Taiwan to ignore flu drug patent

RBM

RBM

CAGiversary!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4366514.stm
Taiwan has responded to bird flu fears by starting work on its own version of the anti-viral drug, Tamiflu, without waiting for the manufacturer's consent. Taiwan officials said they had applied for the right to copy the drug - but the priority was to protect the public.

Tamiflu, made by Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche, cannot cure bird-flu but is widely seen as the best anti-viral drug to fight it, correspondents say. Several countries have asked Roche for the right to make generic copies of Tamiflu.

Taiwan will produce six kg of its version of Tamiflu - enough, according to the government, to renew its stocks. The government has said it will not market the drug commercially.
*******
Intellectual property (IP) is notoriously flouted in China and Taiwan, and of course the word Pharmaceuticals goes hand in hand with Big Money...this announcement might not surprise some people (if you're willing to rip others off for your day to day entertainment, then why not for a potentially life-saving vaccine?) However, this is a case of the government itself openly ignoring an active patent...but how will this be received?

Will the rest of the world say,"Of course, that is understandable. If we were on the front lines of a potential pandemic and it came down to a question of red tape & money vs. lives (on a large scale, no less) then we would do no less. If you followed protocol and waited until casualties started cropping up, it would be too late!"?

Or, will this move be panned as a typical example of their mindset? "Given that there is no sign yet of human to human transmission, this move on their part is simply another example of how they want to get something for nothing. They are not the only ones at risk and worried about the risk of bird flu, and their actions can be considered panic mongering and dangerous in their own right!"?

A sticky situation. When casualties start appearing, people are very quick to blame the government (recall some of the angry rhetoric regarding money vs. lives in the aftermath of Katrina.) However, openly defying a standing patent in this fashion could be considered a very bad precedent.
(A timeline on asian bird flu so far)
 
If Taiwan is serious about making reparations for utilizing the patent, I see nothing wrong with cutting through alot of red tape. Again - if they are serious about paying for the patent, then they are weakening their negotiating position in an effort to save lives - that's a courageous stand that I'd never expect to see from the present US administration.
 
I would expect a wholly different response, but one that still favors IP protection over, for lack of a better phrase, human rights.

This is a circumstance where IP protectionists cannot simply claim that it is illegal and appalling for IP laws to be ignored; this is different from copying albums, movies, or software. This can potentially have life or death consequences.

That last sentence is important, and I imagine that those favoring respecting IP will frame the issue as a matter of pharmaceutical consistency versus governmental bureaucracy and potential inconsistency; the pharmaceutical company has the experts that the Taiwanese government lacks. I expect it to be similar to the reaction many United States congresspersons who are on the teat of the pharmaceutical lobby had when some people proposed importing drugs from Canada to reduce the financial burden on those who needed drugs. That is, these drugs are not held up to the standards that the United States (or other nations, in this case) uses, so their consistency and safety is perfectly questionable.

They, in effect, convinced us that Canada had shitty drugs; they were a bureacratic mess, and had no idea how to regulate pharmaceuticals. They did so successfully. It should be exponentially easier to convince us that Taiwan is just as lax in their production.
 
A simple problem to accepting Taiwan's willingness to put the welfare of their citizens over patent infringement is this: Roche (the Swiss company which holds the patent for Tamiflu) has not been slow in preparing Tamiflu stocks and taking orders. If Taiwan was so concerned about asian bird flu and their geographical proximity to China, then why didn't they put in their order for the vaccine with the other countries that are currently at the top of the waiting list? Roche clearly stated a first come-first serve approach, and somehow other customers had the foresight to order theirs and they stand ready to pay for it without cheating the patent holder of its lawful rights.

With regard to the comparison to an earlier scenario with Canadian drugs, it's difficult to reconcile the two, since Taiwan is manufacturing their illicit generic version strictly (I believe....they said that it would not be available for commerical distribution, I think) for domestic purposes. Therefore, the quality of their product and its adherence to processing regulations are largely moot (given that the body producing the drug is the very body responsible for any drug-related regulation.)

[and, it looks like hoarding has begun in America. "Now panicked, the herd stampedes"
Run on Drug for Avian Flu Has Physicians Worried

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 22, 2005; Page A01

What fallout shelters were to worries about the Bomb, and duct tape and plastic sheeting were to fears of terrorism after Sept. 11, Tamiflu is starting to be for the specter of pandemic influenza.

Across the country, people appear to be building home stockpiles of the prescription antiviral medicine, according to reports by drugstores, pharmaceutical benefit managers and physicians.

Audrey P. Corson, a physician in Bethesda who has practiced for 20 years, agreed that "this is a tough issue." She said she firmly believes, however, "that you don't give out drugs without a sick patient." Her only exceptions have been for two or three patients traveling to Southeast Asia, where all 118 human cases of H5N1 influenza infection have occurred. She thinks practitioners should consider both public health and patients' desires when confronted with the requests. "If there is an outbreak, we're going to have to rely on the CDC and state governments to put those drugs where we need them. And I don't want them in people's bathrooms," she said.

Roche is the only maker of Tamiflu, which takes more than six months to synthesize in a complicated and dangerous manufacturing process. The company said this week it is in discussions with four makers of generic drugs over possibly letting them produce Tamiflu, too.

Roche will soon start making the drug in the United States in an operation that involves six factories, the last approved for use on Monday by the Food and Drug Administration. Previously, Tamiflu was made only in Europe.

Hurley said about 40 countries have ordered Tamiflu, and the company expects to sell up to $270 million worth for national stockpiles in the second half of this year.]
 
If they're not willing to make the drug publicly available for sale and are holding it in government stockpiles "just in case" Roche would be insane to challenge them on a PR standpoint alone. I think you can safely assume some deal will be worked out before all is said and done. Likewise I'm surprised at this point someone hasn't just started mass manufacturing anti-AIDS drugs that are pirated for use in Africa or drug companies haven't been selling drugs at production cost.
 
I have no issue with this since it's small scale. While mass illegal aid's drugs seems like a good idea at first, you have to realize who is putting in all the research. If there isn't any money to be made, then the drug companies aren't going to put as much effort into finding cures that would produce minimal profit. It's sad, but enforcing patents over aids drugs will increase the effort put into finding a cure, since this will ensure they are profitable.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I have no issue with this since it's small scale. While mass illegal aid's drugs seems like a good idea at first, you have to realize who is putting in all the research. If there isn't any money to be made, then the drug companies aren't going to put as much effort into finding cures that would produce minimal profit. It's sad, but enforcing patents over aids drugs will increase the effort put into finding a cure, since this will ensure they are profitable.[/QUOTE]

That having been said, the drug companies should be regulated to insure that they are charging a fair price. Patents are a government-sponsored monopoly - as such our politicians should be more worried about corporate abuse then picking up the next Glaxxo campaign contribution.
 
Patents government sponsored monopoly? What communist planet are you from?

I invent cold fusion. I spent $1,000,000,000 dollars doing it. I should give it away? I should let anyone steal my invention? I invent a method of doubling wheat production through hydroponics where I can produce 2-3 times the amount of wheat produced in soil in seasonal climates. I should give it away? Let other people profit from my work, research, time and invested funds?

You do realize that most patents are only issued for 7 years right? You do realize that once brand name drugs have run out of this period they're made as generics right?

Government sponsored monoploy. You're fucking brain dead camoor.
 
I invent a method of doubling wheat production through hydroponics where I can produce 2-3 times the amount of wheat produced in soil in seasonal climates. I should give it away? Let other people profit from my work, research, time and invested funds?
Click to expand...

You do realize that, morally, most would agree you should. It could have a huge impact on starvation in many poor countries. The ones that could afford it aren't the ones who need it most.
 
You know why poor countries exist? Because there are no guarantees of private ownership and any semblence of rule of law does not exist. Hence, no one is willing to invest in them. Look at the billions in food aid the west has given to African nations. What happens to the aid? The food is used as a weapon. It either falls into the hands of armed thugs, is left to sit to rot on the dock because it may acutally get to those who need it and may not be too fond of the people with guns and existing food supplies.

Don't mistake poor countries for anything more than complete and utter corruption of those in control and a wholesale lack of any societal structure even repressive capitalistic societies like Iran, Saudi Arabia or Egypt posess.

Do you honestly think that a country like Somalia would ever attract investments in massive scale for such technology? Nope. Why? I've already stated the reasons.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know why poor countries exist? Because there are no guarantees of private ownership and any semblence of rule of law does not exist. Hence, no one is willing to invest in them. Look at the billions in food aid the west has given to African nations. What happens to the aid? The food is used as a weapon. It either falls into the hands of armed thugs, is left to sit to rot on the dock because it may acutally get to those who need it and may not be too fond of the people with guns and existing food supplies.

Don't mistake poor countries for anything more than complete and utter corruption of those in control and a wholesale lack of any societal structure even repressive capitalistic societies like Iran, Saudi Arabia or Egypt posess.

Do you honestly think that a country like Somalia would ever attract investments in massive scale for such technology? Nope. Why? I've already stated the reasons.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about the African countries that the West took over, colonized, raped the land of resources, and then left in a destitute fashion totally unindustrialized? Or, are you talking about the countries invaded by these destitute countries victimized by decolonization?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Patents government sponsored monopoly? What communist planet are you from?

I invent cold fusion. I spent $1,000,000,000 dollars doing it. I should give it away? I should let anyone steal my invention? I invent a method of doubling wheat production through hydroponics where I can produce 2-3 times the amount of wheat produced in soil in seasonal climates. I should give it away? Let other people profit from my work, research, time and invested funds?

You do realize that most patents are only issued for 7 years right? You do realize that once brand name drugs have run out of this period they're made as generics right?

Government sponsored monoploy. You're fucking brain dead camoor.[/QUOTE]

I don't consider patents a monopoly and consider what you said absurd camoor. If someone created something they have the RIGHT to patent it. Monopoly is a BUSINESS practice and I think you need to get it right camoor.
Given what PAD has said about patents I think 5 years into it Pharmaceuticals should have to charge a lesser rate for someone who has to have said product. Now if it's an Allergy medication no but for heart medication, medicine that's vital I think drug companies should be FORCED to do this since in the next 3 years they've probably already EASILY covered the research costs.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I don't consider patents a monopoly and consider what you said absurd camoor. If someone created something they have the RIGHT to patent it. Monopoly is a BUSINESS practice and I think you need to get it right camoor.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that patents exist solely for BUSINESS reasons, right?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know why poor countries exist? Because there are no guarantees of private ownership and any semblence of rule of law does not exist. Hence, no one is willing to invest in them. Look at the billions in food aid the west has given to African nations. What happens to the aid? The food is used as a weapon. It either falls into the hands of armed thugs, is left to sit to rot on the dock because it may acutally get to those who need it and may not be too fond of the people with guns and existing food supplies.

Don't mistake poor countries for anything more than complete and utter corruption of those in control and a wholesale lack of any societal structure even repressive capitalistic societies like Iran, Saudi Arabia or Egypt posess.

Do you honestly think that a country like Somalia would ever attract investments in massive scale for such technology? Nope. Why? I've already stated the reasons.[/QUOTE]

Those are some reasons, but it's not that simple. Also, while that does occur in some countries, food aid is not abused like that in most countries, and many countries that do not have problems with rebel groups have major poverty issues.

Though, I'd like you to explain places like Chile and Barbados. They have corruption levels about equal to that of the u.s. (http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en.html), but suffer from massive poverty. They have rule of law and property rights as well. It's more complex than just ensuring safety.
http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en.html
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']You do realize that patents exist solely for BUSINESS reasons, right?[/QUOTE]

Look I'm not gonna give away something I fucking created just to be nice. I wanna get paid just like anyone else. Granted I will say that a new data storage method with lasers is different than me writing something but both came from MY head, something that was produced because of me. Maybe later I'd give it for free or at a discounted rate but first off I wanna make some money off it.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Look I'm not gonna give away something I fucking created just to be nice. I wanna get paid just like anyone else. Granted I will say that a new data storage method with lasers is different than me writing something but both came from MY head, something that was produced because of me. Maybe later I'd give it for free or at a discounted rate but first off I wanna make some money off it.[/QUOTE]

Well, now your argument has transfered to mere greed. Of course, one can allow other companies to produce the same drug. You can spread the wealth without cutting deeply into your own. It's this idea of different extremes where you either get all the money or none that forces people to believe that it's bad.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Well, now your argument has transfered to mere greed. Of course, one can allow other companies to produce the same drug. You can spread the wealth without cutting deeply into your own. It's this idea of different extremes where you either get all the money or none that forces people to believe that it's bad.[/QUOTE]

Morally, you're right. Practically, you're wrong. The best way to ensure that research is done is by providing massive profit incentives. Medicine that is most profitable is what will be researched most. By spreading the wealth you can still make money, but you greatly reduce the amount of profit you will make. Also, since there is no patent to rush for, drug companies would have less reason to work as fast as they can to come up with a drug. Sometimes more good is accomplished by throwing aside your sense of justice.
 
As I've said before and get to say again, anyone whose name is capitalist_mao will have more communist understanding than capitalist understanding. No capitalist could ever identify with a hardline communist in any economic or societal way.

Do any of you realize that it takes nearly $900 million to bring a drug from research to market? That of course doesn't count the hundreds of drugs that may have millions invested in them and never make it beyond lab or animal testing let alone clinical trials or FDA approval. The odds of any drug making it from research is less than 1-100.

Do you think Upjohn, Glaxo Smith Kline, Roche, Pfizer or any other drug company is going to put up that kind of research money if they have to make their money back in 3 or 5 years? You think drug prices are bad on the 7 year cycle? Do you have any idea what would happen to people if their non-generic brand named drugs went up 33-60% because some idiots without any comprehension of capitalism and research said so?

I thank God you people don't have a say in how the world works.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']As I've said before and get to say again, anyone whose name is capitalist_mao will have more communist understanding than capitalist understanding. No capitalist could ever identify with a hardline communist in any economic or societal way.[/QUOTE]

My Screen name is only meant to be humorous contradiction in of itself (like Futurama's Evil Lincoln). It's not meant to be a reflection of anything I view.

That being said, I'm willing to bet licensing rights would serve a pharm company very well.
 
BWHAHAHAHA! You've show yourself but nothing more than a socialist leaning stooge. Don't kid yourself. Your screen name is a perfect paradox of what you think you are as opposed to what you really are.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']As I've said before and get to say again, anyone whose name is capitalist_mao will have more communist understanding than capitalist understanding. No capitalist could ever identify with a hardline communist in any economic or societal way.

Do any of you realize that it takes nearly $900 million to bring a drug from research to market? That of course doesn't count the hundreds of drugs that may have millions invested in them and never make it beyond lab or animal testing let alone clinical trials or FDA approval. The odds of any drug making it from research is less than 1-100.

Do you think Upjohn, Glaxo Smith Kline, Roche, Pfizer or any other drug company is going to put up that kind of research money if they have to make their money back in 3 or 5 years? You think drug prices are bad on the 7 year cycle? Do you have any idea what would happen to people if their non-generic brand named drugs went up 33-60% because some idiots without any comprehension of capitalism and research said so?

I thank God you people don't have a say in how the world works.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I've heard that before and frankly I think they can MORE than cover it in 3 years after all the advertising they've shown for the drugs.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']BWHAHAHAHA! You've show yourself but nothing more than a socialist leaning stooge. Don't kid yourself. Your screen name is a perfect paradox of what you think you are as opposed to what you really are.[/QUOTE]

I'm curious what makes you think this. I've never thought of myself as a socialist.
 
Read your own posts.

[quote name='Sarang01']Yeah I've heard that before and frankly I think they can MORE than cover it in 3 years after all the advertising they've shown for the drugs.[/QUOTE]

How do you sell anything in America? Advertise. How does anyone know you have a product for sale? Advertise. How does anyone know what your product does? Advertise. How do people know there's something that can take care of a health problem when they may only see their doctor once a year? Advertise.

What do you think is funding research? Massively advertised consumer drugs for less than chronic medical conditions like toenail fungus, erectile disfunction, heartburn/acid reflux, allergies etc.

Drugs that are advertised in print or on television sell 100's of percentage points more than those that aren't advertised. Drug company revenues skyrocketed when there were finally given the ability to advertise on television.

BTW, the nightly network newscasts would disappear if not for pharmaceutical advertising.

Sarang01 you have no idea how any of this works. I am thankful your opinion counts for nothing when it comes to policy that matters and you're nothing more than a chattering message board nothing.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Read your own posts.[/QUOTE]

Obviously you're making some sort of (incorrect) assumption. Since I do not consider myself a socialist.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck..... must be....[/QUOTE]

Yet, you haven't shown any proof!

Your assertions aren't providence.
 
Why do I need to prove an opinion? Better yet, how would I prove an opinion? Why do you care if I think you're a socialist? What difference does it make in the world?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Why do I need to prove an opinion? Better yet, how would I prove an opinion? Why do you care if I think you're a socialist? What difference does it make in the world?[/QUOTE]

Because, I want to root out why you would make such erroneous assumptions. You make one assumption about me, and you start to make other assumptions about me. Your tone changes because of these assumptions you make. You decide to argue differently.

Ultimately, your assumptions change the tone of the conversation. I find that to be detrimental.

Anyways, you can look through my posts and not find any of them advocating socialism, central government ownership of property, or any form of dictatorship.
 
Socialism is not central government ownership of property. Damn, what do they teach kids these days? That's communism.

socialism:1. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

2. Economic system which is based on cooperation rather than competition and which utilizes centralized planning and distribution.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Socialism is not central government ownership of property. Damn, what do they teach kids these days? That's communism.

socialism:1. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

2. Economic system which is based on cooperation rather than competition and which utilizes centralized planning and distribution. [/QUOTE]

I see you have dictionary.com's 2nd definition, but neglected to include their 1st (Essentially a fallacy of exclusion):

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

Seems to be pointing in my favor on the definition of the subject.

Anyways, that's beside the point.

Back on subject, you haven't shown me any evidence that proves that I advocate socialism in any way shape or form.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']As I've said before and get to say again, anyone whose name is capitalist_mao will have more communist understanding than capitalist understanding. No capitalist could ever identify with a hardline communist in any economic or societal way.

Do any of you realize that it takes nearly $900 million to bring a drug from research to market? That of course doesn't count the hundreds of drugs that may have millions invested in them and never make it beyond lab or animal testing let alone clinical trials or FDA approval. The odds of any drug making it from research is less than 1-100.

Do you think Upjohn, Glaxo Smith Kline, Roche, Pfizer or any other drug company is going to put up that kind of research money if they have to make their money back in 3 or 5 years? You think drug prices are bad on the 7 year cycle? Do you have any idea what would happen to people if their non-generic brand named drugs went up 33-60% because some idiots without any comprehension of capitalism and research said so?

I thank God you people don't have a say in how the world works.[/QUOTE]

Yea, most projects that are started in research are killed before reaching development (and subsequent clinical trials) for a variety of reasons. The monetary investment increases exponentially as you get closer to market, especially during the clinical trials.

I will admit that I am not familiar with the synthesis of tamiflu. Roche claims that there is a potentially explosive step in the synthesis (nitration?), and they are concerned about the competancy of another manufacturer being able to handle this safely. (The safety standards of a chemist who was trained in China are alot more liberal when compared to someone who was trained here.) The last time that I looked at the news, it was some Indian company who wanted to sidestep this patent.

From a professional standpoint, I am definately concerned if another company can potentially just come in and sidestep a patent. As PAD says, we are a business and we need to make a profit to keep our jobs (and to keep the investors placated for awhile).

One of my colleagues (PhD medicinal chemist) keeps a blog where he discusses some of the current news related to the pharmaceutical industry, if you are interested.

http://www.corante.com/pipeline/
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Why do I need to prove an opinion? Better yet, how would I prove an opinion? Why do you care if I think you're a socialist? What difference does it make in the world?[/QUOTE]

Your opinion can be based on false evidence, no evidence, have an inherent bias, etc.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Patents government sponsored monopoly? What communist planet are you from?

I invent cold fusion. I spent $1,000,000,000 dollars doing it. I should give it away? I should let anyone steal my invention? I invent a method of doubling wheat production through hydroponics where I can produce 2-3 times the amount of wheat produced in soil in seasonal climates. I should give it away? Let other people profit from my work, research, time and invested funds?

You do realize that most patents are only issued for 7 years right? You do realize that once brand name drugs have run out of this period they're made as generics right?

Government sponsored monoploy. You're fucking brain dead camoor.[/QUOTE]

Touchy touchy. I should have said that patents are a limited time period monopoly, and nowhere did I say that they should be abolished.

Monopoly - a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller.

This is how patents work - many corporations or people can buy Theraflu, but as long as Theraflu's patent is alive, the government will insure that the Theraflu product or rights to the Theraflu IP can only be sold by Theraflu. Obviously such a massive priveledge given to one company must be closely monitored by the government to insure that they do not use unfair business practices (such as raising the price exorbitantly).

On a side note, you really need to calm down, PAD. You're wearing out your keyoard's question mark, and you're giving the rest of this board a headache with your hit-and-run overreactions to everything.
 
[quote name='camoor']That having been said, the drug companies should be regulated to insure that they are charging a fair price.[/QUOTE]
That is easy to say, but very hard to do. I do not see why someone would seize on your statement as a call for the abolition of copyrights--aside from over-enthusiasm--but I can say that I personally would not have any idea how to modify existing copyright laws in order to "moderate" pricing for life-saving products.

Saying that Roche will most likely "make a deal" with Taiwan in order to maintain good public relations is (practically speaking) a likely possibility, but in essence it assumes that this incident over Tamiflu will have no discernible impact on copyright law on an international level. That is, that this flouting of IP rights in the name of public health necessity is an aberrant exception to the rule and does not mean that the rule needs to be changed. I'm not sure if the outcome to this incident will prove so inocuous.

The comparison to the AIDS crisis in Africa is an apt one, I feel, in one regard: it shows that no one will (? pending reactions to Taiwan's actions) blame you for breaking IP laws to save a huge number of lives in jeopardy....but if you can not do so yourself, then nobody else will do it for you. Clearly, AIDS has already decimated entire populations (and generations!) in Africa, and although no group exists within its native population which has the ability to produce anti-retroviral treatments, no foreign companies have stepped in to play Mother Theresa.

When people speak of huge foreign aid, they refer to billions of dollars harvested from taxpayers. A handful of politicians gives it away and beams proudly into cameras at what they have managed to accomplish in doing so. But, in speaking of drugs to treat AIDs, that can only be produced by a small group of people, the financial hit can not be spread amongst the bank accounts of an entire country of people...it's focused on a much smaller (comparatively) group of bank accounts...and in deathly silence, inaction is coupled to preventable casualties.
 
[quote name='RBM']That is easy to say, but very hard to do. I do not see why someone would seize on your statement as a call for the abolition of copyrights--aside from over-enthusiasm--but I can say that I personally would not have any idea how to modify existing copyright laws in order to "moderate" pricing for life-saving products.[/QUOTE]

Well it is already done to an extent, if the government just let companies with a life-saving drug patent price these drugs as high as they wanted, then the company would seek to gouge the consumer since they hold an inordinate amount of power in that trasaction (IE I am the sole supplier of this drug - you must buy from me, or you die)

Here's an example of the pharmaceutical company's abuse of the process: the drug companies realize that the government is obligated to subsidize a certain portion of the drug costs for eligible medicare recipients. The drug companies hire lobbyists who work (IE give handouts) with politicians to create legislation weakening the negotiating power of government medicare regulators, and then continually raise the price in accordance. The drug recepient is none the wiser, and the tax payer gets the bill.

Since 1998, drug companies have spent $758 million on lobbying — more than any other industry, according to government records analyzed by the Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group. In Washington, the industry has 1,274 lobbyists — more than two for every member of Congress.

"They are powerful," says Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "You can hardly swing a cat by the tail in that town without hitting a pharmaceutical lobbyist."

Over the years those lobbyists have been very successful, demonstrating that the industry knows politics as well as it knows chemistry. Drug companies won coverage for prescription drugs under Medicare in 2003 while blocking the government from negotiating prices downward. They have so far kept out imports of cheaper medicines from Canada and other countries. And they have protected a system that uses company fees to speed the drug-approval process.
"They win more than they should," says James Love, an industry critic who is director of the non-profit Consumer Project on Technology. "The one thing they have going for them is money."
Click to expand...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2005-04-25-drug-lobby-cover_x.htm
 
More or less the same reason DVD makers, game makers and other regionalized IP's aren't. With pricing structures set up to accomodate local market conditions from a regulatory and market position it's not really fair now is it?

Now I know many people think drugs are different from other IP's but they aren't. There is a significant movement in Canada to prevent them from supplying additional drugs to the U.S. as well.

Why can I go to China and get a bucket of KFC for $3.something as opposed to $7-8 something here? Because the market conditions dictate that.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']More or less the same reason DVD makers, game makers and other regionalized IP's aren't. With pricing structures set up to accomodate local market conditions from a regulatory and market position it's not really fair now is it?

Now I know many people think drugs are different from other IP's but they aren't. There is a significant movement in Canada to prevent them from supplying additional drugs to the U.S. as well.

Why can I go to China and get a bucket of KFC for $3.something as opposed to $7-8 something here? Because the market conditions dictate that.[/QUOTE]

Canada is concerned about the running low on certain drugs if the u.s. allows imports from canada (the flu vaccine shortage is a perfect example of this). But, many canadian businesses cater to u.s. citizens, even posting signs in their stores welcoming them.

Though, the argument is that u.s. companies over charge for medicine in the u.s., and by allowing imports from canada it would not only allow many people to afford medicine they otherwise would not be able to recieve, but it would put pressure on drug companies to lower prices in the u.s.

Comparing the u.s. with china and the u.s. with canada is a poor comparison, since, if anything, canada is more expensive than the u.s. DVD's, basic medicine (cold pills, advil etc.), games, clothing, food etc. all costs equal or more (mainly due to the rising canadian dollar) in canada than in the u.s. Saying their is no market for u.s. level pricing is not true in canada any more than it's true in the u.s.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']More or less the same reason DVD makers, game makers and other regionalized IP's aren't. With pricing structures set up to accomodate local market conditions from a regulatory and market position it's not really fair now is it?

Now I know many people think drugs are different from other IP's but they aren't. There is a significant movement in Canada to prevent them from supplying additional drugs to the U.S. as well.

Why can I go to China and get a bucket of KFC for $3.something as opposed to $7-8 something here? Because the market conditions dictate that.[/QUOTE]

Thank you PAD. Remember how we outsource work to China to get it done more cheaply and they have lower average living standards than us or rather most do and that accounts for their lower wage. Now consider this the employer brings that product to the U.S. and charges a low price for it that would not be feasible given it were produced in our country. You say market conditions, what about living wage conditions? What American do you know that lives the way most Chinese do to create a living wage that would be that low? NONE unless they're homeless pretty much. You're talking about market conditions and I get the impression you think it would wreck the drug market by importing artificially cheap drugs from Canada created by their Socialist drug program because it's not a part of the market here but what about when we use Chinese labor to get a product made for the U.S.? We're incorporating their wage system into our market and causing just as much havok as you feel importing Canada's drug's and therefore their system would cause here.
We created a thing called tarriffs to protect the financial wellbeing of competing American products that couldn't compete with low or artificially low foreign products but unfortunately over the years American Presidents and Congress have taken away those protections. If Americans were paying what the American DOMESTIC industries dictated they should maybe less people would have a hard time paying for these drugs.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']More or less the same reason DVD makers, game makers and other regionalized IP's aren't. With pricing structures set up to accomodate local market conditions from a regulatory and market position it's not really fair now is it?

Now I know many people think drugs are different from other IP's but they aren't. There is a significant movement in Canada to prevent them from supplying additional drugs to the U.S. as well.

Why can I go to China and get a bucket of KFC for $3.something as opposed to $7-8 something here? Because the market conditions dictate that.[/QUOTE]

You really aren't comparing IP to fried chicken now, are you?
 
The original recipie and pressure cooker method of producing KFC is worth billions of dollars. KFC has over 30,000 restaurants worldwide and is the largest restaurant chain in China. There are over 700 of them alone and they're opening one a week.

It is absolutely an IP. Just as the original formula for Coca Cola is. Just because something is consumable doesn't mean it doesn't contain IP work as well.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The original recipie and pressure cooker method of producing KFC is worth billions of dollars. KFC has over 30,000 restaurants worldwide and is the largest restaurant chain in China. There are over 700 of them alone and they're opening one a week.

It is absolutely an IP. Just as the original formula for Coca Cola is. Just because something is consumable doesn't mean it doesn't contain IP work as well.[/QUOTE]

Interesting analogy, but I think it misses the key components that make pharmaceuticals so unique.

Under US law I can open a generic fried chicken restaurant down the street from a USA KFC. The generic fried chicken would be greasy, fatty, and salty - similar enough in function to KFC. I can't open a generic Theraflu drug factory, and apparently there is no way to develop another flu drug without massive amounts of R&D taking years of research. Furthermore Theraflu saves lives, KFC fried chicken does not.
 
Man, before any of you further exhibit just how badly the marketers have "got" you, I present the following:

Theraflu:
TheraFlu_Cold_Cough_Night_Time_Hot_Liquid_Formula_Natural_Lemon_Flavor-resized200.jpg


Tamiflu:
tamiflu_ds.jpg
(Yeah, so it's not in English. What of it?)

PAD, I'm curious what you think of, for want of a better phrase, a "benign" approach to breaking IP laws. I can't think of any examples involving fried chicken, but perhaps I'm not being creative enough. However, as it relates to Tamiflu, suppose the Taiwanese government produces its Tamiflu clone, knowingly breaking IP laws. However, supposing that bird flu does indeed become "pandemic," and does so in the southeastern area of Asia in which it originated, let's further suppose that Roche cannot keep up with the demand for the drug; it is simply not producing enough to keep up with demand, or it is oversupplying the drug to countries in which it is not pandemic, but the customers are willing to pay a premium (e.g., The United States), all the while not supplying it to the countries that need it the most.

Long question short, do you think it is appropriate to break IP laws to prepare for a scenario in which your populace is potentially at an immediate and widespread health risk, and failure to break those laws could potentially cause the loss of thousands upon thousands of lives?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I've already said yes. Pay attention.[/QUOTE]

You would expect me to read through a thread that makes the kind of banter on CNN's "Crossfire" look like a mensa meeting to find your single post? Sorry if I want to remain beholden to the topic of the thread such that I'm not going to read ad hominems toward someone's username or braying about what "socialism" means, when I'd rather discuss what's relevant. If only for a moment, anyway.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I want to remain beholden to the topic of the thread...I'd rather discuss what's relevant. If only for a moment, anyway.[/QUOTE]

:lol: ...it does seem like only 10% of the posts in any one thread tend to focus on the actual topic of the thread. I'd guess that the average breakdown would go something like:
-10% posts directly relevant to the thread topic
-25% posts vaguely relevant to a broader issue which encompasses the topic
-15% posts comprised of "witty" (I use the term loosely) comments & statements of personal indifference to the topic, thread, and opinions of others in general
-50% posts with an over-simplified, one-line opinion + a dismissal of other posts as illogical and hopelessly dimwitted and stubborn

...and now, lest I stray from the topic myself, I will respond directly to your earlier comment and say that I believe Taiwan's gamble is a fairly safe one. Even if no rash of flu-related deaths break out, they can still claim that their violation of the patent was justified as a public health measure. However, I mainly wonder if this incident will have any discernible impact on drug copyrights in the future. If I were in a position to effect company policy in a large bio-pharmaceutical...would I try to use this case as grounds to be more protective/secretive of processing/manufacturing protocols?
:whistle2:k

[edit: they're in talks with Roche regarding details such as licensing fees, Mao. They claim that they have received a positive response from Roche, so far.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top