Brazil Breaks Patent to Make AIDS Drug 1041
Andy Tai writes: "In this CNN story, Brazil decides to break a patent over an AIDS drug for public benefits. Brazil will produce the drug domestically without agreements with patent holder, the Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche. Brazil's efforts to fight AIDS have been praised internationally, and it successfully prevented the US Government from bringing complaints in the WTO on behalf of the drugs industry. This may set an important example that public needs justify the disregard of patent protection." There's another article in the Boston Globe about the decision.
This is not a good trend to cheer. (Score:3, Interesting)
Want a story that is similar, but on a more "person" level. White farmers losing their property in Zimbabwe, because its not fair that they have it.
This is the new trend, government are going to take what they want and justify it in any shape or form. While they start off doing this with the cover of "saving lives" how long before it becomes anything they want?
So here are some of the real problems.
1. Basically Brazil breaks the agreed internation law and makes the stuff for free, thereby forcing other nations to either follow their example of pay the difference. (see South Africa's example - do it or we take your companies assests)
2. Reduces the possibility of region specific drugs NOT being developed because companies rightfully fear losing all investment. (some diseases are more prevalent in certain areas of the world - that is an obvious statement).
3. Raises spectre of loss of intellectual property on other levels, and more and more are confiscated for the "public good"
4. Increases the likelyhood of similar industries leaving "hostile" countries furthering the problem that country faces.
When do we stop? Who can judge what is a fair price for something? Who can judge what can fairly be patented?
Apparently people are willing to allow those with the guns to do it, and not realize its the first step to losing their own rights.
Re:how about the need to protects patents?? (Score:2, Interesting)
The Big Pharma can either put up or shut up. They had two options: negotiate reasonable drug prices with Brazil and still make profit or lose every chance for profit. Any self-respecting government will opt for patent infringement if it is a way to save the lives of their citizens.
It will be a sad day indeed if and when the corporations become so big and so powerful that sovereign governments won't dare to tread on them if necessary.
Re:how about the need to protects patents?? (Score:1, Interesting)
They're having lots and lots of unprotected sex. If we let them continue at it, they'd kill off the entire population of people except those that are naturally immune to it. Unless they get medicine, which allows them to continue on business as usual, ignoring reality.
Here's another opinion - you're nuts (Score:3, Interesting)
But as for your opinion itself... can you actually be serious?
You've got a country full of dying people. There's a drug available that can save a goodly number of them. It's expensive, and you're poor. You have the ability to reverse-engineer the drug (or just steal the formula outright, whatever) and produce it yourself for minimal cost.
Would you, as the leader of this country, REALLY allow people to DIE a slow, lingering, and very painful death just because a piece of paper says you have too?
I'm sorry, not me. As a hypothetical Brazillian leader, my duty is to serve the people of my country, not some foreign drug company. If they won't play ball on price, then we do what we gotta do to save them.
The point on education is a salient one, but this is not a zero-sum game - producing the drug does not mean a reduction in education, nor does increasing education do a dammned thing for those already infected.
This case is one of the best examples for the "IP is bogus, information wants to be free" position that I've seen. We're not talking about music files or games here, this is information that will actually SAVE REAL HUMAN LIVES, that a corporation wants hidden and protected SO IT CAN MAKE MONEY.
If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, I don't know what will.
This is my real issue with the Libertarians of the world. There is no place in their world-view for the public project, done for the benefit of mankind. Everything must have a profit motive, and protecting profits has priority over all else.
Just like Marxist-Leninism goes too far, by wanting _everything_ state-owned and state-run, Libertarian goes too far by giving all control to the private sector. Either extreme is insane. The Real World requires compromise, and I for one am glad to see Brazil stick up for REAL freedom, and do what is right.
Re:Way to fucking GO!! (Score:2, Interesting)
These pharmaceutical companies are turning over _billions_ every year, making bucketloads of cash out of other people's misery.
Now, I don't deny them their profits; sure, the only way to keep making scientific (medical) advances is though continuous investment...
I guess that's what happends when businessmen (and women) run businesses rather than the scientists and the engineers.
It's all a trade-off; if Roche (and its contemporaries) were run by scientists for the benefit of ordinary folks, then they'd be in administration (Chapter 11 for you US folks) within weeks
matthew
nice try, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
I do wish people would stop it with the "how are they going to fund research?" crap. If you look at the big picture of drug research, and where the costs really are, you would see that a lot of it is inflated numbers caused by "economic factors" and other such nonsense. That is how a lot of universities are able to continue to do excellent pharma research. The companies are hindered for less noble reasons than academia.
No money (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Brazilians with AIDS have no money to buy drugs. Therefore, the drug companies get no money from them, and the AIDS patients die.
or
2. Brazilians with AIDS have no money to buy drugs. The Brazilian govt violates the patent, the patients get their drugs, but the drug companies get no money from them.
Looks like #1 is a lose-lose situation.
At least in scenerio #2, the people get their drugs.
-J5K
Re:Example? (Score:0, Interesting)
If it's in the public's interest, the public will fund its reasearch. Rogaine, for example, is a drug that would have gathered no public funds and is for all intents and purposes a medically useless drug. Baldness causes nothing more than loss of vanity, which is not a social problem that the public needs to expend effort on solving. On the other hand, AIDS is killing people.
How much of that $500 million figure (which I'm not validating in any way except as something you quoted) actually went into researching the drug? How much of it went into executive bonuses and stock options? I question the actual cost when its stated in these terms. If the people who volunteered themselves for testing the drugs got paid somehow I could see it. But where does that money go? Researcher's salaries? Let's suppose your average researcher gets paid $30 / hr. Let's give a new AIDS drug a team of 100 researchers and 5 years. That's $30,000,000 in salaries. Well did it take 100 people 5 years continuously working to come up with that drug?
It's been my experience that most "costs" associated with business are pulled out of people's assess. It suposedly costs my company $60,000 to create a Windows 95 PC image. We (who create the images) don't have any idea where that cost comes from. I know I'd love to get paid that much to do a single image. At budget time these numbers are added up in some magical fashion and presented on a pie chart. I suspect that's how the "billions" the drug industry spends get quoted, too. Someone goes down into a lab and says "how much did that cost us to make?" and a number is fudged out of thin air. Let's see some real figures.
All that aside, the company still manufactures the drug, don't they? They still have the brand name, don't they? Why is it a loss of money for them to have to compete with someone? This isn't like digital bits, where they can be reproduced at will. To create a drug, the drug company has to do some actual work, and their product cannot be casually copied and given to friends. I'm all for paying a drug company for their actual work. Their R&D could be acquired through a public grant, or they could just do what most people do with R&D, which is accept it as a cost of doing business. Honestly, when you put "intellectual property rights" vs. "massive loss of human life" I don't see much of a conflict.
All countries... (Score:0, Interesting)
Corporations would have no incentive to research it. Of course, they don't research any of this now either, so there's no loss. Don't forget, all this "corporate research" is basically patenting the work of grad students at universities who have received federal grants.
What incentive would remain? The ability to manufacture a product in large quantities at your economies-of-scale plant, and sell it at a guaranteed 10%-15% profit. The consistent ability to produce millions of any thing at 100%+ profit margins is indicative of a monopoly. Note thats any THING, not just anything. That type of monopoly can only exist due to artificial scarcity, such as from patents.
The WTO treaty specified that any country can disregard patent laws in issues relating to the health of its citizens, so Rouche can go shove it.
However much this provision may be abused in the future [free dreamcast games are critical to the long term health of our society's hand-eye coordination development
Viagra for example, sells at an 11,000% profit margin on manufacturing cost.
Re:Sometimes I just can't believe... (Score:1, Interesting)
The reality is that this will INCREASE the number of infected people there. If they did not practice safe sex previously, or did not abstain from sex outside marriage (which everyone seems to assume is impossible) - unless this drug treats AIDS and increases IQ or sexual morals - that will not change.