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?"
They have their priorities straight. Stopping a potential pandemic is more important than not stepping on a businessman's toes.
This happened routinely during WWII in the US with patents and forced licensing agreements for technology deemed crucial to the war effort. Even my own great grandfather's manufacturing business (springs) was confiscated due to his ethnic background.
Hmm... I'm not saying you're wrong, but can't the government effectively decide/dictate its own "fair" price when invoking eminent domain? I've read a few stories in the past about people whose houses have been condemned for some highway project, complaining that they weren't paid enough for their property. So they can provide some compensation, but not the "market" price (which, let's face it, is decided by the pharmaceutical cartels -- er, I mean, companies -- anyway?). Most medicines are so ridiculously overpriced it's not even funny. (Like my one month's prescription that would cost $480 without insurance...)
At any rate, at the very least, the government can just take what it wants in the name of national security. It's what the US government did many times with new technologies that were needed for the war effort during World War II...
Actually, drugs for HIV are so expensive that most people in the poor countries can't afford them, and there's an AIDS epidemy in Africa! There's a doctor from Thailand (Krisana Kraisintu) who's mixed the three main ingredients for the HIV-pill, without paying attention to the patents of the big drugs companies. I've read a magazine article about her where she says she's gotten death threats telling her to stop producing her own version of the pill.
Talk about being nice..
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
I think this falls under the legal concept of eminent domain, which makes it legal for the state to use property for the public good. Usually this applies to real property and construction projects that will benefit the greater public, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply here.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
It doesn't appear that Taiwan honors foreign patents via treaty: http://www.bpmlegal.com/pctco.html http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/plt/ , but I may be wrong.
The US has done basically the same thing with US patents which have "national security" implications. In the US, the Constitutional authority for patents lies in Congress, so Congress is perfectly free to decide whether patent protection should/is offered for such things. I don't profess to know such specifics about Taiwan.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
An editorial in a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, possibly the most authoritative source in the field, pointed out how drug companies spend far more money in marketing than they do in research. Also, drug companies often outsource the pure R&D to little-known laboratories, or buy patents from them, just to re-brand the products. I've been involved in research on levosimendan, created by Finnish Orion Corp., only to be licensed as Simdax® by Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
I figure that when push comes to shove, there's money to be made even from "open source" drugs. The so-called generic drugs, although not as profitable as your typical anti-depressant or branded statin, are a good, perfectly open source market for many companies.
Personally, I do believe in using "force" on private companies when emergencies arise. This might entail paying a forfeitary fee (kinda like compulsory licensing in music.)
Force (of money) is what drug companies use to get (partially connivent) physicians to prescribe one expensive, proprietary drug over a generic one, even if the benefits of the former are unproven.
Force of marketing (as in "ad bombing") is what drug companies use to get unwitting patients to ask their doctors for Plavix®, even though saving one life with Plavix® may cost millions of dollars which could be spent elsewhere more usefully. That is, especially in countries where resources are limited and the health care system is public, that money could save more lives if used for screening programs and promotion of healthy lifestyle, for example.
Sheer force of money is also what gets people to buy Aleve (naproxene sodium) over, well... Naproxen sodium in its cheaper, unbranded, but otherwise perfectly equivalent form!
So be it: fsck them for Greater Good. Granted, a better definition for "Greater Good" would be useful.
AFAIK Brazil is not ignoring the patents for AIDS drugs. Instead, they have negotiated a deep discount with the patent holder. IIRC this is done using the (WTO?) rule - that patents can be ignored to save human lives in an epidemic - as a really big bargaining chip. Because of this heavy bargaining chip, the AIDS drug manufacturer sells their drugs really cheaply in Brazil. They still get a profit, probably a decent one too because the drugs are affordable enough that they're actually being sold...
;)
I believe that Taiwan is doing the right thing, since the manufacturer of the bird flu drugs did not want to sell them the drugs for a price they were able/willing to pay.
I believe the rules for negotiating price are a bit different when one of the parties can write the law
What is particularly unfortunate is that many drugs (including tamiflu and the superior inhaled drug relenza) were invented by relatively small biotechs. (OK, Gilead isn't small any more, but Biota is *tiny*). Small biotechs are absolutely reliant on the fees and royalties they generate through licensing their inventions to Big Pharma, who have the money to get them through the FDA approval process and marketed.
Break a patent for Roche or GSK, they'll be annoyed but hardly notice the change in cash-flow. The biotech, however, will lose its sole cash-flow life-line. Biota are collaborating with Japanese pharma Sankyo to produce a second-generation antiviral for influenza that looks like being needed once-weekly for both prophylaxis and treatment. Be a real pity to destroy promising biotech-level research like that by cutting profits at the Big Pharma end of town.
Disclaimer: Yes I work for a biotech - own shares in them too.