讓和 TRIPS 豁免授權多家製造商生產疫苗可以控制輝瑞的權力。公共衛生應該放在首位。