NationStates Jolt Archive

Brazil's president has authorised the country to bypass the patent on an Aids drug manufactured by Merck, a US pharmaceutical giant.

The country will import a cheaper, generic Indian-made version of the patented Efavirenz drug.

[...]

He said that the compulsory licensing of Efavirenz was a legitimate and necessary measure to guarantee that all patients had access to the drug.

Brazil's decision means that Merck, which holds the patent for the drugs, will only get a small royalty for the generic versions of the drugs purchased. Under Brazilian law and rules established by the World Health Organisation, such a licence can be granted in a health emergency or if the pharmaceutical industry abuses its pricing.

[...]

Aids activists in the country welcomed the decision.

"This is certainly an important advance in terms of widening access. We are very happy that Brazil is moving in the right direction," said Michel Lotrowska of NGO Medecins Sans Frontieres.

Thailand's decision to break Merck's Efavirenz patent, as well as drugs produced by two other firms, led to the country being placed on a US list of copyright violators.

The company said that Brazil's decision could discourage pharmaceutical firms from investing in treatments for illnesses prevalent in the developing world.

Brazil's move, Merck said, sent "a chilling signal to research-based companies about the attractiveness of undertaking risky research on diseases that affect the developing world."


(Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6626073.stm))

Thoughts? Comments?

The latter point notwithstanding, I'd say Brazil made the right choice. The option existed to ensure that more patients would gain access to treatment they vitally needed. And there's something perverse about companies saying "Well, saving lives isn't really profitable".

I wish my country would have the guts to follow Brazil and Thailand's lead... but no... we were eviscerated.

Hear hear. I think the lives and livelihoods that will be saved more than make up for any loss in profit from the billions of dollars multinational pharmaceuticals make.

Good on them I say.

Brazil's move, Merck said, sent "a chilling signal to research-based companies about the attractiveness of undertaking risky research on diseases that affect the developing world."

Because developing the drugs and then making them unaffordable to developing countries is so much sounder. :rolleyes:

Good on Brazil. The WHO and I believe the WTO do allow for this, so the US can go fuck itself with its "list".

It's sad when health care becomes tied to the issue of class and wealth. Remember the bus fleets of senior citizens taking trips to Canada just for cheaper prescriptions? Same neighborhood.

Good. I don't see why developing countries should have to use expensive patented drugs when there is a cheaper generic option.

Hear hear. I think the lives and livelihoods that will be saved more than make up for any loss in profit from the billions of dollars multinational pharmaceuticals make.

Yeah, but in the end it will ultimately cost more lives. Sure I know it's cynical, but most people are motivated by money rather then the incentive of saving lives. So next time a epidemic comes around, there won't be a cure as soon for it.

Yeah, but in the end it will ultimately cost more lives. Sure I know it's cynical, but most people are motivated by money rather then the incentive of saving lives. So next time a epidemic comes around, there won't be a cure as soon for it.

Sounds a lot like Gray Death.

Sounds a lot like Gray Death.

Eh?

Yes, yes and hell yes. Fighting disease is always of paramount importance, even above profiteering.

Yes, yes and hell yes. Fighting disease is always of paramount importance, even above profiteering.

Unfortunately the companies don't see it your way, and as a result of Brazil's actions they no-longer can depend on evil Capitalists to engeneer drugs for them. This is where my "if everyone is equal, everyone is miserable" idea comes into being (see above post).

So next time a epidemic comes around, there won't be a cure as soon for it.

You mean a cure that these countries won't be able to afford anyway? Oh, I'm sure they're tearing their hair off with concern. :rolleyes:

You mean a cure that these countries won't be able to afford anyway? Oh, I'm sure they're tearing their hair off with concern. :rolleyes:

They can afford it, they just don't see the benifit in talking funds out of things and wrecking stuff as a result.

Maybe if drug companies didn't spend more money on marketing and lobbying than they do on actual research then I might feel sorry for them. As it it, screw the heartless profiteers.

They can afford it, they just don't see the benifit in talking funds out of things and wrecking stuff as a result.

Ah, so you're another one of those "capitalists" with no actual insight into these countries' economies, but you just knee-jerk to lend support to gouging because you somehow have the idea that that is the capitalist way. Right...

Maybe if drug companies didn't spend more money on marketing and lobbying than they do on actual research then I might feel sorry for them. As it it, screw the heartless profiteers.

Don't feel sorry for the drug companies, feel sorry for Brazil (see above posts).

Don't feel sorry for the drug companies, feel sorry for Brazil (see above posts).

Fass has already pointed out the problem with that argument (namely that they can't afford the standard drugs anyway). I don't see why any new drugs won't soon be available in generic form, especially with the breakthroughs being made by Imperial College London.

Ah, so you're another one of those "capitalists" with no actual insight into these countries' economies, but you just knee-jerk to lend support to gouging because you somehow have the idea that that is the capitalist way. Right...

What are you talking about? I think Capitalism sucks, it revolves putting your money above other people's lives! Communism, on the other hand rocks because it would be ideal if everyone was thinking of each other. Communism is one of humanities noblest ideas. However, it depends on the hope that people give a hoot about each other, which they don't. It worked with the Iroquois for instance, because they acually care about each other, but it will not work for the rest of the world. Capitalism on the other hand seems to be the best thing we can come-up with for a selfish world. Prehaps when our world becomes more enlightened we will be ready for Communsim. Until then "if everybody is equal, everybody is miserable."

Fass has already pointed out the problem with that argument (namely that they can't afford the standard drugs anyway). I don't see why any new drugs won't soon be available in generic form, especially with the breakthroughs being made by Imperial College London.

I never said they wouldn't be, I'm just pointing-out that this go-ahead will discourage the drug companies because they lose the money incentive.

What are you talking about? I think Capitalism sucks, it revolves putting your money above other people's lives! Communism, on the other hand rocks because it would be ideal if everyone was thinking of each other. Communism is one of humanities noblest ideas. However, it depends on the hope that people give a hoot about each other, which they don't. It worked with the Iroquois for instance, because they acually care about each other, but it will not work for the rest of the world. Capitalism on the other hand seems to be the best thing we can come-up with for a selfish world. Prehaps when our world becomes more enlightened we will be ready for Communsim. Until then "if everybody is equal, everybody is miserable."

You think this is Communism? Haha, you know even less about it then.

Eh?

The Gray Death. A major story point for DX. A rampant disease with a cure that only the affluent can gain major access to.

You think this is Communism? Haha, you know even less about it then.

I NEVER said this is Communism. It is a remote cousin of it, I'm just showing you are wrong about your Capitalist crack.

Well, if Brazilians didn't fuck around (literally), they would not contract HIV and thus not develop AIDS. Problem solved for the future. The HI virus is not an easily transmittable virus and getting it is a consequence of behavior, not of breathing or consuming contaminated food or of touching contaminated surfaces.
And the sale of generic drugs of course only covers the production of the drug, but not the research to improve the drug or to develop new drugs. It's not as one-dimensional as presented here by some. It costs a lot of money to run a research facility for years and years without guarantee of success. The set-up and maintenance of such facilities is pretty expensive and all its researchers want to be paid in those years, too. So if there are no customers paying for this then there will be no further research, as simple as that. I used to work in a research facility of a university, and it cost millions and millions of Euros per year, and if this hadn't been run by a university but by a private business then those costs would have had to be covered by the consumers and recipients of the research results. Of course companies like Merck could look into their calculations and lower the prices for their drugs to what ongoing research actually costs, but that would still be above the prices of those who just steal somebody else's research results and market them without having to share the costs it took to obtain these results. So if a country decides to do good to its people it should just pay for the drugs its citizens need, but not just steal them.

Prehaps when our world becomes more enlightened we will be ready for Communsim. Until then "if everybody is equal, everybody is miserable."
Whether communist or not, the prospect of free medicine and the eradication of sickness should be "enlightenment" enough for this case, I would have thought.

What is involved here is a kind of "What's best for the manufacturers is best for everyone else" mentality, and I think this very attitude is what's acting as the barrier to that "enlightenment".

Go Brazil! :D

Brazil 1 Merck 0

Well, if Brazilians didn't fuck around (literally), they would not contract HIV and thus not develop AIDS. Problem solved for the future. The HI virus is not an easily transmittable virus and getting it is a consequence of behavior, not of breathing or consuming contaminated food or of touching contaminated surfaces.
And the sale of generic drugs of course only covers the production of the drug, but not the research to improve the drug or to develop new drugs. It's not as one-dimensional as presented here by some. It costs a lot of money to run a research facility for years and years without guarantee of success. The set-up and maintenance of such facilities is pretty expensive and all its researchers want to be paid in those years, too. So if there are no customers paying for this then there will be no further research, as simple as that. I used to work in a research facility of a university, and it cost millions and millions of Euros per year, and if this hadn't been run by a university but by a private business then those costs would have had to be covered by the consumers and recipients of the research results. Of course companies like Merck could look into their calculations and lower the prices for their drugs to what ongoing research actually costs, but that would still be above the prices of those who just steal somebody else's research results and market them without having to share the costs it took to obtain these results. So if a country decides to do good to its people it should just pay for the drugs its citizens need, but not just steal them.

The company, which on April 12 preannounced the quarterly earnings trends, posted first-quarter net earnings of $1.7 billion, or 78 cents per share, compared with $1.52 billion, or 69 cents per share, a year earlier.

These drug companies are in no way going broke because a few countries are tired of their price gouging bullshit on "drug patents." I wish I could patent a way to help save people's lives then refuse to let anyone use it for a price they can't afford then get whiny when they tell me to go fuck myself and only pay me royalties on generic medicines sold.

Brazil's move, Merck said, sent "a chilling signal to research-based companies about the attractiveness of undertaking risky research on diseases that affect the developing world."

That is bullshit. Malaria has been around for ages in Africa and South America, yet no lab will get their hands working on it.

That is just bullshit. The deal with aids is that its all over the globe, including the US.

These drug companies are in no way going broke because a few countries are tired of their price gouging bullshit on "drug patents." I wish I could patent a way to help save people's lives then refuse to let anyone use it for a price they can't afford then get whiny when they tell me to go fuck myself and only pay me royalties on generic medicines sold.

Agreed! These drug companies don't do their own research anyway. They buy it from the universities which do the real research and then do the rest but all they do this buy research done by others.

Maybe companies will learn that you can only charge so much for a product before the consumer decides it makes more sense to take the product from you by force.

It's also a rebuttal of the argument that many politicians use to defend their decisions. 'Oh, but the globalised economy means that we have to do this. It's not my fault I'm impotent, but vote for me because I can make your life better.'

Brazil's move, Merck said, sent "a chilling signal to research-based companies about the attractiveness of undertaking risky research on diseases that affect the developing world."

Because developing the drugs and then making them unaffordable to developing countries is so much sounder. :rolleyes:

Good on Brazil. The WHO and I believe the WTO do allow for this, so the US can go fuck itself with its "list".
That's it, you are so on the list...

Well, if Brazilians didn't fuck around (literally), they would not contract HIV and thus not develop AIDS. Problem solved for the future. The HI virus is not an easily transmittable virus and getting it is a consequence of behavior, not of breathing or consuming contaminated food or of touching contaminated surfaces.
And the sale of generic drugs of course only covers the production of the drug, but not the research to improve the drug or to develop new drugs. It's not as one-dimensional as presented here by some. It costs a lot of money to run a research facility for years and years without guarantee of success. The set-up and maintenance of such facilities is pretty expensive and all its researchers want to be paid in those years, too. So if there are no customers paying for this then there will be no further research, as simple as that. I used to work in a research facility of a university, and it cost millions and millions of Euros per year, and if this hadn't been run by a university but by a private business then those costs would have had to be covered by the consumers and recipients of the research results. Of course companies like Merck could look into their calculations and lower the prices for their drugs to what ongoing research actually costs, but that would still be above the prices of those who just steal somebody else's research results and market them without having to share the costs it took to obtain these results. So if a country decides to do good to its people it should just pay for the drugs its citizens need, but not just steal them.
Actually, Brazil has one of the more effective programs to reduce the spread of AIDS. They told the US to go fuck themselves with their AIDS money because it came with strings that would have removed programs that are actually working to reduce the spread of AIDS in favor of prudish Puritan anti-sex bullshit. By simply acknowledging that boning happens Brazil has taken a far more realistic approach to slowing the spread of AIDS.

I'm having a hard time believing that the royalties off the generic aren't enough to cover and contribute to Merck's bottom line. It's money without production or marketing-they are in fact being paid for the idea. To suggest that this would mean that no one will want to come up with ideas seems ridiculous. It does insinuate that the prices of the Merck drug were in fact inflated.

Don't feel sorry for the drug companies, feel sorry for Brazil (see above posts).

I don't feel sorry for either.

GO BRAZIL !!!
PENTA !!!

The next steps are.. Nationalizing the OIL industry and researching alternative energy sources.. Like Venezuela and Iran!! back to the future.. FTW

You mean a cure that these countries won't be able to afford anyway? Oh, I'm sure they're tearing their hair off with concern. :rolleyes:

Brazil could have easily afforded it. However they themselves are greedy. A bit hypocritical of them really. What this will do is have a negative effect for everyone. Like it or not these large companies need to make a profit. If they don't they will not invest into new drugs.

GO BRAZIL !!!
PENTA !!!

The next steps are.. Nationalizilng the OIL industry and researching alternative energy sources.. Like Venezuela and Iran!! back to the future.. FTW

Lol, just like Venezuela and Iran! Your funny sometimes OD.

Lol, just like Venezuela and Iran! Your funny sometimes OD.I am for the steps taken by Brazil.

and I support the other Countries taking these steps.

Dont you support these steps by these Countries ?

I am for the steps taken by Brazil.

and I support the other Countries taking these steps.

Dont you support these steps by these Countries ?

I support people living. However in this particular case Brazil can afford the price the drug company was offering. They instead decided to thumb their noses and go ahead and subvert the patents. This is basically them saying we will follow the rules on our terms only. I am sure Brazil would be up in arms if a company in the US decided to break a patent on a Brazilian product.

Brazil could have easily afforded it. However they themselves are greedy. A bit hypocritical of them really. What this will do is have a negative effect for everyone. Like it or not these large companies need to make a profit. If they don't they will not invest into new drugs.

They themselves are greedy? I think the company is the greedier of the two, Brazil has a lot of poor and this will help to relieve this. The fact that the drugs company was overcharging Brazil for the drug is unfair, and its quite obvious they were because they sold it cheaper to Thailand but would not do the same for Brazil, even through both countries are still developing.

They may need to make a profit, but not as large as they currently make. Whilst you may need profits to research more drugs its simply ludicrous to then charge stupidly high prices for them to make profit in the $billions

Its a drug, not a mp3 player.

If it was an ipod having its patent broken, I could understand. But this is a drug that help saves lives.

GO BRAZIL !!!
PENTA !!!

The next steps are.. Nationalizing the OIL industry and researching alternative energy sources.. Like Venezuela and Iran!! back to the future.. FTW

I know you're just a bullshitter trying to rile people up, but Brazil already does a fair amount towards alternative energy. They already run their cars on Ethonal made from sugar cane and the McDonalds fleet in Brazil runs their trucks on the used vegetable oil from their restaurants.

They already run their cars on Ethonal made from sugar cane.Do you really think I dont know?
I have driven one of those cars.
*hint read the secret message*.. and its Ethanol BTW

Until you've had to rely heavily on medication that means the difference between life and death, you have no clue what kind of stress it outs on you. You only see it as people stealing, but when you have no money and the companies who have the cure are creating inequality, it's time to say that's enough.

People before profits.

Do you really think I dont know?
I have driven one of those cars.
*hint read the secret message*.. and its Ethanol BTW
Dude, I'm not going to spend too much time decoding your nonsense.

Nobody ever thinks about the poor stockholders in all of this. Imagine working hard, investing, and then finding out you have to settle for retiring in Florida instead of Hawaii because your stock portfolio was hurt by third world countries greedily pirating various medications.

Dude, I'm not going to spend too much time decoding your nonsense.

Of course; not when you could decoding other's yammering inanity.

Dude, I'm not going to spend too much time decoding your nonsense.so let me spell it out for you.

The steps being taken today by Venezuela and Iran.. Brazil took them long.. long time ago.

And the steps Brazil is taking today.. will be taken by other Countries sooner or later.

GO BRAZIL !!!
Penta !!

Nobody ever thinks about the poor stockholders in all of this. Imagine working hard, investing, and then finding out you have to settle for retiring in Florida instead of Hawaii because your stock portfolio was hurt by third world countries greedily pirating various medications.

Never heard someone support the stockholders so well :). Florida is teh place to be.

All medication should be available to everyone at a rate they can afford and if the pharmaceutical companies lose out in such a way that the research and develepment they do is hindered, they should receive help from the government or international organizations. Good for Brazil.

All medication should be available to everyone at a rate they can afford and if the pharmaceutical companies lose out in such a way that the research and develepment they do is hindered, they should receive help from the government or international organizations. Good for Brazil.

Why don't we just nationalize the large pharmaceutical companies then. Why stop at subsidizing them.

Pharmaceuticals always abuse their pricing, so I really don't care if they don't get any royalties.

Communism, on the other hand rocks because it would be ideal if everyone was thinking of each other.

Communism: Meh.

Now State Socialism on the other hand...

Why don't we just nationalize the large pharmaceutical companies then. Why stop at subsidizing them.

I'd like to know the answer to that myself but I think that anybody who gave me a reason against it would also give me a history lesson on communism or socialism or terrorism(?!) and I really don't have the time for that.

Yeah, but in the end it will ultimately cost more lives. Sure I know it's cynical, but most people are motivated by money rather then the incentive of saving lives. So next time a epidemic comes around, there won't be a cure as soon for it.

No, it's just that the ground that pharmaceutical companies stand on while bargaining is a little shakier than it used to be.

Canada threatened to do the same thing when SARS came out.

All companies run through a simulated negotiation with these things in which they try to figure out how much ground they have to give to keep massive groups from just saying "fuck you, we're going to take what we want."

The RIAA wanted to keep music sales in a strictly album-based format. They they were more or less compelled to start selling downloadable singles on the internet by groups like Napster and it's successors. Dollar-a-download was what it took to keep music purchases at a profitable level because the amount of lawsuits they threatened to file would have bankrupted them.

Same thing here. Drug companies are going to ask themselves how much are they willing to charge for a drug before they have to worry about governments deciding that they are holding life saving material for ransom rather than charging a fair market price.

After all, if a home owner doesn't get to decide the fair market value of his house, why should a drug company get to decide the value of their drugs?

After all, if a home owner doesn't get to decide the fair market value of his house, why should a drug company get to decide the value of their drugs?

Well, imagine some one ripping-off a house because they think it costs too-much.

You'd think somewhere in the chain of coming up with cures for things, someone actually wants to save people and doesn't care about profit. I suppose the trick there is those aren't the people in charge. I wonder if the people in charge were ever the people wanting to help or if they're just pure business types who saw the almighty dollar sign. I can understand there has to be money to make the drugs and ship them and all that, but between donations and a fair price I don't see why that won't be covered.

One thing they could do is jack up the prices on the vanity drugs (Viagra type things, etc.) that don't really cure a life-threatening illness or anything of that sort. I'm sure people will still buy them. Add that in with donations and a fair price on the drugs that are actually important, you'd think some profit or whatever is needed could be achieved somewhere.

Generic drugs are around 70% (http://www.cherwell.org/science/drug_development_generics_and_the_problem_of_patents) cheaper then patented drugs. Drug companies spend around 15% (http://www.astrazeneca.com/sites/7/imagebank/typearticleparam11183/astrazeneca-ir-fact-sheet-2006.pdf) to 18% (http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/annualreport/2005/annual/p2005ar12.jsp) of their income on research. If 18% of the price difference is due to research then the remaining 52% of the price difference is due to abusing the monopoly position. Thats evil when lives are at stake. :mad:

I don't know about the rest of the world but at least here in europe it's the goverments that pay most of the cost for drugs thanks to various systems for universal medical coverage. Governments could both save a lot of money and spend more on research at the same time by abolishing drug patents to dump prices and spend half of the savings directly on research instead.

It would still be the governments paying drug companies just like it is today so not much of a change really. The only difference would be a formality, that they would pay for research directly instead of indirectly through higher prices.

Generic drugs are around 70% (http://www.cherwell.org/science/drug_development_generics_and_the_problem_of_patents) cheaper then patented drugs. Drug companies spend around 15% (http://www.astrazeneca.com/sites/7/imagebank/typearticleparam11183/astrazeneca-ir-fact-sheet-2006.pdf) to 18% (http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/annualreport/2005/annual/p2005ar12.jsp) of their income on research. If 18% of the price difference is due to research then the remaining 52% of the price difference is due to abusing the monopoly position. Thats evil when lives are at stake. :mad:

I'm not sure about that math....

That is bullshit. Malaria has been around for ages in Africa and South America, yet no lab will get their hands working on it.


Much more profit in producing preventative pills that have to be taken regularly by everyone living in an affected zone for there entire life, assuming they can afford them.

Generic drugs are around 70% (http://www.cherwell.org/science/drug_development_generics_and_the_problem_of_patents) cheaper then patented drugs. Drug companies spend around 15% (http://www.astrazeneca.com/sites/7/imagebank/typearticleparam11183/astrazeneca-ir-fact-sheet-2006.pdf) to 18% (http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/annualreport/2005/annual/p2005ar12.jsp) of their income on research. If 18% of the price difference is due to research then the remaining 52% of the price difference is due to abusing the monopoly position. Thats evil when lives are at stake. :mad:

I don't know about the rest of the world but at least here in europe it's the goverments that pay most of the cost for drugs thanks to various systems for universal medical coverage. Governments could both save a lot of money and spend more on research at the same time by abolishing drug patents to dump prices and spend half of the savings directly on research instead.

It would still be the governments paying drug companies just like it is today so not much of a change really. The only difference would be a formality, that they would pay for research directly instead of indirectly through higher prices.
Have you got a source on those figures?

Also, I'll link to a post I made in another thread.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12223921&postcount=24

Well, imagine some one ripping-off a house because they think it costs too-much.

Ripping off the design of the house is perfectly legal.
This is what was done here.

Does anyone else worry that as nations begin to abuse patents more and more companies will become a little more active at forcibly stopping these violations?

Have you got a source on those figures?

Also, I'll link to a post I made in another thread.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12223921&postcount=24

The "70%" is a link.

EDIT: Your article makes me want to smash things.

Have you got a source on those figures?

Also, I'll link to a post I made in another thread.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12223921&postcount=24
The "70%" is a link.

EDIT: Your article makes me want to smash things.
The "15%" and "18%" are also links to the sources I got those numbers from.