Novartis loses landmark India patent case on Glivec

[ravishingravi]

Full text: SC judgement rejecting Novartis patent plea for Glivec http://www.firstpost.com/business/full-text-sc-judgement-rejecting-novartis-patent-plea-for-glivec-680854.html Very interesting indeed.

[coffee_rules]

More than pollution' date=' it is the testing which is carried in the Indian market (sometimes at the expense of of people's lives) that is more worrying.[/quote'] How do you compare the two? Both have long lasting impact on somebody's life. The pollution causes even more harm to animals and people who eat them.

[Crookbond]

How do you compare the two? Both have long lasting impact on somebody's life. The pollution causes even more harm to animals and people who eat them.

Unauthorized use of humans as guinea pigs are the more immediate cause of concern because they are killing people. We need to value human life - I am not comparing the two, just prioritizing.

[CandyFloss]

In bappi da ishtyle...novartis ki law lag gaye :P

[Muloghonto]

Unauthorized use of humans as guinea pigs are the more immediate cause of concern because they are killing people. We need to value human life - I am not comparing the two, just prioritizing.

As sad as the notion of 'human guinea pigs' is, it is the reality of medical science and physiology: You cannot, for sure, know if a medicine will work on a species till you try it on them. But the consequences of medical pollution is of catastrophic end results- to us as a species as well as to the genetic superstructure (which is, ultimately comprised of trillions of different protein strands and DNA of all the families of life, encompassing all life). This pollution, which ultimately can cause a feedback overload to our genetic structure, over generations, is of a threat not to ethics or the rights of a few people or the victimized many. The threat is to the survival of our very own species and to an extreme end, survival of life as we know it. Unfortunately, this type of pollution is unavoidable evil of the medical industry, which is ultimately the cancer that both cures us in the moment and is extincting our species over the long run. In India, the pollution is predominantly from medical companies that are dumping wastes into drinking water. Well, once that is rectified (which by the way, is a huge challenge, even in the civilized west, nevermind the semi-civilized landscape of the developing world. Watch Erin Brokovich) just wait till India gets half as affluent as the west. The flood of condoms, birth control pills, growth suppliments, vitamins, etc. that people flush down the toilet in the western world is staggering and given that our drinking waters are ultimately recycled waste water from the toilets of the western world, supplimented by freshwater, we are also effed.

[ravishingravi]

Purely on the core ethical dilemma, I think I have tilted towards the corporate. I do believe that the medicine should be available to the common at reasonable prices, but this is where the role of govt. comes into being. They should subsidize the product for the benefit the patients. Not sure why Pharma companies should take a hit. Ofcourse, the question of patent itself was revoked in this case which is also something I am not convinced about.

[Muloghonto]

Purely on the core ethical dilemma' date=' I think I have tilted towards the corporate. I do believe that the medicine should be available to the common at reasonable prices, but this is where the role of govt. comes into being. They should subsidize the product for the benefit the patients. Not sure why Pharma companies should take a hit. [/quote'] Because then the costs of the medicine is being passed on to the society. You cannot subsidize medicare and still have cheap 'available to all medicare', since the costs get passed on to the public. Its just that everyone pays an exorbitant rate and not just the cancer victim. I am. I would go a step further and include medicare in the 'special category' of products where patent laws do not apply or apply for a much smaller duration, since it is a basic necessity to society. I would revoke 20 year patent law for medicine, would rather have a 5 year window. Yes,it will reduce the value of pharmacare giants from hundreds of billions of dollars to several billions. Tough beans, the fundamental role of existence of medicare is to provide cure, not make profits. And ultimately, the argument that 'depriving medical corporate entities of profit will ultimately bring medical innovation to a grinding halt' is fallacious. For one, the problem of 'incentive for innovation in medicare' is easily solved by simply realigning patent laws to the actual creators of the drug,not the corporate. Just like how in technology, inventors of materials get to patent the product individually, instead of on corporate levels only, medicare could do the same. Therefore, if the patents were given to the actual pharmaceutical R&D personnel, it provides enough 'carrot' to keep innovating for the individual. For two, since disease is a fundamental phobia for any species, the cure for a disease is the fundamental driver for innovation in the first place one many argue: If the world sees another pandemic, like the Black plague, me the pharmacist has enough incentive to keep working on the solution: to save the lives of my loved ones & myself! Just incase some of you argue that this idea is 'too commie', keep in mind, that the practice of zero patent applies to education already: we are already allowed to plagiarize ideas, inventions and thoughts of others,in the name of education ( ie, so long as its used for educational purposes, copyright laws are waived. I've never heard anyone paying royalties to Rolls Royce for including their engine for analysis in an aeronautical course). So the precedent already exists. Medicare needs to be brought into this fold, IMO. It is worth noting that 99% of the medical cures/miracles of the last 300 years have been accomplished by private entrepreurship & scholastic research, long before the rise of the pharmacare giants. THerefore, pharmacare giants are, largely, irrelevant to the existence of the medical field. They are a product of propriterial laws in medical field, which can be modified. The medical field is not a product of the pharma giants as they'd like you to believe.

[straighttalk]

I would care about the needy affording medicines here, than worry about what some technocrat in Brussels/Geneva thinks about India and her IP laws. Sure, it will make the foreign pharma companies skeptical. India was supposed to be their 'cash cow'. But it will also make the local pharma companies focus more on R&D, if they don't have access to foreign funds for re-search or to the latest technology in medicine. I envision only good to come from this ruling.

Mariyam...there is hardly any sort of research going on in Indian companies....I mean the home grown one. Most Indian students anyhow join IT industry wasting their skills there. India is supposed to be good in computers but have we ever seen any software or hardware innovation coming out from India...nothing like MATLAB or FLUENT or anything else. So much talent but so little support and desire. Unless and until there is a fundamental change in our attitude we can never be developed...It is time we put more emphasis on science, engineering, technology, and manufacturing...but instead our country is filled with MBAs and IT analysts...in the end the country does not progress... rant over. :)

[Muloghonto]

Mariyam...there is hardly any sort of research going on in Indian companies....I mean the home grown one. Most Indian students anyhow join IT industry wasting their skills there. India is supposed to be good in computers but have we ever seen any software or hardware innovation coming out from India...nothing like MATLAB or FLUENT or anything else. So much talent but so little support and desire. Unless and until there is a fundamental change in our attitude we can never be developed...It is time we put more emphasis on science' date=' engineering, technology, and manufacturing...but instead our country is filled with MBAs and IT analysts...in the end the country does not progress... rant over. :)[/quote'] Actually, 'progress' in a society is largely dictated by the depth and breadth of their arts faculties. Generally speaking, its the sciences, technology & management fields that yeilds society money, the arts and humanities fields that gives society definition in and of itself. This is the field where Indian society is completely starved. I see smart kids in Canada go to school for philosophy. History, drama and theatre. In India, this is an order of magnitude lesser, leaving predominantly 'priviledged kids and academic laggards' to go into arts. And one wonders why Indian society is so medival in many cases.

[straighttalk]

Actually, 'progress' in a society is largely dictated by the depth and breadth of their arts faculties. Generally speaking, its the sciences, technology & management fields that yeilds society money, the arts and humanities fields that gives society definition in and of itself. This is the field where Indian society is completely starved. I see smart kids in Canada go to school for philosophy. History, drama and theatre. In India, this is an order of magnitude lesser, leaving predominantly 'priviledged kids and academic laggards' to go into arts. And one wonders why Indian society is so medival in many cases.

yeah you are right ..i was speaking more in terms of economic prosperity, development, and infrastructure....

[Lurker]

Mariyam...there is hardly any sort of research going on in Indian companies....I mean the home grown one. Most Indian students anyhow join IT industry wasting their skills there. India is supposed to be good in computers but have we ever seen any software or hardware innovation coming out from India...nothing like MATLAB or FLUENT or anything else. So much talent but so little support and desire. Unless and until there is a fundamental change in our attitude we can never be developed...It is time we put more emphasis on science' date= engineering, technology, and manufacturing...but instead our country is filled with MBAs and IT analysts...in the end the country does not progress... rant over. :)

I am not sure if that would do much to be honest. Yes I concur with you that in our famed success in IT, which is now into its 4th decade having started in 80s, we have little to show of. But why is it so, thats the question? Here are some thoughts: a) We dont have a common language. Hence we dont have a common mass market. Simple. Western world sees us as a large 400 million middle class country because yes they will be able to sell their products that way. But which Telugu software company will develop a product that would be used in Assam, unless of course English is the lingua franca, in which case you could kiss goodbye the purchase by rural folks. b) Specifically in IT it is amazing to see how the employers and the employees choose to not be innovative. Infosys is happy being the largest back office in the world, and the employee is happy being the AS400 developer. I mean really? After 30-40 years thats what we see? I am sure there are cutting edge developments too but thats largely what it is. And it cuts both ways. Infosys does not want to spend tons of money in uncharted waters, and the employee does not want to take a risk and go into a developing technology. It is easier to pick a rather safe stream, take a trip overseas, and purchase 3 flats in Hyderabad. More to come..done with rant early Monday morning :facepalm:

[Lurker]

Purely on the core ethical dilemma' date=' I think I have tilted towards the corporate. I do believe that the medicine should be available to the common at reasonable prices, but this is where the role of govt. comes into being. They should subsidize the product for the benefit the patients. [b']Not sure why Pharma companies should take a hit.

Pharma companies never take a hit. They are some of the most profitable companies that are out there. Here's a true story. I once worked for World's 3 largest pharma company (at the time). We were part of the crew that generated their Balance Sheet(P&L statement). The first time I was involved I saw an entry called "Sundry expenses" which when asked I was promptly hushed down. Later on it was told that this is the financial pool that the company dipped in to fight all the legal cases. It went into billions. The sundry expense was passed on to the consumer, NOT coming from the company's own pockets. In other words, the cost was added to each medicine that went out. So the consumer got royally screwed. They paid extra for the medicine, and also if there was so legal hassles the sundry expense added to the bottomline of the Pharma company. :nice:

[Mariyam]

Mariyam...there is hardly any sort of research going on in Indian companies....I mean the home grown one. Most Indian students anyhow join IT industry wasting their skills there. India is supposed to be good in computers but have we ever seen any software or hardware innovation coming out from India...nothing like MATLAB or FLUENT or anything else. So much talent but so little support and desire. Unless and until there is a fundamental change in our attitude we can never be developed...It is time we put more emphasis on science' date=' engineering, technology, and manufacturing...but instead our country is filled with MBAs and IT analysts...in the end the country does not progress... rant over. :)[/quote'] I'm in no position to comment on how much research goes on in the IT companies, or how much they innovate. I've read a few posts by Lurker where he calls Indian IT giants as IT coolies, who just take up back-end and coding related work. One thing though which is undeniable, is that IT and ITES sectors have bought a lot of disposable income for people in their late teens and early twenties. There are many who take a drop to study for competitive exams and work in the interim period or those who take up a job till they get a more 'meaningful' job or even sometimes those from well off families. However, the mushrooming of the IT sector has added to a lot of disposable income and that add liquidity into the market. You have a lot more electronic purchases/vehicle purchases etc. That's an undeniable positive fallout. On topic: If I were in charge, I would chalk out a system where R&D for pharma is necessarily open source, kind of like the Linuxe systems. Everybody has access to all pharma research. Furthermore, pharma companies from outside who want to conduct research in India or want to invest will have to sign agreements that they agree to share research with a centralized government health repository, where all such research can will be stored. The eventual aim of the system is to segregate a pharma company from its research wing. The pharma companies eventually would be involved only in manufacturing of the drugs.

[Crookbond]

I'm in no position to comment on how much research goes on in the IT companies, or how much they innovate. I've read a few posts by Lurker where he calls Indian IT giants as IT coolies, who just take up back-end and coding related work. One thing though which is undeniable, is that IT and ITES sectors have bought a lot of disposable income for people in their late teens and early twenties. There are many who take a drop to study for competitive exams and work in the interim period or those who take up a job till they get a more 'meaningful' job or even sometimes those from well off families. However, the mushrooming of the IT sector has added to a lot of disposable income and that add liquidity into the market. You have a lot more electronic purchases/vehicle purchases etc. That's an undeniable positive fallout. On topic: If I were in charge, I would chalk out a system where R&D for pharma is necessarily open source, kind of like the Linuxe systems. Everybody has access to all pharma research. Furthermore, pharma companies from outside who want to conduct research in India or want to invest will have to sign agreements that they agree to share research with a centralized government health repository, where all such research can will be stored. The eventual aim of the system is to segregate a pharma company from its research wing. The pharma companies eventually would be involved only in manufacturing of the drugs.

Peer reviewed research itself behind pay walls - we need to start from a lower level.

[ganeshran]

R&D for pharma companies is like gold. They spend billions on it Safe to assume that they will never share it outside even if the research didnt lead to any approved drug.

[Lurker]

On topic: If I were in charge, I would chalk out a system where R&D for pharma is necessarily open source, kind of like the Linuxe systems.

Not sure if that is the right analogy Mariyam. Open Source in IT is unique. Somebody writes a code, puts it on web and people use it without paying. No cost for the start-up coder nor for the consumer (in most instance). And the consumer is responsible if anything goes wrong. You cant complain(in most cases) against Open Source products, nor do you expect to get much of support or redressal. Pharma companies need a lot of investment early on to have all the right equipments, need a good amount of endless resources to keep doing the same thing when results go wrong during testing (unlike software code when you can simply delete-uninstall) and perhaps most importantly do trial runs on animals and humans for a good amount of time before it is marketed. So there is a big cost and hence they are perfectly entitled to make money. The question is at what point does it take the form of greed?

[Mariyam]

Not sure if that is the right analogy Mariyam. Open Source in IT is unique. Somebody writes a code, puts it on web and people use it without paying. No cost for the start-up coder nor for the consumer (in most instance). And the consumer is responsible if anything goes wrong. You cant complain(in most cases) against Open Source products, nor do you expect to get much of support or redressal. Pharma companies need a lot of investment early on to have all the right equipments, need a good amount of endless resources to keep doing the same thing when results go wrong during testing (unlike software code when you can simply delete-uninstall) and perhaps most importantly do trial runs on animals and humans for a good amount of time before it is marketed. So there is a big cost and hence they are perfectly entitled to make money. The question is at what point does it take the form of greed?

Let me modify. The government should make it mandatory for a pharma company to spend a certain minimum % of their yearly revenues on R&D. Probably awarding any excess investment in R&D with a commensurate rebate. Now all the R&D should be carried out at a Central Government body, under the observation of scientists from the same body. The cost of equipment is a one time cost, and can be borne by the government. To my scientifically untrained mind, it makes more sense that a whole group of 1000 scientists working on the same thing would expedite the process than say they same group working in sub groups of 20-30 for different companies and doing the same thing. The current scenario is untenable. Until the Gilvec ruling, a pharma company could just change the colour of tablet from white to blue and charge the customer an increased price for R&D. Generally, I'm not a person who encourages regulation, but this is a market that strictly needs to be regulated.

[ravishingravi]

Let me modify. The government should make it mandatory for a pharma company to spend a certain minimum % of their yearly revenues on R&D. Probably awarding any excess investment in R&D with a commensurate rebate. Now all the R&D should be carried out at a Central Government body, under the observation of scientists from the same body. The cost of equipment is a one time cost, and can be borne by the government. To my scientifically untrained mind, it makes more sense that a whole group of 1000 scientists working on the same thing would expedite the process than say they same group working in sub groups of 20-30 for different companies and doing the same thing. The current scenario is untenable. Until the Gilvec ruling, a pharma company could just change the colour of tablet from white to blue and charge the customer an increased price for R&D. Generally, I'm not a person who encourages regulation, but this is a market that strictly needs to be regulated.

Too much Govt involvement. The pricing of my product should be dictated by no one but me. If govt. wishes to make my product more reasonably accessible to more people, then it should bear the cost. Or I very very hesitantly accept that it can raise the taxes on these companies through some other route and redirect the money to bear the cost.

[Muloghonto]

Too much Govt involvement. The pricing of my product should be dictated by no one but me. If govt. wishes to make my product more reasonably accessible to more people' date= then it should bear the cost. Or I very very hesitantly accept that it can raise the taxes on these companies through some other route and redirect the money to bear the cost.

I disagree. The pricing of your product should be completely relevant on the basis of whether it is a vital service or not. If your product is a lifesaver, its pricing should be dictated by society, not the entrepreneur. As i said, the government is under no obligation to make the medical sector money. The government is under every obligation to make medicare accessible and available to all. Whatever the economic pressures be, the prime mandate of a govt. is to provide healthcare to the people, not make money for the healthcare industry. As such, if the government needs to price fix so that medicine remains cheap enough to be afforded by all, then so be it- if the medicare industry suffers billions of losses for it, so be it. Not all avenues in life exist to make money. You wanna make money ? Go invent gadgets. If you invent medicine, undersand that if your prime motivation is to make money through it, not make it accessible to society, then govt/society has every right to deny that 'moneymaking potential' to you.

[ravishingravi]

I disagree. The pricing of your product should be completely relevant on the basis of whether it is a vital service or not. If your product is a lifesaver' date= its pricing should be dictated by society, not the entrepreneur. As i said, the government is under no obligation to make the medical sector money. The government is under every obligation to make medicare accessible and available to all. Whatever the economic pressures be, the prime mandate of a govt. is to provide healthcare to the people, not make money for the healthcare industry. As such, if the government needs to price fix so that medicine remains cheap enough to be afforded by all, then so be it- if the medicare industry suffers billions of losses for it, so be it. Not all avenues in life exist to make money. You wanna make money ? Go invent gadgets. If you invent medicine, undersand that if your prime motivation is to make money through it, not make it accessible to society, then govt/society has every right to deny that 'moneymaking potential' to you.

As an enterpreneur, I am investing the money. I am funding the research. Now, if the govt. wants to make the fruits of my hard work accessible by dictating the pricing, it has to compensate me to that extent. When I say this, I also am rejecting all tax loopholes or exemptions or deduction for pharma companies.