3 ms·
> The cynic in me says it's because many > of them are cheap generics that have > little financial upside for large > pharmaceuticals. The patent is for proble
by radicalbyte 8y ago
> The cynic in me says it's because many
> of them are cheap generics that have
> little financial upside for large
> pharmaceuticals.
The patent is for problem + solution. You can patent many solutions for one problem and also a solution for many problems.
If they prove, say, that vitamin C stops Alzheimer's then they can patent it for that usage.
You see this a lot in cancer treatment and it makes a lot of sense. In a proper functioning system (i.e. not the USA±) it's a pretty decent solution.
± Seriously, the system there is designed so all in theory competing components are incentivized to work against consumer interests. Same thing with the housing market pushing house prices (5% interest on 500k is more $ then 5% on 200k, house sellers/older owners think they're rich but only benefit when they sell and downsize; only winners are lenders and real estate investors).
- busyant 8y ago> If they prove, say, that vitamin C stops Alzheimer's then they can patent it for that usage. Here is an article discussing this approach: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/6/248/248fs30 http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/6/248/248fs30 I call them "use patents" but I am not sure if that is an official term or just a colloquialism.
- radicalbyte 8y agoI just asked my wife (who's a pharmacist). She says that it's indeed true that drugs companies basically ignore existing drugs because it's not worth the costs to prove that they work even though they can officially patent them for new usages. Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregabalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregabalin That's an epilepsy treatment which also worked for nerve damage. They weren't allowed to dispense the generic for nerve problems. However in practise the prescriptions don't include the reason so in practise they provided the generic.