NationStates Jolt Archive

lets say a 3rd World country decides to break copyright laws ...because they cant afford the overpriced medicine...they argue that some poor people might die without the drug.

are you for or against it?
poll coming tomorrow.

As it is the country where I live that is threatening to break the AIDS treatment copyright, and this seems to me to be fair, then I support the idea that a life saving drug should not be overpriced. However the company that did the research and bore the development costs has to be compensated for this in some way.

I would propose that they are awarded an extended copyright on other, less critical, products to compensate for the loss or given tax and import duty exceptions for the period of loss of copyright.

It is a difficult problem, as there are ethical and justice issues pulling both ways.

I know India mass produces cheap generic drugs for other countries in the developing world and the richass pharmaceutical companies in America and Europe don't like that.

I know India mass produces cheap generic drugs for other countries in the developing world and the richass pharmaceutical companies in America and Europe don't like that.this time an elected Gov is standing up the the rich Drug multinationals...and saying that it will break copyright laws...for the common good. to save lives.

a Gov saying they will brake copyrigth laws...as official policy.
I dont think this has ever happened before...in India or elsewhere.

I am impressed.

This is a contentious matter. Drug companies need to produce a profit or they will be out of business.

But after 9/11 Canada told Bayer, the drug giant, that they would be producing a generic version of Cipro to prepare for the possibility of an anthrax crisis. Bayer then produced Cipro in huge quantities at low cost, flooding the US and Canada with the drug.

But when some sub-Saharan countries asked for patent relief on AIDS drugs they were told it wasn't possible. Can't blame them for feeling left out, can we?

The WTO met at Doha, and with US support it arranged for patent relief on AIDS drugs. Unfortunately this fell apart when the pharmaceutical companies lobbied in unison against it.

Where are we now? I don't know, but it seems that the WTO needs to get to work.

this time an elected Gov is standing up the the rich Drug multinationals...and saying that it will break copyright laws...for the common good. to save lives.

a Gov saying they will brake copyrigth laws...as official policy.
I dont think this has ever happened before...in India or elsewhere.

I am impressed.

Some time ago I read from economics class that pharmaceutical companies spend a mighty little amount of their money on researching new drugs. Most usually it's about repackaging drugs and giving them new names and advertising. The generic-drugs-are-destroying-our-incentive-to-research argument isn't strong enough to stand.

I'm pretty sure the pharmaceuticals industry is doing damn good and doesn't need to charge exchorbent prices in third worlds when people in the US can barely afford the shit anyway

lets say a 3rd World country decides to break copyright laws ...because they cant afford the overpriced medicine...they argue that some poor people might die without the drug.

are you for or against it?
poll coming tomorrow.
It's already happening, although they're not really breaking copyright laws and patents in some cases. I think that it should be allowed, provided the medicine cannot be exported for commercial gain. We'd be bankrupting the companies that invest in R&D in that case.

As it is the country where I live that is threatening to break the AIDS treatment copyright, and this seems to me to be fair, then I support the idea that a life saving drug should not be overpriced. However the company that did the research and bore the development costs has to be compensated for this in some way.

I would propose that they are awarded an extended copyright on other, less critical, products to compensate for the loss or given tax and import duty exceptions for the period of loss of copyright.

It is a difficult problem, as there are ethical and justice issues pulling both ways.

That is a possible solution. I think the key to this matter is that prosperous nations, notably the EU and US, need to recognize the need of the undeveloped nations and work together within the WTO to solve the problem. Political will is in short supply.

The notion that the pharmaceutical industry should just give drugs away is not reasonable. The WTO needs to address reasonable compensation for the patented products - there are no doubt many creative ways to do this.

This is an interesting topic. Anyone else have ideas on how to get inexpensive drugs made and distributed?

The notion that the pharmaceutical industry should just give drugs away is not reasonable.
in this case...African countries are not asking for AIDS drugs to be given free to them...

they want to manufacture the drugs themselves without paying the expensive Copyrights/patents overhead...

Its like when you buy a PC system in Asia or South-America without paying the Microsoft "Tax".

possibly causing Bill Gates to go Bankrupt :D

World Updates
June 25, 2005

Brazil says to break patent on Abbott AIDS drug
By Tiago Pariz

BRASILIA, Brazil (Reuters) - Brazil's government will break a patent on Abbott Laboratories Inc.'s Kaletra AIDS drug in order to provide a cheaper generic version for its treatment program, Health Minister Humberto Costa said on Friday.

"This is the first time that the government of Brazil has broken a patent on a drug," Costa said at a news conference, also attended by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. "Brazil is the first country to break a patent for antiretrovirals (anti-AIDS drugs)."

The decision was made at a politically sensitive time for Brazil.

The U.S. has threatened to cut Brazil's trade benefits unless it steps up its efforts to stop widespread piracy of intellectual property, like CDs and DVDs. U.S.-based trade groups have also lobbied the White House to denounce Brazil's earlier threats to break patents on AIDS drugs.

-- Malaysia Star Publications

Oh yeaaah....saving lives is more important than earning bucks!

in this case...African countries are not asking for AIDS drugs to be given free to them...

they want to manufacture the drugs themselves without paying the expensive Copyrights/patents overhead...

Its like when you buy a PC system in Asia or South-America without paying the Microsoft "Tax".

possibly causing Bill Gates to go Bankrupt :D

Understood, I could have phrased it better. The patent cost is significant, though, not the manufacturing cost. This is the cost that needs to be addressed by the WTO.

Using the Microsoft analogy, the CD Windows comes on costs $.30 while Win XP costs $100 from Microsoft.

Brazilian patent threat poses challenge to big pharma
23 Jun 2005, 18:56 GMT - Relying on its reputation as a world leader in HIV/AIDS drug pricing negotiations, Brazil is threatening to disregard patents unless Abbott Laboratories, Gilead Sciences and Merck & Co. allow it to produce generic versions of their four leading AIDS drugs. Datamonitor's Mar Ferrero investigates the likely ramifications of such a move...

http://www.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/article_feature.asp?guid=BA4B0DB3-DBF7-4AF6-AD87-CF251C9FB7A2

Chinese people pirate shit like its on a fucking boat with a skull and crossbones on it, and they are threatening brazil for shit?

US has some crazy blindspot

As it is the country where I live that is threatening to break the AIDS treatment copyright, and this seems to me to be fair, then I support the idea that a life saving drug should not be overpriced. However the company that did the research and bore the development costs has to be compensated for this in some way.

I would propose that they are awarded an extended copyright on other, less critical, products to compensate for the loss or given tax and import duty exceptions for the period of loss of copyright.

It is a difficult problem, as there are ethical and justice issues pulling both ways.
This really is a thorny issue, not only for ethical and compassionate reasons, but for the future development of new, perhaps life saving drugs.

It's borderline criminal, IMHO, to charge the same rates for life-saving drugs to people in poorer nations as are charged to those in first-world nations. But drug companies have to be encouraged to continue research and development or the incidence of untreatable diseases and afflictions will increase world-wide.

This is one of the few areas where the UN could make a real difference. I would like to see them set up a seperate fund ( under strict actuarial oversight, since they have shown themselves to be rather venal ) for the purpose of subsidizing the cost of life-saving drugs to those in the poorer nations. Concurrently, countries where drug companies are based would bring considerable political and social pressure for their drug companies to make price breaks available to poorer nations as responsible members of the world community.

I don't know if any of the above would actually help, but we need to try something.

I see this as more of a failure of the WTO in the short-term than the US. The issue is how to " balance between intellectual property protection and the promotion of public health" (from the link below).

The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is supposed to make sure that all players are on board - the fact that the US and Brazil are not working within the TRIPS framework means to me that the WTO needs to revise the agreement or ensure compliance.

This link is about India and drugs:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:nctTZvo8a0sJ:www.health-now.org/site/article.php%3FmenuId%3D12%26articleId%3D432+trips+compliance+wto&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

It's already happening, although they're not really breaking copyright laws and patents in some cases. I think that it should be allowed, provided the medicine cannot be exported for commercial gain. We'd be bankrupting the companies that invest in R&D in that case.

They actually invest very little in R&D. I read a report awhile back where a guy looked into the claims that it basically costs close to 1 billion to create a drug. He found that 10 out of the last 11 drugs were purchased from universities. They didn't even invest in the R&D at the schools. He also reported they put the advertising costs into the "development" investment.

He estimated their development costs was more along the lines of about 100 million.

Even if the whole 3rd world violated their pattens and copyrights; they would still make massive profits.

Finally, they don't even compete so there is no "real" market conditions.....

They actually invest very little in R&D. I read a report awhile back where a guy looked into the claims that it basically costs close to 1 billion to create a drug. He found that 10 out of the last 11 drugs were purchased from universities. They didn't even invest in the R&D at the schools. He also reported they put the advertising costs into the "development" investment.

He estimated their development costs was more along the lines of about 100 million.

Even if the whole 3rd world violated their pattens and copyrights; they would still make massive profits.

Finally, they don't even compete so there is no "real" market conditions.....
The point I was trying to make is that they do need some money for R&D, and I have my doubts that pharmaceutical companies need as much as they claim. You're right with that.
Of course they don't compete, but this is mainly because the pharma lobby prevents such copies from entering their turf with various means, one of which being copyrights. If such products were exported en masse to the rich countries, it could cause some companies, particularly any honest ones, to go bankrupt. I feel this should not be forgotten and I am by no means defending the pharma bloc.

Nah. If they can make the drug to keep them from dying or find some kind of cheap substitute I say use it.

Your Life > Someone elses profit

Nah. If they can make the drug to keep them from dying or find some kind of cheap substitute I say use it.

Your Life > Someone elses profit

Exactly.

Is it really a "free-market" system in this matter? I have heard the pharmi reps spout off about the free market system a few times. However, is it really a free-market when the choise is pay the super inflated prices or die?

It's not the same as other industries were you can easily do without stuff when you don't have the money.

The USA threats concerning piracy etc really have no impact here as we have already had for some time now a considerable and effective crack down on piracy. It is a lot of bluster. (They could do with looking at China and Paraguay though)

Brazil has led the world in its aids treatment program, and will continue to do so under a left of centre government that is concerned for the health and welfare of the working classes here. To this effect if Brazil declares that it will break the copyright on a proprietry anti aids drug, then it will do so regardless of threats or concessions made by the USA. (Actually the USA needs Brazil's resources more than Brazil needs the USA's luxury products.) The sensible thing for Abbott, Gilead and Merck to do would be to negotiate licensing agreements, but will they?

They actually invest very little in R&D. I read a report awhile back where a guy looked into the claims that it basically costs close to 1 billion to create a drug. He found that 10 out of the last 11 drugs were purchased from universities. They didn't even invest in the R&D at the schools. He also reported they put the advertising costs into the "development" investment.

He estimated their development costs was more along the lines of about 100 million.

Even if the whole 3rd world violated their pattens and copyrights; they would still make massive profits.

Finally, they don't even compete so there is no "real" market conditions.....


Ooh! Got link? I could use info like that.

I'm feeling alone here... does anyone agree that the World Trade Organization is the proper venue for this issue? Brazil was a participant at the Doha Round, as was the US.

I can't see how it's reasonable to expect international drug companies to dismiss the patent and profit issue just because some think they make enough money or that they didn't spend enough money on research. International laws protect all intellectual property in all nations, not just the US.

I don't see any evil in the US protecting the patent rights of its companies - any nation would and should do the same.

What the Brazil issue says to me is that they (probably other nations as well) aren't willing to play by the TRIP guidelines as they agreed to at Doha. It says to me that the US and EU countries aren't putting enough pressure on the drug companies and other nations to ensure that Doha works.

My understanding would be that Brazil should stay within those accords, and what is happening here means that they are impatient. I understand their impatience, though. I'm just saying work within the rules to resolve the problem. And the more prosperous nations, including the EU, need to help out more.

I'm feeling alone here... does anyone agree that the World Trade Organization is the proper venue for this issue? Brazil was a participant at the Doha Round, as was the US.

I can't see how it's reasonable to expect international drug companies to dismiss the patent and profit issue just because some think they make enough money or that they didn't spend enough money on research. International laws protect all intellectual property in all nations, not just the US.

I don't see any evil in the US protecting the patent rights of its companies - any nation would and should do the same.

What the Brazil issue says to me is that they (probably other nations as well) aren't willing to play by the TRIP guidelines as they agreed to at Doha. It says to me that the US and EU countries aren't putting enough pressure on the drug companies and other nations to ensure that Doha works.

My understanding would be that Brazil should stay within those accords, and what is happening here means that they are impatient. I understand their impatience, though. I'm just saying work within the rules to resolve the problem. And the more prosperous nations, including the EU, need to help out more.

The people who are dying in the third world, in South America and Africa, in South East Asia, because they can not afford the first world prices can not afford to be patient. Their options are break the partent or die. Which would you choose?

The people who are dying in the third world, in South America and Africa, in South East Asia, because they can not afford the first world prices can not afford to be patient. Their options are break the partent or die. Which would you choose?

As I clearly stated, I understand their impatience. I understand the need to get medication to the needy.

What I don't know, perhaps you do, is how hard they (or any other nation in a similar position) have tried to work within the system. I prefer to see a binding international agreement to willy-nilly unilateral action.

So for the sake of discussion I am suggesting that signatories to Doha not abandon it. I am suggesting to lay most of the blame with the more powerful nations, though - and not just the US - for not caring enough.

I also suggest that China is a significant part of the problem with it's blatant disrespect of intellectual property rights. As a result of their abuse nobody trusts the TRIP process.

So for the purpose of this thread I'm suggesting that the problem is bigger than "drug companies are greedy", "the US is being selfish again", and "well, they didn't spend that much on research anyway". My paraphrasing of what I saw here.

its a slightly bigger question than just "breaking a patent"

i think brazil has a big enough ecomony and the research infrastructure to be able to make a copy of a drug when they arent going to be able to ask the manufacturer for help.

as long as they dont profit from it and only make it for their own people, i say DO IT. why let people die for a legal technicality?

in africa where the average budget for all medical issues is around $2 per person, how would they afford to put up a factory? do they HAVE the available expertise to make such a drug? would it be as good as the one made in the US now?

they need to be given the drugs for free and have help administering them properly. diagnosis and education is more important in africa than medicine. (not that medicine isnt important)

the 3rd world isnt a source of profits for aids drugs, they are just too damned poor. drug companies should be (and in some cases are) giving the drugs for free or helping set up licensed factories in the different countries. (i dont think they do that)

In accordance to the post about India mass producing some AIDs drugs:
In a report on BBC news, the woman behind the cheap versions defended her position on the patents by stating their weren't even developed by the phar. companies, the were actually developed by the US gov't. It's truly sad that those companies tried[ and still do] claim patents over drugs they don't develop.

:mad:

As a human being my heart goes out to the people in need in poor countries. I also feel strongly that the more prosperous should help the poor. Many nations act similarly, some more than others.

The whole question with getting AIDS drugs to the needy is how to develop an system that works in a capitalistic world. And how to prevent unintended consequences. I can see a long list of unintended consequences, and it worries me.

Is it realistic to ask the drug companies for charity? How much charity is reasonable - how many billions? There may be future epidemics or biological threats - how many times can we ask them for charity? My personal view is that continual asking for large donations from corporations will get you only a short distance down the road.

Who determines whether a nation can afford the drugs and what are the criteria for financial relief - the drug companies? The poorest nations can afford less than Brazil, for sure. How much debt should a nation assume to protect it's citizens, or how big a hit on their economy can they endure?

The intellectual property rights, patents, are a product with tangible value. An analogy could be made between what Brazil is proposing and eminent domain. There's a thread on NS about a US Supreme Court decision expanding the seizure of private property by government for the greater good - and people are overwhelmingly opposed to it. Here we would have Brazil taking valuable property from companies in another country to help Brazilian citizens - and conceivably harm the economy of that other country. Taken to an extreme, what would stop Brazil from just starting their own pharmaceutical company and stealing patent information at will - why stop with AIDS drugs? They could make a whole host of medications, all with $0 R&D.

So how to fix? The rich have to subsidize the poor. Or not, depending on how they feel about it. Stealing from big corporations may solve the immediate problem for Brazil but doesn't help the African nations any and doesn't move the world any closer to a solution, which I still think lies in a formal mechanism of deciding who pays for what and protects patents as well - the Doha Round is a good start but requires patience and political will to implement. I hope Brazil can hang on a little longer.

But for the sake of brainstorming, how about this: if all parties agree (the patent holders are key) have Brazil manufacture the drugs and as repayment become a production point for the third world?

As a human being my heart goes out to the people in need in poor countries. I also feel strongly that the more prosperous should help the poor. Many nations act similarly, some more than others.
It is easy to say this, but as soon as one country decides to do something practical to make this hapen, people start complaining abiout the right to profit that is being removed from the company and forgetting about this humanitarian impulse. It should be clear from my history here that I am as strong a proponent of the free market as almost any on these boards, but
even for an out and out free marketeer such as myself there comes a point at which the profit motive has to take second place to humanitarianism.


The whole question with getting AIDS drugs to the needy is how to develop an system that works in a capitalistic world. And how to prevent unintended consequences. I can see a long list of unintended consequences, and it worries me.

Is it realistic to ask the drug companies for charity? How much charity is reasonable - how many billions? There may be future epidemics or biological threats - how many times can we ask them for charity? My personal view is that continual asking for large donations from corporations will get you only a short distance down the road.
No one is asking the drug companies for charity. What is being done is that the drug companies are being told that human lives can not be held ransom for profits. I suggested in my initial post on this thread how the drug companies could be compensated, I have also intimated that if they do not wish to co-operate in a humanitarian act then they will lose out in the long run.

Who determines whether a nation can afford the drugs and what are the criteria for financial relief - the drug companies? The poorest nations can afford less than Brazil, for sure. How much debt should a nation assume to protect it's citizens, or how big a hit on their economy can they endure?
The question is not an economics question at first, it is a moral question. Only when you are satisfied that a company has the moral right to require the unnecessary deaths of many people if they are not economically compensated does it become an economic question. I am not so satisfied, nor should you be. There is a question of the ethics of property rights that follows on. And how these property rights should be compensated. It is not, however a question of whether a company should be able to hold the lives of people to ransom, which is the first question.

The intellectual property rights, patents, are a product with tangible value. An analogy could be made between what Brazil is proposing and eminent domain. There's a thread on NS about a US Supreme Court decision expanding the seizure of private property by government for the greater good - and people are overwhelmingly opposed to it. Here we would have Brazil taking valuable property from companies in another country to help Brazilian citizens - and conceivably harm the economy of that other country. Taken to an extreme, what would stop Brazil from just starting their own pharmaceutical company and stealing patent information at will - why stop with AIDS drugs? They could make a whole host of medications, all with $0 R&D.
They could indeed, but they would not. Where there is no ethical basis for breaking patents, then to do so would destroy all confidence in that country for international trade. It would be economic suicide. However where there is an ethical requirement to provide life saving treatment, then this overrides such economic concerns. The analogy with eminent domain fails very badly. In breaking a patent on one product, you are not removing the ownership of the means of production or support. You are only removing the monopoly power on that product. The two are completely different things.

So how to fix? The rich have to subsidize the poor. Or not, depending on how they feel about it. Stealing from big corporations may solve the immediate problem for Brazil but doesn't help the African nations any and doesn't move the world any closer to a solution, which I still think lies in a formal mechanism of deciding who pays for what and protects patents as well - the Doha Round is a good start but requires patience and political will to implement. I hope Brazil can hang on a little longer.
If the drug companies will not produce the drug at near cost (A small profit is acceptable) then the only solution is to break their monopoly on the product and make them compete. This will force them to reduce the price to reasonable levels. No one is talking about prohibiting the companies from producing the drugs, they are only discussing breaking the monopoly. If the USA and the EU were not so set on retaining their advantageous trading conditions, then the WTO negotiations could make a difference to this type of situation. However when both of thesemajor economic powers blatently ignore the WTO rulings and have to be threatened with sanctions before they do anything about illegal cotton or sugar subsidies for example, it is a little hypocritical to expect those countries that are sufferiung due to thes infractions to wait for further rulings that can be ignored.

But for the sake of brainstorming, how about this: if all parties agree (the patent holders are key) have Brazil manufacture the drugs and as repayment become a production point for the third world?

Brazil will do that anyway. It is not a matter of if the patent holders agree or not. What is being offered is an opportunity to stop raking in obscene profits at the cost of lives and to bring the prices to a sensible level, and if this is not done, then the monopoly will be broken. The drug companies have no moral or ethical reason to not reduce the price. Brazil is using the only lever that there is to force the companies to behave in a humane fashion.

I'd far prefer that the government of the nation acquire the copyrights by offering highly lucrative rewards for allowing them production.

I'd far prefer that the government of the nation acquire the copyrights by offering highly lucrative rewards for allowing them production.

And if the state happens to be Burkina Fassa, what are they supposed to offer?

Got to go... interesting topic - look forward to continuing this tomorrow. Good night.