Bayer said it was "disappointed" and would "evaluate options to defend intellectual property rights" in the country.
Down-vote me if you like, but I get sick to my stomach when I read sentences like this. If someone is able to deliver and sell the anti-cancer drug by 97% cheaper than you, then in my eyes you have no right to interfere. I am starting to dislike the whole concept of intellectual property and patents and copyright. These are tools of greedy people and bring nothing to the table for the wider audience. No one creates anything just by himself. You are always building on the work of others and merely deriving, combining, changing and mutating it. Whether you do it consciously or unconsciously. It is the principle of cultural evolution and it is why we are where we are. If intellectual property was always practiced the way it is today, I fear we would still be in the Middle Ages.
You seem very poorly informed about the subject. While I don't agree with the vast amount of lobbying a lot of pharma companies do, which in itself increases costs, the costs of R&D and the process of approval are huge.
Get rid of drug patents, bye bye new drugs without direct g'vmt funding. Drugs are trivial to reverse engineer, incredibly expensive to invent.
There is also a massive amount of drugs that go nowhere, often even failing at major trail stage, so the successes pay for the failures.
The problem is that the govt is providing an artificial barrier to entry by other companies which protects the profits of the big pharma. Because of it the pharma companies have no incentive to reduce prices . They would rather spend the money on lobbying
Very true, so it's ironic that so many posters in this thread are advocating knee-jerk solutions that hand even more of the pharmaceutical industry over to the government.
Our government is fundamentally broken and the source of a good portion of the problems in the health care industry... so let's sprinkle some more government in there!
Seriously, the government has plenty that it can do by providing more transparency in the industry, streamlining and correcting problems in the Patent office and at the FDA, stopping collusion and price fixing, and examining the length of patent-granting-monopolies to ensure that profiteering isn't too far out of whack.
There is no count of no of people who get disabilities but don't die due to trials failing. Who will pay for these? These pharma companies are steered by greed
I am referring to FDA trials, in the US, which can take over a decade and cost 8- or 9-figure dollar sums. These are required before the drug even comes to market.
US clinical trials often involve a second, parallel clinical trial in India, because it's easy to find lots of poor patients in desperate need of treatment. I think that, at least in some cases, this probably works out well for everyone except the control group.
But if poor Indian patients are going to test these drugs, the GP can certainly argue that poor Indian patients should be able to afford them.
They cannot afford clinical trials in developed countries, so they turn to poorer countries.
India is one of the biggest hub for most of the pharma's clinical trials due to huge poor population. The rules are lax and they take advantage of it. Lot of people die and many turn paralyzed or disabled permanently due to drug's unknown side-effect.
These corrupt pharma companies want to use India as it's test-bed but want to sell the drugs tested here at an abysmal high price such that it is even out of my reach (even though I am well off).
Yes, it would be great if the Indian govt financed research into new medicines. India already makes a lot of the world's generic drugs. They could move up market and actually create new drugs. A win-win for [just about] everyone. Perhaps fund one of the IIT's and have it work with industry.
Those costs could be covered by the government in this case and they should increase the investment to match all money lost on dead end R&D and add standard going rate profits on top - on the grounds that it is a market failure of public good - R&D. Also the costs will be covered in the richer markets. I'm no fan of government interventions but the fact that we are having a debate around intellectual property shows how dire things are.
Covering bad R&D deadens the incentive for firms to do R&D efficiently - it's structurally identical to the implicit guarantees that are proving so problematic in finance.
I'm not saying cover bad R&D - I'm saying cover bad R&D costs for companies that did the good R&D you want to use - because that costs would usually be covered by the profits from good R&D - this is how you structure investing - you make several risky shots so that the one that succeeds pays for the failures - it's a good way to determine "the proper" amount of profit, if you just repay the investment in profitable R&D you will actually lower the investments in the sector.
Anyway the point is moot because R&D costs will probably be paid in the US and other richer markets, India could simply take a free ride. If everyone wanted to do this then you would need to find a way to compensate R&D investments.
>Better to just negotiate cleanly with the company for the drug you want, and sell it all on your own market like the NHS does.
Well that's what I meant negotiate a "fair" price that would encourage further investment but you don't overpay - the problem is that unless you have competition/substitutes you can't have market pricing so you need to have a good estimate of "fair" price, eg. say a company comes up with 100% effective HIV cure tomorrow - no competition, nothing comes close, a lot of people would pay gold for that but well over investment/production cost and profit is in many multiples of going rate. You would say "fine" obviously there's a high demand - but the reality is that the demand is inelastic and supply is artificially restricted by a government granted monopoly - reverse engineering costs + production cost would allow a lot lower prices, so you aren't benefiting the consumers (the discovery has already been made) or optimally allocating resources (you have recovered investment/production costs, earned standard profit rate and then some) the thing you earn on top of that is deadweight loss from rent seeking so you need to come up with some metrics to avoid that and also set expectations for investors.
If a company takes on debt to finance development, then "the discovery has already been made" isn't the same as "the discovery has already been paid for".
No I'm just saying that you aren't benefiting the consumers after the discovery has been made anymore than a generic copy because copying knowledge is free/it's not a scarce resource once discovered. You might not cover your investments which is why I say you should be compensated for your invention based on the estimated investment cost, plus any other investments made and profit on top of that.
All I'm saying is that if we accept that there is a market failure where you can't recover your investment because you don't have enough advantages on the market (without IP) we should consider compensating the innovator in a way that would stimulate further investment in the area, and when that is the objective you can measure/model what is the minimum profit incentive you need to provide to guarantee acceptable levels of R&D investment.
Down-vote me if you like, but I get sick to my stomach when I read sentences like this. If someone is able to deliver and sell the anti-cancer drug by 97% cheaper than you, then in my eyes you have no right to interfere. I am starting to dislike the whole concept of intellectual property and patents and copyright. These are tools of greedy people and bring nothing to the table for the wider audience. No one creates anything just by himself. You are always building on the work of others and merely deriving, combining, changing and mutating it. Whether you do it consciously or unconsciously. It is the principle of cultural evolution and it is why we are where we are. If intellectual property was always practiced the way it is today, I fear we would still be in the Middle Ages.