4 ms·

First, IANAL. Second, I don't understand how raising the price can be illegal. If the company owns the product, then they should be able to set its price. Ev

First, IANAL. Second, I don't understand how raising the price can be illegal. If the company owns the product, then they should be able to set its price. Even if it makes people mad, or even if people die, his company has been granted ownership of this drug, and therefore should be able to set the price as they see fit. (I'm not arguing that this is a good thing. I think he is a horrible person. I'm just trying to objectively consider the legal side as I understand it.) Third, this is not an example of the failure of capitalism. Pure capitalism would allow other companies to provide the same product, and competition and the free market would determine the price. If anything, this is an exacerbated example of government-sanctioned monopolies of specific products, as provided under patent law. (I'm trying to determine a better word to describe it... perhaps fascism?)

dalke 11y ago
A pharmaceutical company has to work within a set of laws that limit what it can sell. These were developed in large part because "pure capitalism" didn't work for most cases of drug development. The elixir sulfanilamide poisoning crisis is quite instructive, as is the history of snake oil, quack medicine, and radium cure-alls. These regulations mean pharmaceutical development is far from being a free market. Some drugs, like colchicine and progesterone, were developed decades ago. The FDA would like them to be analyzed under the latest regulations, and is willing to grant market exclusivity as a way to entice companies to do this. A generic producer must also prove that their formulation is identical to the formulation which was granted FDA approval. Turing used a closed distribution model, where only patients could get access to the drugs, not potential competitors. As such, the companies did not "own the product", as you suggest. Not even the pseudo-ownership of controlling a limited patent monopoly. You can interpret this a lousy decisions by the FDA that have nothing to do with capitalism. Which is correct. But the FDA itself was put in place for two reasons: 1) pure capitalism has a track record of failing in this area, and 2) traditionally the companies in this field knew to be greedy but not too greedy, so the rules weren't set up for 'horrible' rule-lawyers. Because if they were too greedy, the lawmakers could and will change the laws again. So no, it's not illegal. But since the profits are made inside a highly regulated marketplace, it's best to not piss off the people who decide the regulations.

dalke 11y ago

A pharmaceutical company has to work within a set of laws that limit what it can sell. These were developed in large part because "pure capitalism" didn't work for most cases of drug development. The elixir sulfanilamide poisoning crisis is quite instructive, as is the history of snake oil, quack medicine, and radium cure-alls. These regulations mean pharmaceutical development is far from being a free market. Some drugs, like colchicine and progesterone, were developed decades ago. The FDA would like them to be analyzed under the latest regulations, and is willing to grant market exclusivity as a way to entice companies to do this. A generic producer must also prove that their formulation is identical to the formulation which was granted FDA approval. Turing used a closed distribution model, where only patients could get access to the drugs, not potential competitors. As such, the companies did not "own the product", as you suggest. Not even the pseudo-ownership of controlling a limited patent monopoly. You can interpret this a lousy decisions by the FDA that have nothing to do with capitalism. Which is correct. But the FDA itself was put in place for two reasons: 1) pure capitalism has a track record of failing in this area, and 2) traditionally the companies in this field knew to be greedy but not too greedy, so the rules weren't set up for 'horrible' rule-lawyers. Because if they were too greedy, the lawmakers could and will change the laws again. So no, it's not illegal. But since the profits are made inside a highly regulated marketplace, it's best to not piss off the people who decide the regulations.