Good (IMO) editorial from David Frum

[Neil]

I would imagine that you don't.

[grumbler]

I would imagine that you don't.

You will have to admit that Otto has, on at least two occasions, seriously debated a topic here on Languish.

Probably not many more times than two, I'll grant.

[derspiess]

Getting a different patent or patents for essentially the same drug, by modifying the drug. The idea is to squash competition from generics for as long as possible.

How does this prevent generics from competing with the old, unmodified drug?

The patents relate to the old drug - just different aspects of it.

To be a "generic" for the purpose of various insurance formularies (public and private), you have to be "equivalent" to the existing brand-name product. Thus, if the original drug is put into a brand-new capsule that (allegedly) has some advanced new feature, like time-release, you have to copy that too - but surprise! That new capsule is also patented! Sorry, you can't copy that or you are sued; you can't be really equivalent if you don't have it. 

Here's a euro generic complaint:

http://www.egagenerics.com/gen-evergrn.htm

A Canadian Supreme Court ruling on the topic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1660583/

I'm still a little confused.  Is there no way whatsoever for a different company to copy the 'old' drug in this scenario? 

[Malthus]

Getting a different patent or patents for essentially the same drug, by modifying the drug. The idea is to squash competition from generics for as long as possible.

How does this prevent generics from competing with the old, unmodified drug?

The patents relate to the old drug - just different aspects of it.

To be a "generic" for the purpose of various insurance formularies (public and private), you have to be "equivalent" to the existing brand-name product. Thus, if the original drug is put into a brand-new capsule that (allegedly) has some advanced new feature, like time-release, you have to copy that too - but surprise! That new capsule is also patented! Sorry, you can't copy that or you are sued; you can't be really equivalent if you don't have it. 

Here's a euro generic complaint:

http://www.egagenerics.com/gen-evergrn.htm

A Canadian Supreme Court ruling on the topic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1660583/

I'm still a little confused.  Is there no way whatsoever for a different company to copy the 'old' drug in this scenario?

There are several evergreening techniques.

Sometimes, new patents are taken out on aspects of the drug that already exist. This can of course be challenged, but challenging it costs money & time. This would prevent, or make more expensive, a generic copying the "old" drug.

More effective is to create new aspects to essentially the same drug, and then patent that. This works because the major Formularies (that is, the lists of approved drugs for which insurers either public or private will pay) require equivalence to the existing product. The generic can copy the "old" drug, but people cannot get reimbursed for it. This is harder to challenge.

Point here is that much resources go into these issues. It is almost as valuable to keep being paid for an existing product as to invent a new product, and considerably easier.