News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Good (IMO) editorial from David Frum

Started by Berkut, August 01, 2011, 10:00:12 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Neil

I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

grumbler

Quote from: Neil on August 02, 2011, 05:28:12 PM
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.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

derspiess

Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2011, 04:44:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2011, 04:13:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2011, 04:04:26 PM
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.  :D

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? 
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Malthus

Quote from: derspiess on August 03, 2011, 11:13:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2011, 04:44:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2011, 04:13:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2011, 04:04:26 PM
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.  :D

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.   
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius