Slashdot Mirror
UK Pharma Giant GSK Won't Patent Its Drugs in Poorer Countries
Glyn Moody, reporting for Ars Technica: The UK pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has announced that it will not be routinely patenting its drugs around the world. Instead of applying for patents on its medicines in all regions, it will now take into account the economic development of the country before deciding whether to seek monopoly protection there. As a result, a poorer country can encourage local manufacturers to create cheaper generic versions of GSK's products, and thus provide them to a greater number of its population, potentially saving many lives. Specifically, GSK says: "For Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Low Income Countries (LICs), GSK will not file patents for its medicines, so as to give clarity and confidence to generic companies seeking to manufacture and supply generic versions of GSK medicines in those countries." Might sound weird but, this makes economic sense for GlaxoSmithKline. Applying for and defending a patent could cost a huge chunk of money. Then there are application and overhead expenses when selling a drug to different markets.
Does "Least Developed Countries" include the U.S.?
The imbecilic comment about how someone else will be able to patent them due to "first to file" has been delayed.
Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Just up the US price to cover the loss.
As we are the only place with no price control.
I can guarantee that small molecule medication will patented in all countries. Medication containing non-sophisticated chemicals are an easy target and will be copied immediately (Viagra, Cialis, Prozac, statins, amoxicillin).
These are biologic drugs that really need no practical patent protection in third world countries. Here is why: an average biological drug, such as, for example, melanoma cancer drug Keytruda, uses intellectual property associated with literally several hundred patents.
More importantly, in order for the product to be manufactured on an industrial scale pharma companies are building factories that can cost up to one billion dollars.
To translate to layman's terms: GSK does not need to protect such products in third world countries, as there is simply not enough brainpower, scientists, technicians and experience even to replicate development of the manufacturing process. If somehow the product is magically be copied, it would not be economically feasible to sell in a small country.
-American Citizen
Did the tax code change so they can now just write-off the lost profits without having a patent? And I'm not just talking about the U.S.. Could the ability to do this be in that multi-national trade agreement they're shoving down our throats?
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
that people will question the insane profits (mostly built off of Basic Research done with taxpayer dollars) and make them stop. Pharma bro almost blew the whole thing by openly admitting their business model without the dog whistle. They censored him like a ton of bricks (but I suspect he'll be back after he learns his lesson; they don't spill each other's blood).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...then someone else will just patent it instead.
The basic concept sounds like a win-win for everyone. GSK gets to save money and act like the good guy, while the poorest countries get inexpensive drugs. Obviously the devil is in the details, but I am at a loss to think of a better solution. If you want new drugs, then at least the richer countries must pay their part of the development costs (a great way to totally kill new drug development is to deny patents everywhere). GSK's solution is similar to a progressive drug development tax.
So it's really saying the cost of controlling supply and intellectual property is more than the 10-year ROI. But there are other things to consider: Grey marketing, where poor countries export those drugs to rich countries, thus undercutting GSK's excessive profit margin is inevitable. This results in the government spending taxpayer's money to prevent arbitrage because the government sold monopoly rights to GSK.
They forgot to mention that those 'poor', 'undeveloped' countries don't give a shit about their intellectual property, they don't let their population die by the millions, just to honor that some moron in a foreign country got an idea first, but manufacture that drug anyway.
So these guys just adapt to reality. (which _is_ a small wonder IMHO)
PS. An example of such a country with around 1.5 billion 'patients'.
http://www.washingtonexaminer....
It's far, far cheaper to just bribe a few congresscritters and get their interests protected by pushing lopsided trade agreements.
Log in or piss off.
Shifting he economic burden from those who can least afford it to those who can easily afford it is simple, progressive common sense.
What matters to GSK is that rich countries, and especially America, have a very high legal barrier to prevent their citizens from importing cheap drugs. GSK want to sell drugs in America for as much as the market will bear, and this easily makes up for the loss of income from poor countries. Remember, half of the Earth's population lives on approx $2 per day. None of these people will ever be able to pay $750 for a single pill of Daraprim, or even any drug that just costs $10 per pill.
But if these countries manufacture generic drugs and if free trade allows those drugs to be purchased in America, then the millions of retirees in America who live in relative poverty and spend the large part of their assets on overpriced drugs and medical treatment will see a direct improvement to their lives. *That* would be social progress.
"We get the free press and our detractors in the developed world, because we can shut them down by saying 'you do not believe that we should supply life-saving drugs to poor nations?' - while at the same time, we can soak the insurance companies in developed nations by jacking our prices through the roof."
Think patent trolls and drug smugglers are bad? Just wait until the TSA starts shaking you down at the border, demanding receipts and proof of country of origin for your heart/liver/cancer medications. The gang wars over cocaine and meth will start looking like childs play after the "grey market medicine" gangs form.
If something requires resources and/or labor then it's not "free" (unless you are a supporter of the slave trade) so what we are REALLY arguing about here is just cost shifting. Every time a politician says something is "free", he or she is really saying "don't worry, YOU won't have to pay, I'll have the government take the money from somebody else".
TANSTAAFL, and anybody who claims the contrary is a liar.
When conservatives read Orwell's "1984" they read it as a cautionary tale; when progressives read it, they read it for inspiration.
More like the developing nations won't put up with their abuse of the patent system and keep throwing their patents out.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Either that or it is all a marketing lie because you only need to file a patent in one country due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., so that "A patent application filed under the PCT is called an international application, or PCT application". So straight up marketing dick bags, trotting out some PR=B$ double speak because the majority are kicking up about the hyper inflated prices of drugs with 10,000% profit margins, pay or die.
You should have kept reading, rather than rushing into your rant. From the same wiki page:
A PCT application does not itself result in the grant of a patent, since there is no such thing as an "international patent", and the grant of patent is a prerogative of each national or regional authority.[5] In other words, a PCT application, which establishes a filing date in all contracting states, must be followed up with the step of entering into national or regional phases to proceed towards grant of one or more patents. The PCT procedure essentially leads to a standard national or regional patent application, which may be granted or rejected according to applicable law, in each jurisdiction in which a patent is desired.
Basically, what happens is, rather than going to each country individually and filing a patent application, you file a single PCT application. WIPO does a preliminary search, and transmits a copy of the application and search to every country's national patent office (e.g. the USPTO, the Chinese patent office (SIPO), the Korean patent office, the Mozambique patent office, etc., etc.). You then go to each country that you want to continue patenting in and pay them a fee to enter "national stage" processing. So, for example, you go to the USPTO and say "I want you to examine my PCT application that WIPO sent you" and you pay them search and examination fees, and they do their own additional search. Same in Europe, same in Canada, same in Korea, same in Japan, etc., etc. Every country you want to get a patent in, you need to pay separately.
So what's the point of the PCT application? There are 148 countries that are members of the PCT. Each of them give a couple hundred dollars' discount for entry of a PCT application. If you're only getting a patent in 3-4 countries, the combined [PCT application + national applications] cost more, but if you're getting a patent in more, you save significant money. For example, if you're a big pharma company and want a patent in 100 of those countries, the PCT will save you ~$30-50k in just filing fees, and probably another $30-50k (or more) in attorney or paralegal time to do those filings.