4 ms·

Im curious what is stopping some other countries (even micro-nations) from instituting a policy that forfeits all patents on medication. Lets say you take the

Im curious what is stopping some other countries (even micro-nations) from instituting a policy that forfeits all patents on medication. Lets say you take the country of Saint Lucia- Could they not spur the economy (among the lowest in the world by GDP) by saying any company can manufacture any existing drug and sell it? I feel like the medical tourism for that could be extreme, especially since there is still many treatments india still does respect the patent for. If the country put it in their constitution that all drugs should be a human right, could a legal action be taken against the country itself? I imagine the only recourse would be the pharma companies trying to force legislation in other countries to bring sanctions, but I think that would be a hard sell.

benjamo 11y ago
Such a country wouldn't get admission to the WTO and would have a very hard time trading with the other countries in it. It would also amount to state endorsed IP theft.
- x5n1 11y ago
  Theft is such a strong word. If you control the language, you control the world.
  - return0 11y ago
    to nitpick, that is exactly what you are doing.
    - x5n1 11y ago
      rhetoric goes both ways. or to put it another way, fighting fire with fire.
- linuxkerneldev 11y ago
  > Such a country wouldn't get admission to the WTO As opposed to what we do when we invade and bomb/drone other countries? As opposed to what we did when we engineer coups in resource rich countries? Come on. Let me guess, you're buying into the idea that generics hurt RnD. Let me assure you, having worked briefly in a pharma RnD lab, the bulk of big pharmas expenditures are on marketing and bribes, NOT RnD. Here's a recent headline: http://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/02/22/novartis-south-korea-bribes-doctors/ http://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/02/22/novartis-south-... You'll find similar bribery cases with GSK, Pfizer, etc.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    >> Such a country wouldn't get admission to the WTO > As opposed to what we do when we invade and bomb/drone other countries? I don't think the parent supports the action, but merely stating the likely outcome, realpolitik and all. S/he is answering gp's question: "What is stopping some other countries (even micro-nations) from instituting a policy that forfeits all patents on medication" The answer, in short, is leverage: smaller countries can be pressured into not even considering it - because of the consequences. India can do this because it is better able to withstand the hypothetical political pressure.
- anon4 11y ago
  "IP theft" That is a pretty good zen koan, up there with "the sound of one hand clapping".
forrestthewoods 11y ago
Trade treaties. Saint Lucia wants to trade with bigger countries. Those countries may not want to trade back if Saint Lucia goes out of their way to reproduce intellectual property. Could legal action be taken? If Saint Lucia signed a treaty that defined rules for such an action. Also, selling a drug for any price smells an awful lot like capitalism. Some folks would rather the government set prices. Hey, I wonder what happens if a company sells bad drugs that hurts people? The government should impose regulations. Hrm I bet that would drive costs up. Maybe drug companies need some financial incentives to help cover those costs? .... Wait a second!
taneq 11y ago
I dunno about legal action but I could sure imagine individual pharma companies (and other primarily IP-related industries with heavy R&D costs) deciding not to sell products there ever again.
x5n1 11y ago
WTO, American sanctions, American coups, CIA, to name a few. Also India actually manufacturers these drugs, and most of them should be generic because they have been around for a long time. Small nations would not be able to manufacture them the same way India does.
- FlyingSnake 11y ago
  Seconded. Also Saint Lucia doesn't have the clout as India when it comes to global trade.
  - gautamsomani 11y ago
    Is India that clouted?
    - puissance 11y ago
      In some cases, yes. You've to realize that each country in the WTO picks which battles to fight and which one's to let go. For example, when Novartis lost the case, in Indian supreme courts, to ban the production of Gleevec (a Cancer drug) by Indian generic makers, they could've taken the arbitration to the WTO. However, this would mean terrible PR for both Novartis and US. Instead, PhRMA (a trade group for big pharma) and Novartis decided to let this one lie. However, the US did recently challenge India's decision to force LCR (local content requirement) in it's push to use more solar energy in the country. USA, which is one of the biggest exporters of solar panels to India, successfully fought this decision. I feel, in the end, the WTO is like any other court where two big conglomerates go head-to-head. Each one does not want to piss off the other to a great extent. And settlements are preferred over outright fights.
ucaetano 11y ago
This only works for countries that create no drugs, so they can benefit from companies in other countries spending the billions required to create new drugs, without any spending. Not to mention that every single Pharma company would stop all R&D investment in about 5 seconds. Would you invest your own money in a Pharma company if there were no drug patents?
- adrianN 11y ago
  Maybe we shouldn't let Pharma companies do the R&D and then pay for it via expensive heathcare. Maybe we should take the money and directly fund research and make the results free for everyone.
  - ucaetano 11y ago
    "Take the money directly" Whose money? The investor's? "Maybe we should take the money and directly fund research and make the results free for everyone." And that would be more efficient than letting companies compete for funding from investors?
    - x5n1 11y ago
      This sort of logic does not really work for drugs or even for science. Business processes like management, cost cutting, harassment, implicit and explicit threats, don't really produce better or more accurate results. Or lead to cures or drugs faster. Usually you have a single star scientist with his team working his ass off to get to an understanding or cure, and he or she is not usually doing it for money. Business does not really work with science, it corrupts science and forces an unnatural order on it which we pay for as a society.
      - ucaetano 11y ago
        Which sort of logic? I'm not defending that only pharma companies should do R&D, I'm defending that we shouldn't restrict R&D to government. And on your point, do governments distort science less than business?
sandGorgon 11y ago
because you need leverage to pull it off - just like refusing to sign the Paris Climate Treaty or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India has a long history of Non Alignment and trade blockades going back 50 years.... but most importantly has huge economic leverage right now, only second to China (in Asia). In fact, my personal bet is on Iran to be able to do something like this - they have a sizeable youth and good education systems... as well as a long history of leverage against the west . If only they get rid of their religious constitution.
- reitoei 11y ago
  > If only they get rid of their religious constitution Apply that to any situation in any country in the middle east.
Htsthbjig 11y ago
"Im curious what is stopping some other countries (even micro-nations) from instituting a policy that forfeits all patents on medication." Simple answer: The US will invade that country in no time, or give millions or billions of dollars to support those against the Government in the country to instability the country. They do it with Syria(they gave hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons to "moderate rebels" to start a war against Assad, Saudi Arabia gave billions or Ukraine(they gave 6 billion dollars to opposition), that are reasonable big countries. They can wipe out any small country that dare to go against US national interest. With India, South Africa there was death threats, and killings,lots of money under the table and blackmailing of people in Government and finally economic sanctions. If someone puts something on a paper it does not matter unless that someone has the means to protect what is in the paper. Native Indians had the right to own the American land because it was the land of their fathers and grandfathers but the white man had repetition rifles and railroads.

benjamo 11y ago

Such a country wouldn't get admission to the WTO and would have a very hard time trading with the other countries in it. It would also amount to state endorsed IP theft.

x5n1 11y ago
Theft is such a strong word. If you control the language, you control the world.
- return0 11y ago
  to nitpick, that is exactly what you are doing.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    rhetoric goes both ways. or to put it another way, fighting fire with fire.
linuxkerneldev 11y ago
> Such a country wouldn't get admission to the WTO As opposed to what we do when we invade and bomb/drone other countries? As opposed to what we did when we engineer coups in resource rich countries? Come on. Let me guess, you're buying into the idea that generics hurt RnD. Let me assure you, having worked briefly in a pharma RnD lab, the bulk of big pharmas expenditures are on marketing and bribes, NOT RnD. Here's a recent headline: http://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/02/22/novartis-south-korea-bribes-doctors/ http://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/02/22/novartis-south-... You'll find similar bribery cases with GSK, Pfizer, etc.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  >> Such a country wouldn't get admission to the WTO > As opposed to what we do when we invade and bomb/drone other countries? I don't think the parent supports the action, but merely stating the likely outcome, realpolitik and all. S/he is answering gp's question: "What is stopping some other countries (even micro-nations) from instituting a policy that forfeits all patents on medication" The answer, in short, is leverage: smaller countries can be pressured into not even considering it - because of the consequences. India can do this because it is better able to withstand the hypothetical political pressure.
anon4 11y ago
"IP theft" That is a pretty good zen koan, up there with "the sound of one hand clapping".

forrestthewoods 11y ago

Trade treaties. Saint Lucia wants to trade with bigger countries. Those countries may not want to trade back if Saint Lucia goes out of their way to reproduce intellectual property. Could legal action be taken? If Saint Lucia signed a treaty that defined rules for such an action. Also, selling a drug for any price smells an awful lot like capitalism. Some folks would rather the government set prices. Hey, I wonder what happens if a company sells bad drugs that hurts people? The government should impose regulations. Hrm I bet that would drive costs up. Maybe drug companies need some financial incentives to help cover those costs? .... Wait a second!

taneq 11y ago

I dunno about legal action but I could sure imagine individual pharma companies (and other primarily IP-related industries with heavy R&D costs) deciding not to sell products there ever again.

x5n1 11y ago

WTO, American sanctions, American coups, CIA, to name a few. Also India actually manufacturers these drugs, and most of them should be generic because they have been around for a long time. Small nations would not be able to manufacture them the same way India does.

FlyingSnake 11y ago
Seconded. Also Saint Lucia doesn't have the clout as India when it comes to global trade.
- gautamsomani 11y ago
  Is India that clouted?
  - puissance 11y ago
    In some cases, yes. You've to realize that each country in the WTO picks which battles to fight and which one's to let go. For example, when Novartis lost the case, in Indian supreme courts, to ban the production of Gleevec (a Cancer drug) by Indian generic makers, they could've taken the arbitration to the WTO. However, this would mean terrible PR for both Novartis and US. Instead, PhRMA (a trade group for big pharma) and Novartis decided to let this one lie. However, the US did recently challenge India's decision to force LCR (local content requirement) in it's push to use more solar energy in the country. USA, which is one of the biggest exporters of solar panels to India, successfully fought this decision. I feel, in the end, the WTO is like any other court where two big conglomerates go head-to-head. Each one does not want to piss off the other to a great extent. And settlements are preferred over outright fights.

ucaetano 11y ago

This only works for countries that create no drugs, so they can benefit from companies in other countries spending the billions required to create new drugs, without any spending. Not to mention that every single Pharma company would stop all R&D investment in about 5 seconds. Would you invest your own money in a Pharma company if there were no drug patents?

adrianN 11y ago
Maybe we shouldn't let Pharma companies do the R&D and then pay for it via expensive heathcare. Maybe we should take the money and directly fund research and make the results free for everyone.
- ucaetano 11y ago
  "Take the money directly" Whose money? The investor's? "Maybe we should take the money and directly fund research and make the results free for everyone." And that would be more efficient than letting companies compete for funding from investors?
  - x5n1 11y ago
    This sort of logic does not really work for drugs or even for science. Business processes like management, cost cutting, harassment, implicit and explicit threats, don't really produce better or more accurate results. Or lead to cures or drugs faster. Usually you have a single star scientist with his team working his ass off to get to an understanding or cure, and he or she is not usually doing it for money. Business does not really work with science, it corrupts science and forces an unnatural order on it which we pay for as a society.
    - ucaetano 11y ago
      Which sort of logic? I'm not defending that only pharma companies should do R&D, I'm defending that we shouldn't restrict R&D to government. And on your point, do governments distort science less than business?

sandGorgon 11y ago

because you need leverage to pull it off - just like refusing to sign the Paris Climate Treaty or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India has a long history of Non Alignment and trade blockades going back 50 years.... but most importantly has huge economic leverage right now, only second to China (in Asia). In fact, my personal bet is on Iran to be able to do something like this - they have a sizeable youth and good education systems... as well as a long history of leverage against the west . If only they get rid of their religious constitution.

reitoei 11y ago
> If only they get rid of their religious constitution Apply that to any situation in any country in the middle east.

Htsthbjig 11y ago

"Im curious what is stopping some other countries (even micro-nations) from instituting a policy that forfeits all patents on medication." Simple answer: The US will invade that country in no time, or give millions or billions of dollars to support those against the Government in the country to instability the country. They do it with Syria(they gave hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons to "moderate rebels" to start a war against Assad, Saudi Arabia gave billions or Ukraine(they gave 6 billion dollars to opposition), that are reasonable big countries. They can wipe out any small country that dare to go against US national interest. With India, South Africa there was death threats, and killings,lots of money under the table and blackmailing of people in Government and finally economic sanctions. If someone puts something on a paper it does not matter unless that someone has the means to protect what is in the paper. Native Indians had the right to own the American land because it was the land of their fathers and grandfathers but the white man had repetition rifles and railroads.