AIDS Drug Patent Revoked In US 357
eldavojohn writes "Doctors Without Borders is reporting that four patents for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, a key AIDS/HIV drug, have been revoked on grounds of prior art. This is potentially good news for India & Brazil who need this drug to be cheap; if the US action leads to the patent being rejected in these countries, competition could drastically lower prices. But the ruling bad news for Gilead Sciences. The company has vowed to appeal. We discussed this drug before."
I can feel the kindness (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I can feel the kindness (Score:5, Informative)
Don't get me started on how much of the "research" money comes from the government.
I'll willing to accept that there might be a perfectly rational, moral reason the drugs are priced the way they are... but I haven't heard it yet.
Re:I can feel the kindness (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not defending big pharma or any company in particular.
Re:Cool... (Score:0, Informative)
Re:I can feel the kindness (Score:5, Informative)
This is why they struggle so hard, quote [nybooks.com]: " In 2001, the ten American drug companies in the Fortune 500 list (not quite the same as the top ten worldwide, but their profit margins are much the same) ranked far above all other American industries in average net return, whether as a percentage of sales (18.5 percent), of assets (16.3 percent), or of shareholders' equity (33.2 percent). These are astonishing margins. For comparison, the median net return for all other industries in the Fortune 500 was only 3.3 percent of sales. Commercial banking, itself no slouch as an aggressive industry with many friends in high places, was a distant second, at 13.5 percent of sales." (emphasis mine)
CC.
Re:I can feel the kindness (Score:1, Informative)
Although the pharmaceutical industry claims to be a high-risk business, year after year drug companies enjoy higher profits than any other industry.
In 2002, for example, the top 10 drug companies in the United States had a median profit margin of 17%, compared with only 3.1% for all the other industries on the Fortune 500 list.1 Indeed, subtracting losses from gains, those 10 companies made more in profits that year than the other 490 companies put together.
Re:I can feel the kindness (Score:5, Informative)
The barrier to entry is also extremely high (though this might be necessary to ensure there aren't fakes). As a patient, you have little choice. Do you honestly shop around for the cheapest doctors when it comes time for surgery? You don't have much say in what the doctor will order for you, and you have essentially no say in who your anesthesiologist will be.
Re:I can feel the kindness (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps the NIH should buy a small generic pharmaceutical producer to make the drugs we develop. The FDA should also be less stringent in the drugs it approves: once you figure out toxicity and dosing, the therapeutics should be routinely available. Yes, there will be unforeseen toxicities associated with the therapeutics that we don't know about because we've only used the therapeutic on a couple of hundred people, but how many people are dying/suffering large morbidity because it takes that extra ten years to get a therapeutic to market?
Private ownership of publicly funded research (Score:2, Informative)
One of the real problems here is the Bayh-Doyle Act of 1980, which allowed publicly funded researchers (including universities) to patent or otherwise own the intellectual property rights of inventions funded by your tax dollars and mine.
Before 1980, companies had to do all the research work themselves. If they were assisted by a university's research lab, and if that lab were funded by the Federal government, then intellectual property rights would be held by the government. If Whatsamatta U discovered how to synthesize an enzyme, for instance, no one could ever patent that process. The fruits of publicly funded research were public.
After Bayh-Doyle, everything changed. Universities could patent their publicly funded discoveris, so they were free to enter into partnerships with corporations - the universities, funded by the government, do the lion's share of research. The corporations figure out how to turn discoveries into marketable goods. Everyone wins - except for the people who actually paid for the research in the first place: US taxpayers.
Re:Big Profits for Pharma is Great news! (Score:2, Informative)
I just wish someone would make a list of the top 50 drugs in the last 50 years and who made them and how they were financed.
DISCLOSURE: I work in biomedical research and involved in one of the companies working on buyouts listed below.
There isn't a list because the public isn't supposed to know. The vast amount of research is done at Universities or publicly funded labs. Drug companies take the results and reap the profits. Most, and I mean the vast majority, of medical breakthroughs were done on the public dime.
Hell, Canada's medical research system puts ours to shame and they're "evil socialists". They've developed portable MRIs, live heart imaging systems, etc and thats just in the past few years. Now American investors are looking at buying them up. Not for research but for the profit.
Re:Big Profits for Pharma is Great news! (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, US citizens are being gouged.