Slashdot Mirror
Violating A Patent As Moral Choice
kuzmich writes "The Taiwanese government has announced that it will violate patent laws to manufacture a drug that can help fight bird flu virus. In doing so, they have spelled out their reasoning very clearly: 'We have tried our best to negotiate with Roche, it means we have shown our goodwill to Roche and we appreciate their patent. But to protect our people is the utmost important thing'. Not being in Taiwan, this makes me wonder how bad the situation would have to be for some of the other governments to follow a path of violating patent and copyright laws for the benefit of the general population. Are there precedents, procedures for doing so?"
Drugs that cure people don't make money. Healthy people don't use drugs.
Drugs that don't cure people don't make money. Dead people don't use drugs.
Drugs that control an incurable disease make the money. Sick people use drugs.
Where is the incentive to develop new drugs that work? There will never be a cure for cancer. There is no money in it.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Yes, please do give actual citations instead of spreading your propaganda on Slashdot. All these new drugs coming on the market are the result of billions of dollars of research of DRUG COMPANY money. Just take a look at the list of the most commmon drugs and tell me how many of those were developed even partially as a result of university research.
Most of the money spent on research is NOT by the drug industry. And the money that drug industry DOES spend on R and D is outweighted 4 to 1 by marketing.
If Roche doesn't want to play fair, nationalize them. Its been done with other industries. Or expropriate their patent under eminent domain.
1. You still haven't provided evidence, you've just stated that it has happened. "Take my word for it, this happened to me" is not valid evidence.
2. Even if what you said is true, your sample size of (2) couldn't possibly lead you to logically conclude that this happens "all the time." It's a logical fallacy to use personal anecdotes like that.
No, but thanks for asking. I was subjected to many standard IQ tests through school (the price of always being in Gifted & Talented programmes), so I am certifiably not someone of significant learning disabilities (which is what I assume you mean by retarted). There is also the full computer science scholorship I went to college on that implies I do not have significant learning disabilities. And if you think your question was rhetorical, you don't know the meaning of that word, as the question did not advance a line of debate.
The whole point of government is to do what the private sector will not or cannot do.
I don't recall that in the charter of any government. What about things like "common defense" and "general welfare"? I thought that was the point of government, as well as generally protecting the population from itself.
If the private sector didn't make an AIDS drug, then we can let the government do it.
There are roughly 200 national governments in the world. Where are the AIDS drugs coming from them? Unless you think the current drugs are good enough, should we see much more drugs coming from these 200 governments than a handful of private sector companies?
They already do it and then give the research away to the pharmaceutical companies anyway.
How do they decide which big company to simply give the research away to? Or, as you either simply don't know or are not saying, is the research being a) funded jointly by government and a certain company or b) done by a university then licensed to a drug company on a royalty arrangement.
If nationalizing pharma is a good idea, why don't countries do that and then produce mountains more good drugs than the private-sector model in the US? Where was the USSR? What about China? France (which funds a ton of bio-techs)? Why aren't countries with a more socialist system outstripping US private drug research and production?
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
"Actually, the vast majority of research - particularly in potential drug therapies - is done with public (NIH grants) and not-for-profit funds (think March of Dimes, Juvenile Diabetes, Jerry Lewis, William Gates Foundation, etc.) by universities and such."
_ files/Iglehart_Slides.pdf. 03.2005.1142.cfmh ot_topics/detail.asp?id=22
Who starts these urban legends?
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded
http://www.phrma.org/publications/publications/17
http://www.bain.com/bainweb/Consulting_Expertise/
Vote for Pedro
Given sufficient money, we can hire a shark in pinstripes to compose an ethical fig leaf for our actions. Failing that, for a little more money, we can just buy some politicians and have a law composed.
Is that what the Taiwanese government is doing, rather than investing in their own treatments for their own citizens? Steal somebody else's work and call it a moral victory?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.