One of the main oddities in the work of the Russian authorities is some kind of fundamental refusal to use international legal instruments.
For example, there is a “compulsory licensing” mechanism in the world. International law within the framework of the WTO gives member countries the direct right to introduce into their national legislation measures “necessary to protect public health”. Including these may be those measures that violate the intellectual property rights of the monopolies. This right was used by Mandela during the HIV epidemic in South Africa, when Bolshaya Pharma refused to reduce the prices of a number of drugs. This allowed to stop the epidemic, and then the foundation was created for the development of the local pharmaceutical industry. In Russia, despite the HIV epidemic of recent years, no movement in this direction is visible.
Brazil, thanks to a compulsory license for the drug efavirenz, has saved more than $ 100 million over the past five years.

Following the Hepatitis C outbreak, demand for sofosbuvir, a Gilead exclusive, has skyrocketed in several countries. Dozens of states have threatened the company to use compulsory licensing if it does not reduce the cost of drugs to an acceptable level, but not Russia. Therefore, in Kazakhstan, a course of treatment with the drug today costs $ 86, and we have about $ 3400. Malaysia recently introduced compulsory licensing for the drug.
At the same time, Gilead licensed 11 Indian companies to manufacture this drug for 101 countries, among which Russia was not included.

In their efforts to defend the sanctity of property rights, Russia has surpassed even the United States and Germany, which themselves resort to compulsory licensing mechanisms, and ended up among the leaders of the guardians, such as Nicaragua, Paraguay and the Central African Republic. For 20 years, the state has not used any of the balancing mechanisms provided for by international law, even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The question arises: why in our country the protection of intellectual property has actually turned into an instrument to protect the interests of corporations and their distributors, and not their own population?