Novartis loses landmark India patent case on Glivec

[Crookbond]

I would assume that a manufacturer M1 can chose to price his products as much as he wants but can't patent/copyright the manufacturing process. Therefore, if manufacturer M2 believes there is a niche in the market based on price etc. in that case M2 can make the same product for a lower cost. I think this should be the general guideline. However, when we talk about medicines or vital drugs we can't let the manufacturer's collusion etc. let run loose on the customers. Therefore, there is need of special rules, checkups to check corruption, audits etc. Obviously, all the above over head can be negated by regulating the price. But, that may lead to stifling of innovation. So clearly, there are two particular methods - with each having it's pros/cons. One should choose that method which suits your country/people/market.

[Muloghonto]

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.

As i said, if the government were to say ' medicare is a field where profits will be capped at 10x the investment' or something similar, it is still a 10:1 deal for a sucessful investment. You are mistaking my position of capping profitability of the medicare industry as saying there shall be no profit allowed. For example, in Canada, doctors and nurses are treaty-bound to not do 'work stoppage till our demands are met'. All other unions are allowed to go ahead, put up the picket fence around their work and go for work stoppage. But not the doctors or the nurses. Why ? Because when doctors and nurses go on strike, people die. Is this a violation of their basic rights ? Yes it is. Is it there to serve a much greater need and a much greater good ? yes it is. The same can be applied to profitability in the medical field. Five year patents would automatically ensure that the profitable products made by the medicare industry leads to modest returns on the investment while keeping medicare cheap and affordable for society. All this translates to, is that you the investor in medicare field will not be making 1000x the money for investing in a successful drug, you maybe will make 10-15x more. Well, that is fine by me. If medicare profitability is reduced from hundreds of billions every year to just a few billions, all it translates to, is a less profitable sector, not a losing sector. You the entreprenuer's right to make profit does not supercede the need of society to have affordable medicine. As such, so long as you are not pushed into loss-making, i am fine with government imposed limits to the price of medicine that keeps you in the green while keeps the society in the green too.

[Mariyam]

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.[/quote'] Ravish, pricing was never the bone of contention. Glivec for example, is priced even in Switzerland, not by the manufacturer, but by the Swiss equivalent of the CDSCO. Glivec only gives directional pointers to the Swiss 'CDSCO' or whatever it maybe called locally to the approximate price point of the drug. They also send guidelines on price modification based on the innovation that they've achieved with respect to a drug. The only difference being that the Swiss regulatory body is a semi government entity, with a lot of industry experts in the fray too.