By SN
Wednesday November 11, 2009
Tech Dirt – Nov. 10, 2009:
In other parts of the world, it’s become acceptable for governments to simply ignore drug patents in order to produce more of necessary drugs in times of health scares. However, the US has mostly 
shied away from doing that, as the myth of patents as some great encouragement for innovation remains deeply rooted (and, oh yeah, pharmas are big campaign funders). However, with growing concern over the lack of supply for swine flu vaccines, there is some talk over whether or not the US will consider importing generic Tamiflu, even though the drug is still under patent in the US. There are approved generics, which are chemically identical, that are made elsewhere, such as India. However, importing it into the US, while it could save lives, is bound to be massively controversial. However, again, if we’re going to have a moral discussion about intellectual property, can someone please explain the moral argument for not being able to use generic drugs in this instance?
Of course someone will point out that the current flu scare is overblown and not many people are actually dying. Hence the purpose of my title: How many deaths are enough before we finally do something?
I’m going to trying something different with the comments.
In order to comment you have to give me a number. If you think the protection of patents outweighs human life, then put something like “everyone would have to die before we fix our patent system.” If you think life is more important, then put zero. Of course any number in between is welcome.
To answer your question: Zero.
In regular order, the CDC could establish the number and time frame in which x doses are required to be delivered and if patented drugs can’t meet that measure, then generics are allowed to fill in the gap.
Everybody wins except for the black market. A cascade of other issues immediately arise, but the original question is answered with due deference to the abysmal state of IP laws, custom, and practice.
Before I answer, I need to know what you mean when you ask, “before we fix our patent system.”
Do you mean through legal means (shortening the patent time)?
Or do you mean just ignore it altogether as the article suggests?
[ Look up "fix" in a dictionary and then use your imagination. I personally have never heard the word "fix" used to describe "ignoring something altogether." But maybe that's just me. - ed.]
0, of course.
I’m not a US Citizen, but I understand how broken the patent system is over there.
All the Politicians in Government, and the CEO’s of the Major Corporations would have to die for the patent system to be even examined for issues.
Answer: The same number of people who would die if everyone had access to the drugs for “free.”
I’m kinda with #5, except it wouldnt have to be all them, just a few to get their attention. usually when it personally effects the lawmakers (HA!!) is when something gets done
5. Your number is the difference between people who are dying now and the people who would die if the vaccine was made available to everyone.
So if even one person died because of the current lack of the vaccine, that’s sufficient to fix the patent system?
To answer your question: kill all the lawyers.
Then do what you need to do to save lives … except the lawyers. By doing that you would remove the not only the practicing lawyers but most of the currently serving politicians. Its a win win scenario.
8. “To answer your question: kill all the lawyers.”
I want to get rid of a myth that lawyers are the problem. They are not. Lawyers only can act upon direction from their clients.
In other words, the reason we have fricked up draconian IP laws in the US is because corporations push for them. The lawyers are not the root of the problem or the cause, they’re just the tools used to accomplish the goal. If there were no lawyers, the same goal would be achieved through other means.
How do you measure that number? Just dying from the fact they can’t afford existing medicine which you want cheaper; or include number of people who would die because drug companies wouldn’t develop new medicines without expected profit? In my opinion, the second number will always beat the first by orders of magnitude. Though, I am in favor of original Constitution interpretation of patent law and original time limits: patent is for inventor (person), not company and 14 years should be just fine to provide for profits and avoidance of consequences like underdevelopment of new drugs.
1,
The RIGHT person catches the flu and he is RICH and has connections to congress.
AND to add to this.
Even if we brought the drugs to the USA we would be charged the SAME PRICE for it, as if it had been tested and CREATED in the USA.
What about Jeffersonian ideas of freedom and liberty? As American we are endowed with certain inalienable rights. One of the is the right to exploit the sick and infirm and make a profit!
So everyone should have to die to maintain my freedom and liberty.
Loser, as usual, betrays himself==”Same number of people.” BUT in the two hypotheticals, the people dying won’t be the same so the numbers don’t establish the sought equivalency of life with profit.
In the limited supply patented senario, many people may want the vaccine but cannot get it. Innocent informed people die who would have been saved.
In the generic vaccine is available, everyone who WANTS IT gets the vaccine and only those the vaccine fails to protect or those too stupid to get it are affected. This latter group is less “deserving” of the cure, so the attempted equivalency OF loser FAILS.
As usual. The answer remains = Zero.
42
The entire argument is a false dilemma. No deaths are required to correct the patent system. However, it should be clear if the answer is to make all drugs available via generics, effectively circumventing the patent system entirely, that it will kill research into new drugs. How many would die then?
The U.S.A. Has the best health care in the world IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. Otherwise you might as well die quickly.
Here’s my answer: whatever number is smaller than the number who will die if there was no patent system. Without a patent system, the enormous investment required to develop drugs would not be made. Yes, there would be government investment, and yes there would be philanthropic investment, but that would be small in comparison to the profit-motivated investment that is currently made.
I don’t think you are advocating the elimination of the patent system. It seems there should be some reasonable way to protect the exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of an invention.
Answer: 1
I’m dying to get this resolved.
What’s the problem with the current system? Is the manufacturer not able to make enough supply? Or is the government not willing to pay enough money?
#19: The problem is that drug manufacturers need/want to sell their new drugs for much more than is needed to recoup their losses, and this is driven by shareholders. Lower drug prices mean that the board of directors may be removed by those shareholders. Lower drug prices may also mean that expensive drugs may not be produced–ever.