Monday, March 07, 2005

Next step: Ambulance care provided only if you agree to a new cell phone contract!

At what point is "it cost a lot to make it" going to cease to be an excuse for drug companies to do whatever the hell they want to?
Posted by at

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Makes sense to me. Last I checked, Pfizer doesn't have near-monopoly status (unlike some software companies I've heard of) Seems to me that they can bundle their drugs as they please. When it will get interesting (and it _will_ get interesting) is when they try to claim patent protection from competitors who offer versions of the drug as a standalone. Got to make those IP lawyers earn their keep!

12:04 PM
Nick said...

Yeah, except patents are definitionally temporary monopolies on whatever the patent covers. Patents last for 20 years, and on average it takes 8.5 years for a drug to get to market, which leaves 11 years for a monopoly. During that time, you have no choice but to get the drug with Lipitor whether or not that's a good idea for the individual patient.

Marketing practices are good and all, but it seems like it should be different when you're fucking with people's health. :)

1:44 PM
Anonymous said...

Thus my comment about the difficulty they will probably encounter if they try to block standalone drugs using patent protection. I mean, you can patent DVD players but I'm pretty sure you can't patent DVD-playing if the only players you sell come behind the driver's-side headrest of a Benz S-class.

10:29 AM
Nick said...

Sure you can. :) If you have a patent on the DVD player, you have a patent on the DVD player. If you're dumb enough to only put it in the back seat of an S-class, well, that's your perogative. Stupid marketing doesn't suddenly allow other people to put DVD players in more sensible places.

11:20 AM
Anonymous said...

Again, my point is that, insofar as the DVD player has 300+HP, a 4.3L engine and leather interiors, it is different from the DVD player that is 4 inches tall and sits in my TV stand. They get different patents. If they can convince you that the two products are the same thing, God bless 'em. But I don't know how well that passes the red-face test. Product A, which by definition is an inseparable combination of Products B and C, is different from Products B or C. It may be my inexperience with patent law speaking, but I didn't think the patent applied to theraw ingredients of a product as opposed to the finished product.

3:06 AM
Nick said...

Right, but the patent is on just the one drug, not the joint pill. They just choose to distribute it in the form of a joint pill. Nothing says they have to distribute it on its own if they don't want to.

1:23 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)