I’m putting this here because I anticipate some form of debate, such that it is unsutiable for MPSIMS, and because I’m not really pitting anything: I fully agree with Taiwan’s decision. It will be moved as required.
Personally, I think patents have gone too far. I think the idea that a drug company can veto a sovereign nation’s duty to protect its own people is prima facie absurd. I think that a company’s right to profit ends where real people’s lives begin.
Enough platitudes. Patents are a tool like any other and need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. In cases where there is a serious risk of people dying as a result of the enforcement of a patent, the patent must be suspended long enough to avert the danger. Does this remove the ability of companies to profit off of drugs? No. Does this remove the ability of companies to patent drugs? No. It merely prevents patents from harming more than they help.
In the final analysis, corporations must bow to the will of countries.
Will the patent holders be compensated at some point in the future? If not, why?
If you could just ignore my patent doesn’t it at least hinder my ability to profit off the drugs I produce? Is it ok for a country to violate the patent of a medicine designed to treat non-life threatening sickness? After all, I have no doubt that such sickness can cost their economy a lot in lost production and even minor health care.
I suppose, after all governments are typically the ones with the most guns.
So, Taiwan is not trying to evade all costs related to the patent. Now, I know very little about international patent law. However, I can read The US Constitution, which it might be good to keep in mind:
As written, a literalist could say that the goal of patents, trademark, and copyright laws are meant to simply promote progress in science and the arts as an end in and of itself. However, I think that’s just dumb; the hallmark of “progress” is the benefit to society. With that in mind:
Yes, when they agree to a fair exchange; that is, let’s say, the maximal point on a “supply/demand” curve. (I realize that supply/demand is not the proper curve, but is simply used here to illustrate a cost/benefit curve. Make it a "profit/societal benefit curve instead. Pure profit and no benefit to society is one extreme, while no profit and total benefit to society is the other. How one determines that curve, I don’t know.)
Yes and maybe, in some cases.
IMO, patent laws are not rights as in “human rights”. They are simply agreed upon laws useful for the benefit that might be provided to society in general. Laws are always contingent upon being able to enforce them, hence, yes, the ones with the most guns usually have the greatest say in the matter.
The production of 6kg of tamiflu would be very difficult without direct collaboration with Roche, especially in a country like Taiwan where qualified personnel and infrastructure would be at a premium. I’m not familliar with the details of the story, but I wonder how serious the Taiwanese government is about trying to start their own production.
I should think quite serious. Taiwan is not a third-world country; they are quite technically advanced.
It seems to me that they are willing to work with Roche to settle financial issues, they just don’t want to wait to get prepared until all the i’s have been dotted and the t’s crossed. Fine by me.
I think India has been mass producing patented medicines for years and it hasn’t been a major issue. And I thought there was an international law nullifying patent laws when major medical pharmaceuticals were needed for things like plagues. That is what I remember reading over the years.
MGibson: The patent holders will be compensated when they decide to play ball. The countries have no obligation to pay them for the drugs they needed to keep their people alive because the reason they needed to abridge the patent system was the fees and other nonsense voluntarily imposed by the patent holders.
It’s possible to expedite licensing and, if you stand to lose money otherwise, very smart as well. Hell, it’s possible to dedicate a patent and completely nullify all licensing issues, but nobody’s asking anyone to do that.
As I said, these things must be done on a case-by-case basis. Canada doesn’t have any place producing Viagra (or whatever ED drug is currently under patent) in contradiction of a patent, obviously, and trade sanctions would be imposed on them if they did. That’s why we have the WTO and the WIPO and so on. But generally speaking, there can be no generalities: The countries and corporations of the world will have to behave as adults, however difficult that may be. When a country or corporation decides to behave as a spoilt brat, it can expect to get its knuckles rapped.
What’s the point of a patent if a company isn’t allowed to charge fees for it? Those fees and other related nonesenses are the whole reason patents exist.
Didn’t America aquire Bayer? Besides, that was nearly 100 years ago. It would fall under fair use now. Personally I think patents are ridiculous, I think people should pirate intellectual property as much as they can accomplish.
In a world where Microsoft starts patenting more stuff just because their accountants tell them they don’t have enough patents, patents have lost all purpose.
Dominic Mulligan: I never said that companies should stop profiting from owning patents on drugs. I said that they should, on a case-by-case basis, evaluate whether they should give special treatment to certain countries who need to produce a certain drug they own a patent for. If they refuse to make reasonable allowances, they should not be surprised if the country they just snubbed goes ahead and saves its own citizens instead of honoring their patent.
That makes very little sense to me. Why should I spend millions of dollars and years of research when anyone can just copy my work without compensating me? Patents are useful to society in general because it ensures that inventors and companies can profit from their time and effort. Though I won’t argue that the system could use some revision.
Sure. On the flip side they shouldn’t be surprised that the company refuses to give them anything if they’re in a crunch and don’t have time to produce the needed medical supplies.
the patent on Aspirin has lapsed long ago, of course, which is why it is available as a generic drug - no disregarding of intellectual property rights is involved.
What’s special with Aspirin, compared with other generic drugs, is that the originally trademarked name is now no longer protected in a lot of countries - as a result of WWI, because the trademark was a German company’s asset. In Germany it’s still trademarked - when you ask for Aspirin you get the Bayer product; if you want generic aspirin you have to ask for Acetylsalicylsäure.
True enough. However, the whole point of a patent is that the drug’s manufacture is not a trade secret: The country can, if it needs to, produce the substance without the patentholder’s help assuming it has access to all of the other knowledge and skills required.
Hmm… perhaps we could have some kind of central organization that would collect money from each citizen (in proportion to his income, more or less) and spend it on things like medical research. We could even cast ballots every few years to select the people who would run this organization.
I couldn’t think of a more unwieldy and inefficient organisation, to be honest. It would be like the European Union, only tasked with developing drugs that could save peoples lives.
I agree. Patents need reforming. They shift competition from best implementations of ideas to ideas themselves. Their effective lives need cutting.
I guess you’re right. This organization would have to be bound by some sort of Constitution to limit its scope, and further divided into a few dozen zones with their own management - fifty sounds like a good round number. And instead of doing all the research itself, it could fund universities with their own research departments, and issue grants to private research corporations.
But they clearly intend to evade most of it, or at least pay at their leisure and convenience. Think about it: Roche now has no choice but to accept any offer Taiwan makes. It can do nothing else.
Taiwan might play nice for their own reasons, or out of respect, but they clearly have the “nuclear” option on the table. They can always walk away.
There’s a distinction. In theory, patents are supposed to be meaningful. However, quite a number of corporations have patents on the msot ridiculous and trivial ideas, some of which are clearly unpatentable. They can get they by the patent office by filling the reports with verbose garbge of technical terms. Then they use them solely as leverage for extorting fees. Microsoft isn’t even close to being the worst at this; they use their mostly on the defensive (i.e., don’t pull out your 100 patents or I’ll sue with my 1,000).