4 ms·

I am not saying either one is good or evil here, just commenting that the $4500 device is not super relevant to the actual Sanofi lawsuit. Obviously Sanofi sho

I am not saying either one is good or evil here, just commenting that the $4500 device is not super relevant to the actual Sanofi lawsuit. Obviously Sanofi should have been able to massively undercut the Mylan price if there truly was xxx% profit margin built in, so it is not really apparent why they didn't do that.

yaakov34 9y ago
Well, it's like Bernie Madoff said - "there is no innocent explanation". They hiked the price from $130 to $500 while matching Mylan every step of the way; they fixed prices. Their lawyers may be good enough so that they never get charged with it, but it's clear that they did it, and they and Mylan are both exactly the same and just as guilty. And now this lawsuit seeks to cast them as some kind of underdog and victim. My point about "good guys" was because of the whole tone of the article. A romantic story of two brothers, one of whom became a doctor, and another an engineer, so that they could invent their dream automatic injector. Except that autoinjectors are a 1950s technology, used by most militaries to deliver antidotes to chemical weapons - here's a film from 1963 which demonstrates a device that I have a hard time telling from an EpiPen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeyW8aoP8mE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeyW8aoP8mE. So what the hell was there to even invent, why are these devices covered by any patents at all, why is the FDA allowing just two companies to dominate the market (I am sure plenty of people would like to charge $100 for devices which cost a few dollars to manufacture), and why doesn't a lockstep price hike from $130 to $500 attract the attention of antitrust prosecutors? Because healthcare in the USA is an insane fever swamp...