Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[crashcourse]

so who benefitted from gileads patent infringement

I know I did

seems like I made 30 dollars a share on that stock back in the day

curing hep C for 60K a patient was the biggest medical breakthrough this decade

[Jeff Buchanan]

The patent system grants inventors exclusivity. They are free to gouge for all they're worth. In exchange, the invention is disclosed to the public and after a limited period it's free for all to practice. Big Pharma uses this system the same way everyone else does. The prices for drugs move up and down as one would predict.

Now, whether or not you think pharmaceutical companies ought to be able to avail themselves of the full benefit of the patent system is a policy question. I haven't been persuaded they shouldn't. I'm open to fact-based policy argument that weighs, among other things, costs and creativity. But my default position, however, is that everyone ought to have full access to the patent system and any limitation on that access ought to be fully justified -- the burden is on those seeking the exception to the rule.

So, I'm not terribly troubled by Pharma companies reaping the advantages of their government-granted market exclusivity.

Would you favor laws that required pharmaceutical companies to reveal development cots?

From the Courts of India (I'm not an expert in the National Health Care System in India but I know this: it is quite efficient in the area of balancing reasonable profit for pharmaceutical companies and the public good which is why I casually follow health care developments there):

Shamnad Basheer, an IP expert pointed out that it was unfortunate that the laws in most countries did not mandate a revelation of true drug costs, without which, one would never whether drug makers were being undercompensated, overcompensated, or fairly compensated. "Given their excessive profits year after year, the prevalent perception is that big pharma is being overcompensated. Till such time as these drug companies are transparent about their costs and profits, India should use this perception in its favour, coming down on the side of public health and affordable medication, wherever possible," stated Basheer in an opinion piece on the supreme court judgement.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/US-states-propose-laws-to-force-pharma-companies-reveal-drug-development-cost/articleshow/47100048.cms

[iam416]

Would you favor laws that required pharmaceutical companies to reveal development cots?

I don't get to this question. I don't think the government should be in the business of assessing what is or isn't an "acceptable" profit. As such, I don't care about development costs.

If someone were to persuade me that pharmaceutical companies ought to be an exception to the rule, then I would want to know what the development costs are. Until then, I have no use for them.

I will say this -- it's information that does come out in a high stakes patent trial. To prove up damages you need to adduce all sorts of evidence as to profitability. I did a spinal implant trial many moons ago -- trial team, heh, not lead attorney or anything. The manufacturing cost for a titanium bone screw -- lumbar or cervical -- was around $25. At the time they were selling them at $1400 per screw. Now they're down to around $800. Another interesting point is that the company had to settle a products litigation case early in existence to clear the way for its boon -- that cost them somewhere on the order of $50M. When you sell stuff that goes into the spine you sort of worry about products litigation. Similarly, Merck's billion dollar Vioxx got assreamed in products cases.

The point being that there are a number of costs associated with selling products in this space that go well beyond development costs. And development costs -- heh -- I still remember then-Pharmacia's test code number for Celebrex -- 58635. I think they started their numbering at 30000 for some reason, and each new compound they assayed was given a sequential number. So, you know, like 30,000 different compounds assayed. And that's AFTER they came up with specific design parameters and BEFORE they did any sort of pre-clinical testing, let alone clinical testing.

In any event, I wonder how many blockbuster drugs Indian companies have produced?

[entropy]

I think Talent's point is either you have patent laws and they apply to everyone, or you don't.

[iam416]

Correct. Unless you can persuade me that shouldn't be the case.

[iam416]

Now, the FDA does grant limited exclusivity rights for certain categories of drugs even if there is no patent protection. That's a total policy decision and is always up for debate.

I'm also adamantly opposed to the practice of name-brand pharma companies buying off generics to keep them out of the market. In some cases, e.g., a pharma company will sue a generic for patent infringement and settle the case by paying the generic a huge "settlement" and the generic agrees not to manufacture and sell. IMO, that's absolutely anticompetitive and appropriately subject to government sanction. It's becoming less prevalent as there has been a crackdown, but it's out there.

[crashcourse]

you wander why meds like harvoni cost so much

cures people of hepatitis cut and dried after 60,000 dollars of outpatient treatment--hell they just take a pill

but because of patent issues and sooner or later we will all see the commercial if you've ever taken harvoni and cant wiggle your little finger anymore call the law schmuck/stuck/luck and muck--you and others lile you may be eligible for compensation

its a never ending circle that ultimately is part of the reason this county pays out the ass on health care.

ultimately medicare Obama care etc will bankrupt us

[Jeff Buchanan]

I don't get to this question. I don't think the government should be in the business of assessing what is or isn't an "acceptable" profit. As such, I don't care about development costs? ......

Highly interesting and informative.

To your point ....... Pharmaceutical Companies and probably correctly so, have argued that one cannot isolate development and production costs without taking into consideration the myriad ancillary costs that companies bear associated with risk taking and so forth.

Entropy's question he posed to me about foreign pharmaceutical companies benefiting from the R&D done by US registered companies is also illuminated here. Clearly, they do but I'd still argue that the real impact of it on cost savings for typically generic manufactures in India, for example, is minimal because they are producing these generics after patents/exclusivity rights expire.

For those interested in the Economics of Pharmaceutical Pricing, the link below will take you to a study done by the Pacific Research Institute. It's eye opening with regard to the risks and costs the big pharmaceutical companies bear to bring a drug to market.

I tried to vet this institute via Google and came up with what you would expect is a list of pharmaceutical companies either giving directly to the group or indirectly through other foundations. That is interesting enough but this is, by itself, a good paper if you recognize that it's probably a bit one-sided. Like you, I haven't heard a decent fact based argument, minus all the hyperventilating and inflammatory language typically found in such counterpoints, that makes a good case for blaming Big Pharma for the high costs of drugs in the US.

You did point out the gaming aspects of extending exclusivity and from what I've read, I've seen that this is on the decline due to various outcomes in the courts involving this stuff. Really appreciate your hands-on experience in the legal system with cases that have a direct bearing on our discussion here regarding drug pricing.

https://www.pacificresearch.org/fileadmin/documents/Studies/PDFs/2013-2015/PhamaPricingF.pdf

[Dr. Strangelove]

Your move, Julian

[ame]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713[/ame]

[iam416]

Jeff:

One more thing to reiterate - patent protection is territorial. US Patents do you no good in India. So, if the big companies don't file there then there is no protection and generics are free to operate. Further, India can promulgate its own patent rules and policy. Perhaps they want to encourage generics - they could make it very tough to get pharma patents. Finally, in countries like India and China you will absolutely get homered. A foreign applicant may have a tough time getting a patent and an even tougher time enforcing it. Folks think the US is corrupt! Ha.

So countries can also control costs with a weak patent system/slightly crooked one. I mean, if you're heavily focused on generics, innovate little and want to hold costs down, then you set shit up to maximize those interests.

[hack]

Not sure about that - IIRC respecting intellectual property is a part of joining the WTO. Not an area I have ever looked at but I had thought that if you file in one WTO country you get the whole. Otherwise Google and Apple and the like couldn't just "own" their patents in Ireland for the tax advantages. IIRC Pfizer or another drugmaker tried an inversion a few months back and that was considered a bit much.

[entropy]

FB post from a college friend:

Once I pictured Donald Trump in a Fidel Castro outfit (or really that of any dictator of a banana republic), many, many things began to make a lot more sense to me: the effective coup in his party, subversion of the electoral process, controlled and supported by the Russians, preaching populism while building a dictatorship, hiding from a free press (or abolishing its access entirely), promising a quick fix to complex problems, nepotism, filling the government with unqualified cronies, mental instability fueled by paranoia and thin-skinned tendencies, and a love of tacky palaces. It all fits.

[entropy]

http://whnt.com/2017/01/11/it-was-insane-maid-of-honor-turns-florida-wedding-into-nightmare/?utm_source=dose&utm_medium=dose_1&utm_campaign=florida_wedding_nightmare

enjoy

[entropy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4125394/Foundation-fires-staff-closes-Clinton-Global-Initiative.html

Shutting down because the pay to play rumors were true...?

[hack]

So patents are indeed territorial. When a company chooses to own that IP in a tax-favorable country, it's actually owning many of them, I guess. So when folks talk about i.e. how many more patents Chinese own over renewables technology, they mean just that originated there, perhaps.