Part I: Do you agree with the compulsory licensing of lifesaving medications to national health emergencies? What are the consequences of compulsory licensing to the patentee and the people in need of these medications (in wealthy and poor countries)? Write a one page explanation of your opinion and conclusion.

Part II: Now assume that instead of medication, it is lifesaving technology -- do you have the same opinions? what would this do to the patentee, the people in need of the technology and the supply/demand of the technology? (for example, artificially created (3D printed biotechnology) organs ready for transplant) Write a one page explanation how you feel this is different or the same as the scenario in Part I.

Remember to cite resources and validate your reasoning.

Please type here not a screenshot.