5 ms·

Is this a worldwide problem? Or is this really an American failing?

by rtpg 9y ago

toyg 9y ago
Some of these techniques (like tweaking and repatenting a formula) are definitely used worldwide.
maxerickson 9y ago
I think it is worse in the US. India goes as far as waiving patents if a drug is too expensive.
- sseth 9y ago
  There are companies which have patented drugs in India, but do not make their drugs available in India. The Indian Patent Law allows for compulsory licensing of such drugs to another manufacturer under certain conditions which meet public interest. This is not a free for all - there are significant legal tests that the manufacturer has to meet to get the CL, and i think only one or two cases have been granted. This provision of indian IPR laws has led to having India being put on an IP watchlist in the USA, though India's laws are compliant with the TRIPS agreement.
steiger 9y ago
I live in Brazil and generics for drugs which patents are expired are widely available, accounting for 30~40% of all drug market. If I'm not mistaken, we even broke patents in some cases (HIV drugs), which is cool.
- roadnottaken 9y ago
  Why is that cool? Intellectual property law is necessary for industries like Pharma. No IP, no new drugs.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    The people who do the actual discovery are not paid an exorbitant amount of money. They mostly just want to do research and solve problems while living a comfortable life. A pharma company making billions in profit isn’t necessary. It’s just the common way it currently is done. There are other ways to accomplish the same goal. We could try to replicate Jonas Salks’ way Of doing things.
    - roadnottaken 9y ago
      I work in drug discovery. You're right that the bench-scientists don't usually get rich. But it's an extraordinarily risky, expensive, and unpredictable business and for every billion dollar drug there's a graveyard of failed companies and projects that didn't make it. The only business reason to take those risks are for a chance at patent-protected profit. And those bench scientists wouldn't have labs to work in if investors and rich companies weren't willing to pay for it.
      - tkahnoski 9y ago
        I was skeptical of this graveyard because it gets referenced a lot, largely due to how we humans constantly ignore the sunk-cost fallacy all the time. BUT it turns out the FDA is what prevents that from happening, and yes less drugs are getting approved. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pharmaceuticals-success/success-rates-for-experimental-drugs-falls-study-idUSTRE71D2U920110214 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pharmaceuticals-success/s...
        mawelch 9y ago
        I think you're seriously underestimating how much thought goes into the risk-benefit analysis during drug development. The FDA does create some regulatory burden but they certainly aren't the main driver of why drugs fail. Drugs fail because they don't work or they cause unintended toxicity.
      - yequalsx 9y ago
        What about government funding research? It doesn’t have to be just rich people or corporations. It could be all of us in the form of government. I believe that most of a drug’s overall cost is marketing. I might be wrong on this but it is a significant, useless expense. Remove filthy rich profit motive and we might get drug companies that don’t resort to shenanigans.
Symmetry 9y ago
It's definitely a US only problem. There are, for instance, multiple competing competing brands of EpiPen competitors in Europe. In the US the FDA's mandate concerns safety only and private entities can sue it to force it to do its job if they think it isn't. Which makes it easy for big companies to launch lawsuits alleging that their potential competition can't prove that they can produce drugs as safely as the incumbents.

Is this a worldwide problem? Or is this really an American failing?

by rtpg 9y ago

Is this a worldwide problem? Or is this really an American failing?

toyg 9y ago

Some of these techniques (like tweaking and repatenting a formula) are definitely used worldwide.

maxerickson 9y ago

I think it is worse in the US. India goes as far as waiving patents if a drug is too expensive.

sseth 9y ago
There are companies which have patented drugs in India, but do not make their drugs available in India. The Indian Patent Law allows for compulsory licensing of such drugs to another manufacturer under certain conditions which meet public interest. This is not a free for all - there are significant legal tests that the manufacturer has to meet to get the CL, and i think only one or two cases have been granted. This provision of indian IPR laws has led to having India being put on an IP watchlist in the USA, though India's laws are compliant with the TRIPS agreement.

steiger 9y ago

I live in Brazil and generics for drugs which patents are expired are widely available, accounting for 30~40% of all drug market. If I'm not mistaken, we even broke patents in some cases (HIV drugs), which is cool.

roadnottaken 9y ago
Why is that cool? Intellectual property law is necessary for industries like Pharma. No IP, no new drugs.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  The people who do the actual discovery are not paid an exorbitant amount of money. They mostly just want to do research and solve problems while living a comfortable life. A pharma company making billions in profit isn’t necessary. It’s just the common way it currently is done. There are other ways to accomplish the same goal. We could try to replicate Jonas Salks’ way Of doing things.
  - roadnottaken 9y ago
    I work in drug discovery. You're right that the bench-scientists don't usually get rich. But it's an extraordinarily risky, expensive, and unpredictable business and for every billion dollar drug there's a graveyard of failed companies and projects that didn't make it. The only business reason to take those risks are for a chance at patent-protected profit. And those bench scientists wouldn't have labs to work in if investors and rich companies weren't willing to pay for it.
    - tkahnoski 9y ago
      I was skeptical of this graveyard because it gets referenced a lot, largely due to how we humans constantly ignore the sunk-cost fallacy all the time. BUT it turns out the FDA is what prevents that from happening, and yes less drugs are getting approved. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pharmaceuticals-success/success-rates-for-experimental-drugs-falls-study-idUSTRE71D2U920110214 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pharmaceuticals-success/s...
      - mawelch 9y ago
        I think you're seriously underestimating how much thought goes into the risk-benefit analysis during drug development. The FDA does create some regulatory burden but they certainly aren't the main driver of why drugs fail. Drugs fail because they don't work or they cause unintended toxicity.
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      What about government funding research? It doesn’t have to be just rich people or corporations. It could be all of us in the form of government. I believe that most of a drug’s overall cost is marketing. I might be wrong on this but it is a significant, useless expense. Remove filthy rich profit motive and we might get drug companies that don’t resort to shenanigans.

Symmetry 9y ago

It's definitely a US only problem. There are, for instance, multiple competing competing brands of EpiPen competitors in Europe. In the US the FDA's mandate concerns safety only and private entities can sue it to force it to do its job if they think it isn't. Which makes it easy for big companies to launch lawsuits alleging that their potential competition can't prove that they can produce drugs as safely as the incumbents.