Comments on: The Patent System and Access to Medicine in Developing Countries: Possible Cures http://www.lessig.org/2004/10/the-patent-system-and-access-t-1/ Blog, news, books Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: Buy Phentermine Online http://www.lessig.org/2004/10/the-patent-system-and-access-t-1/#comment-37958 Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:59:15 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/the_patent_system_and_access_t_1.html#comment-37958 Υour report prоvideѕ proven useful tο
me. It’s νery helpful and уou’re simply naturally really educated in this area. You get exposed our sight to be able to various views on this topic together with intriguing and reliable written content.

Here is my web blog … Buy Phentermine Online

]]>
By: lawman http://www.lessig.org/2004/10/the-patent-system-and-access-t-1/#comment-22293 Tue, 08 May 2007 13:09:44 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/the_patent_system_and_access_t_1.html#comment-22293 my suggestion which has bee dissmissed by my lecturer at the university of zimbabwe is to allow developing countries to promulgate legislation which allows developing states to produce the patented medicines if they are in a state of emegency of that particular medical disaster.such declaration will have to be monitored by an indipendent boady created by the trips member states .clearly this would both protect the rights of the pantent holder and those of the developing country.

]]>
By: fourleggedant http://www.lessig.org/2004/10/the-patent-system-and-access-t-1/#comment-22292 Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:32:58 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/the_patent_system_and_access_t_1.html#comment-22292 arg. for some reason the “Name: ” field seems to blank when i post?

lol, my name is “fourleggedant”. i sign as . -ant as a pun on GNU long options, i.e. [[ --fourleggedant == -ant ]].

sorry for any confusion this may have caused :)

. -ant

]]>
By: Anonymous http://www.lessig.org/2004/10/the-patent-system-and-access-t-1/#comment-22291 Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:26:48 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/the_patent_system_and_access_t_1.html#comment-22291 :)

I admit in advance that my opinions on this issue suffer from impracticability, but i feel strongly about it and want to say my piece (however pointless it may be).

Allowing a person to die because it isn’t sufficiently profitable to save them is a despicable Wrong. This is self-evident.

Pharmaceutical companies should play no role whatsoever in the development of health-critical medicines. Permitting these companies to hold patents on such medicines is Wrong. By their very nature patents restrict distribution, and there can be no morally acceptable justification for restricting the distribution of such medicines. Any restriction will cause deaths. Causing death is Wrong.

One of the central problems in allowing pharmaceutical companies to develop health-critical medicines is that they have little or no motivation to develop curative medicines: “treatments” are far more profitable than “cures”. The track record of these companies speaks for itself. Consider benzodiazapines, a disgraceful exploitation of people with fragile mental health if ever there was one. I have seen first hand what benzo addiction does to a person and i rate it a more dangerous drug than heroin. However, SSRI’s make for a better example of pharmaceutical companies exploiting the need for mental health medicines. It has (finally) been established that SSRI’s have no curative power at all. At best they might provide a “buffer” while more conventional methods (counseling) go about the business of curing. But at worst, they kill people. Overall SSRI’s do very little good and a whole lot of bad. Yet they have been a massive success story for the pharmaceutical companies who developed them (just as benzo’s were/are). Please forgive my reliance on ‘metal health’ examples, i do so because this is where my experience lies.

I can see one obvious objection to my argument. Namely, that patents aren’t about restricting disribution, they are about providing “incentive”. This objection is a profound testimony to how morally bankrupt our civilisation has become. But, sadly, it is true even in this case. The “incentive” for pharmaceutical companies to develop medicines is not “saving lives”, it is “generating profit”. This is why i say that they should play no part in the development of health-critical medicines.

Health-critical medicines ought to be developed by Governments (i still believe that health, education, justice, and defence ought to lie exclusively within the domain of the State). But i would go further and suggest that the world requires an international organisation who’s exclusive task is the development and deployment of these medicines. It should be funded by a tiny percentage of the GDP’s of all nations. Yes, i am aware that this method of funding is disproportionate. I think it should be. To be true, it is already, only now we call it “aid”. The problem with “aid” is that it is very frequently used to blackmail smaller nations. For obvious reasons this posibility should be avoided at all costs.

. -ant

]]>
By: Chris Yu http://www.lessig.org/2004/10/the-patent-system-and-access-t-1/#comment-22290 Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:50:46 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/the_patent_system_and_access_t_1.html#comment-22290 I think there’s an opportunity in having governments work with big pharma to share the risk in two key areas: testing and liability. Formulated ideas for drugs and producing them seems quite cheap relative to the testing and legal liability required to get a new drug. By changing the business model somewhat like in your option 6, both sides could get somewhere.

For drugs in the public interest (i.e. a cure for malaria, not a lifestyle-drug remedy for erectile dysfunction), it might make sense for government to let drug companies turn testing/development into a profit center. In other words, drug companies would propose a series of their best ideas that would either be unprofitable for them to do commercially or most likely to be subject to price ceilings from government regulators. Then, the government would (in NIH grant style) choose the most promising ones and pay the drug companies to develop and test the medication at a fair profit margin above costs. If the drug makes it to the final stage, the drug company is required by contract to produce the drug. The patent rights and product liability are ultimately owned by the government who can then decide the price. It’d be a nice touch if the research in that development/testing process also became owned by the government and put into the public domain.

While this would do nothing for the current AIDS drugs or existing patents, it would do much to stabilize the fluctuations in the pharmaceutical industry and ensure that more medications of interest are created. Perhaps most significantly, it would encourage drug companies to be more ambitious in competing to solve problems that aren’t blockbuster moneymakers.

]]>
By: Karl-Friedrich Lenz http://www.lessig.org/2004/10/the-patent-system-and-access-t-1/#comment-22289 Fri, 29 Oct 2004 05:42:19 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/the_patent_system_and_access_t_1.html#comment-22289 You might be interested in the 2003 EU Regulation on this issue.

]]>