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.
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.
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.