Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US to announce trade enforcement action linked to India

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Of course they make a profit with cheap prices. They didn't have to invest in researching the drug nor getting it certified/tested to be put on the market
    I quoted prices as less as 1/20th for a reason. Don't you think the US margins are a bit too off?

    I'd like to see their cost sheet because I bet its not just R&D and stuff they're considering. These prices are probably bankrolling the entire medical system.

    India does respect patent laws and lets the owner play monopoly in the market and earn profits till the patent expires. But after the patent expires, if the owner wants to renew its patent, it has to show something new to qualify(evergreening). What these companies do is that they present the same old drug with a few changes here and there and present it as something new. The indian supreme court caught them red handed and they clearly don''t like it. A lot of them have teamed up and roped in the US politicians in the loop to pressure india.

    Indian Supreme Court Rejects Trivial 'Evergreening' Of Pharma Patents
    Back in October last year, in the context of India showing itself increasingly sceptical about pharma patents that drive up drug prices beyond the reach of its citizens, we wrote about an important court battle over Novartis's drug Gleevec, sold as Glivec in India. The definitive judgement from India's Supreme Court was announced today, reported here by The Guardian:

    The Indian supreme court has refused to allow one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies to patent a new version of a cancer drug, a decision campaigners hailed as a major step forward in enabling poor people to access medicines in the developing world.

    Novartis lost a six-year legal battle after the court ruled that small changes and improvements to the drug Glivec did not amount to innovation deserving of a patent. The ruling opens the way for generic companies in India to manufacture and sell cheap copies of the drug in the developing world and has implications for HIV and other modern drugs too.


    The key issue at stake is a practice known as "evergreening": making small changes to a drug, often about to come off patent, in order to gain a new patent that extends its manufacturer's control over it. It's a way of cheating on the implicit bargain of patents: that a government-backed monopoly is granted in exchange for the invention entering the public domain at the end of the patent's lifetime.

    That's what makes today's decision so important. It's not just about allowing Indian generics manufacturers to offer Glivec for a fraction of the Novartis price; it's equally about establishing the principle that "evergreening" patents won't be as easy in India as it is elsewhere, where the practice is common. This will allow India's pharma companies to produce a wide range of drugs at low prices that can then be sold to emerging countries unable to afford Western prices.

    Doubtless, many lives will be saved as a result, but that doesn't seem to be any comfort to the head of Novartis in India, who is quoted in a press release as saying:

    "We strongly believe that original innovation should be recognized in patents to encourage investment in medical innovation especially for unmet medical needs," said Ranjit Shahani, Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Novartis India Limited. "We brought this case because we strongly believe patents safeguard innovation and encourage medical progress, particularly for unmet medical needs. This ruling is a setback for patients that will hinder medical progress for diseases without effective treatment options."

    That's pretty much what you'd expect him to say, since we've heard it here on Techdirt so many times before: without patents that allow monopoly pricing and big profits, there will be no investment in new drugs, and everyone will suffer etc. etc. But this simply isn't true. Much of the fundamental research that leads to important new drugs is done in public laboratories, paid for by taxpayers around the world, not by pharma companies.

    Here, for example, is the story of how Novartis came to gain its highly-lucrative monopoly on Gleevec/Glivec, as told by the key researcher who actually developed it: Brian Druker, chair of Leukemia Research and professor of medicine at the Oregon Health and Science University Cancer Institute. He explained how the crucial initial research was carried out in an opinion piece published on the Livemint site in 2007:

    The basic research that led to the identification of enzyme inhibitors for CML [Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia -- the main condition that Glivec is designed to treat] dates back to 1960 with the identification of the Philadelphia chromosome in patients with CML by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Peter Nowell and David Hungerford. In 1973, Janet Rowley at the University of Chicago determined that the abnormal chromosome was due to a translocation of genetic material.

    No pharmaceutical companies seem to have been involved in this early work, and they were also minor players in the crucial move out of the laboratory, into product development, as Druker explains:

    In 1993, I moved to Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland and had a single goal of finding a company that had the best inhibitor for Bcr-Abl [the cancer-causing protein] and to bring it into clinical trials. My work in Oregon on a therapy for CML was primarily funded by public sources, particularly the National Cancer Institute. My persistence with scientists at Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis) helped to keep the development of imatinib on their agenda despite uncertainty from product managers.

    So not only was the drug developed largely thanks to public funds, but the pharma company that ended up making all the profits from it wasn't even hugely enthusiastic about the project initially: it was only Druker's "persistence" that led to the drug being approved. And if you're wondering about his views on the current world of pharma, with its stratospheric prices and a habitual recourse to evergreening to extend patents way beyond their original life-span, here's what he wrote back in 2007:

    Pharmaceutical companies that have invested in the development of medicines should achieve a return on their investments. But this does not mean the abuse of these exclusive rights by excessive prices and seeking patents over minor changes to extend monopoly prices. This goes against the spirit of the patent system and is not justified given the vital investments made by the public sector over decades that make the discovery of these medicines possible.

    The fact that many key drugs have only been possible thanks to those "vital investments made by the public sector" is nearly always overlooked by defenders of the pharma patent system. It's another reason why the Indian Supreme Court's decision is not only right, but just.
    Last edited by anil; 12 Feb 14,, 08:02.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lemontree View Post
      Then you are not aware of the pharma supply chain. Black marketing is not so easy.
      I was talking about common people in the west ordering strips from online medical stores through registered post in envelopes. There is no way any countrys customs can afford to go through envelopes.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Doktor View Post
        How much for measuring blood pressure?
        A dollar

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by anil View Post
          I was talking about common people in the west ordering strips from online medical stores through registered post in envelopes. There is no way any countrys customs can afford to go through envelopes.
          Ours do. ;)
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • #20
            Doktor,

            What if the seller takes them out of their blister packs? How will customs know what they are? Are they going to send them to a science lab every time? There are thousands of generics, can sniffer dogs handle that?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by anil View Post
              Doktor,

              What if the seller takes them out of their blister packs? How will customs know what they are? Are they going to send them to a science lab every time? There are thousands of generics, can sniffer dogs handle that?
              Don't underestimate our customs. They are very systematic. If the drugs are out of box, they will be confiscated and destroyed. No analysis, no anything.
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • #22
                @ Doktor

                It'll get through.

                There are many online medical stores on the net. Customs confiscation is a significant issue for many buyers in the forum section. Some get through, some don't. The seller modifies as per requirements.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by anil View Post
                  @ Doktor

                  It'll get through.

                  There are many online medical stores on the net. Customs confiscation is a significant issue for many buyers in the forum section. Some get through, some don't. The seller modifies as per requirements.
                  I don't know of anyone who got medications trough postal service. Not one person. Many tried, tho.
                  No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                  To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Try enquiring on this forum

                    http:// pharmacyreviewer.com/forum/

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                      Under the World Trade Organization TRIPS Agreement, compulsory licences are a legally recognized means to overcome barriers in accessing affordable medicines, where a government has the option to allow a company to manufacture a patented drug without the consent of the innovator company.

                      Bayer has not been shortchanged either, 7% royalty is to be paid to Bayer by Natco Pharma for getting the license.

                      In actual fact, most patent owners give these medicines for free/ lesser cost at the cancer hospitals as most patients cannot afford them. This was the case with another anti-cancer drug - Glivec from Novartis. This drug was given free 90% of the time, it was not even a revenue generator for the company, but they lost their patent on similar grounds. They will get royalty though.

                      The drug prices are high in the west as medical cover is through social security or insurance. In the end the tax payer pays for the high cost of drugs or through high insurance premiums, that may actually not be that costly. If you explain to me why does it cost $25 for an asprin pill in any one of the US hospitals then, probably I will consider the US Govt move a good one.

                      In Europe a bottle of 50 asprins costs about 10 euros or about $15 (prices as of 2008, may have changed now).
                      In India, Astra Zenica sells the same thing for about $2-3.
                      And this specific trade action does not challenge Compulsory Licensing directly, but Indian domestic manufacturing requirements on their renewable resource projects:
                      New Trade Enforcement Action Combats Barrier to U.S. Clean Energy Products | Office of the United States Trade Representative
                      Remarks by United States Trade Representative Michael Froman Announcing Enforcement Action with Regard to India | Office of the United States Trade Representative
                      Anyways, there are certain preconditions that must be filled before issuing a compulsory license. It's not a blank slate to take whatever you want because you don't like the prices.
                      "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I understand that US wants to protect its own businesses but whats wrong when india does the same?

                        India too should notify the US about how Buy American Act is effecting indian businesses just for tit-for-tats sake.

                        Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                        I suggest cutting your SLBM program and using the savings on purchasing the drug
                        Yes I agree. The recent C130Js, Apaches and Chinook purchases were immoral. The P-8A, with its capability(a dud) should be returned and refunded.
                        Last edited by anil; 12 Feb 14,, 19:43.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Bleh. Trade disputes are normal. They do not necessarily indicate that the whole relationship is going to hell. The US imposes a 20% light truck tax on foreign trucks, because back in the 1950s the Germans and French banned American chickens.

                          However, if you have Apaches that launch SLBMs, I sure would like a couple of those!
                          "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                            And this specific trade action does not challenge Compulsory Licensing directly, but Indian domestic manufacturing requirements on their renewable resource projects:
                            India is not against drug patents, the problem arises when pharma companies want to extend protection by tweking the drug and claim that it is an innovation. That is what the GOI has been preventing.

                            This is a far simple issue and unrelated to the pharma industry. I'm sure there will be some agreement on this.

                            Anyways, there are certain preconditions that must be filled before issuing a compulsory license. It's not a blank slate to take whatever you want because you don't like the prices.
                            All pre-conditions are fulfilled i'm sure. However, for a pharma company the issue is more delicate as it relates to scientific research that cannot be calculated with money alone, besides IPR protection takes a beating.

                            Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by anil View Post
                              @ Doktor

                              It'll get through.

                              There are many online medical stores on the net. Customs confiscation is a significant issue for many buyers in the forum section. Some get through, some don't. The seller modifies as per requirements.
                              Anil, the EU countries are very active in preventing this online/ postal buying of pharma products, believe me I have interacted with the IMPACT team of WHO, and my own company use to work actively with the customs dept or the respective countries.

                              The basic problem is that India may be a good producer of cheap generic drugs, but these drugs have to be passed by the host country's FDA for acceptance within that country. During my research I found that US/ UK women frequently ordered a popular contrceptive pill through online channels. This is a very safe drug, but if it has not been tested for use and side effects in US /UK then it is legally wrong.

                              The culprits of this online trade are the local pharma distributors in India.

                              Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X