4 ms·
Indian person here, in case what I'm about to write is offensive to anyone: The difference is that the Indian companies are simply stealing intellectual proper
by hackaflocka 11y ago
Indian person here, in case what I'm about to write is offensive to anyone:
The difference is that the Indian companies are simply stealing intellectual property paid for by American taxpayers. These companies didn't spend years and billions of dollars going through the FDA maze to develop the drugs. They simply stepped in after all the hard work was done, to develop an alternative process for a proven drug.
That's right, India has "process" patents, not "product" patents, for pharmaceuticals. Look it up.
- vaidhy 11y agoThat is incorrect. India changed to product patents about 10 years ago. If you read the article,you would have realized that Gilead licensed the drug for generic production in India and it was not someone "stealing" the IP.
- hackaflocka 11y agoSorry, I didn't read the carefully. Apologies if what you are saying is correct.
- pavanred 11y agoThe article mentions, Gilead licensed 11 companies in India to make generics. I don't see how licensing to make generics make it stealing intellectual property. Besides I am curious how $1000 in USA compares to $4 (about ₹ 265) with the per capita income in perspective, as a measure of affordability of the drug.
- jsudhams 11y ago265 per pill? if you need two pills per day then it is out of reach for i would 80% of Indians it is required for more than a week. Average per day for coolie(low level worker) is around 300 bugs , our maid worker charges Rs 1200 per month for 1 hour work every day with 4 day leaves in a month but she works in another 4/5 house as maid as well for similar pay.
- hackaflocka 11y agoApologies, I didn't read the article.
- paul_milovanov 11y agothe purchasing power of $1000 vs ₹265 is not important; Gilead benefits, because they now have >$0 from each pill whereas otherwise they would have $0. Identical to software piracy in poor countries: if people are buying DVDs with your software for $2, that's what the market will support. Nobody offers you a choice between $500 and $2, it's between $2 and $0 :) So you'd be smart to go and start selling it yourself for $2.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- paul_milovanov 11y agoIntellectual property (incl. patents, etc) is a tool that countries use to stimulate innovation. More practically, there's no market in India for this pill at $1000 and there is at $4. The original manufacturer's most reasonable course of action would be to step in and start competing at $4 per pill, with a slight benefit of the "brand". Then they would have $4 per pill whereas now they have $0. And, you know, the company & investors planned to recoup the costs and profit based on projected revenues in US/EU markets. If their strategy was, we'll develop this drug, start selling it in India for 1K a pop, ...., profit!, they'd have problems far more serious than this one. And speaking of fairness, you can hardly argue that using "stolen" knowledge is unethical if, e.g. with cheap antiretrovirals you save tens of millions of people. "Stolen"? who gives a fuck -- the drug developer & investors made a profit in the US, the model works, they'll develop new drugs again. Way more useful than the vast majority of foreign aid. (And that's not to mention the benefits of economic activity and growth of human capital that wouldn't happen if instead the government was just buying the drugs from outside instead of having domestic companies figure out how to make them). So, don't get your panties in a bunch :)) Things are going to be fine.