Patents should be illegal on life-saving drugs

[eschemat]

This is a straightforward debate. The idea of it is to help the poor, namely those in Africa, by removing patents so that governments can produce the drugs, or aid groups can produce the drugs and sell for a relatively small amount compared to the normal price. I'm opposed to this idea, and I'll explain that more later, but I'm tired.

 

[Daddy Ash]

I am also opposed to this idea, because the patent just refers to to the naming of the product and ingredients used, the downside to removing patents on life saving drugs could result in certain unscrupulous companies manufacturing a placebo or dangerous version of the same drug and because of patent removal naming their placebo and selling it on as the actual drug for the same price or more, depending how desperate the consumer was. If patents remain intact though then the company that discovered this drug could sue the other company and in turn protect the consumer. I do believe the prices of some medicine could be reduced though, so the pharmaceutical companies make less profit per unit sold or at least donate their extra profit to researching new improved drugs or to providing better conditions for the consumers, in this case the third world.

 

[eschemat]

I can see where you come from, but usually legitimate, large companies with lots of money to burn are the ones who research the product, and they usually already have market power in that case. Also, with multiple competitors in the market, it would make the price of that drug lower overall, making it significantly more affordable, and avoiding the issue of drugs that are less effective being grossly overpriced.

I thought that the name of the product can be retained permanently without a patent as well.

 

[Daddy Ash]

Well as long as the patent removal doesn't include the trademarked name of the drug, then allowing other companies to reproduce the same drug can only serve as a good thing and would drive down the prices of life saving drugs significantly, as long as the aforementioned problems with placebos etc. is prevented somehow.
The only real downside if convincing the companies that hold the drugs' patent's to get on board as it would severely hurt there future profits.

 

[eschemat]

Hm, I would think otherwise. I think that helping people is good, and I think that really is important, but when we ban patents, I feel as if we disincentive a company to produce life-saving drugs because they are of course going to lower profit if other companies or governments can pick up that product as well, exercise market power, and reduce the price of that drug severely. I think that in the long term, companies won't produce or research on producing better life saving drugs, and instead will move to more profitable products for Western needs such as hair loss. Another key factor is that the biggest drug we're talking about is HIV/AIDS, and that needs to have new drug made for it every few years because the HIV/AIDS bacteria learns to resist the drugs that are produced.

 

[Battlecow]

I'm unfamiliar with the issues involved, but my gut reaction is that it's probably a good idea. Lower prices on drugs, helping the poor and needy, count me in.

But that might just be my ignorance talking.

 

[Life]

Drug patents = greater incentive to research new drugs (the extra profit margin patents allow for cover R+D expenses) = greater development of new drugs = cure for AIDS. (Well, not necessarily, but for unrelated reasons) As long as the patents expire after a few years (which they do, to my understanding) I don't really see the problem.

 

[metalmonstar]

The truth of the matter is that creating a new drug is incredibly expensive and lengthy process. Pharmaceutical companies take on a great risk to make billions of dollars. They have a short period of time to do this before the generics are allowed to come in. Once the generics come out pharmaceutical companies' profits are cut drastically and they are forced to move on to improving their formula or making a new drug both of which are costly prices. It is a vicious cycle that the companies who do most major research in helping humanity are stuck in. They really need every edge they can get.

The issue really being discussed is not patents, but the suffering poor that can't afford medication. Is it fair for them to suffer because the drug is seemingly over-priced? It is like whenever one talks about the drug industry, Africa has to be mentioned. Africa has a lot of problems and even a limitless supply of medication won't change things. I am almost positive that many pharmaceutical companies donate vast quantities of medication to Africa. It makes sense, many of the poor in Africa were never going to customers and it looks good to their actual consumers in more developed nations. It is essentially a very logical and profitable marketing tool. As the developing nations become more economically productive issues like this will decrease. I believe that at one point the entire world will be on the same playing field (or at least a very similar one.)

 

[eschemat]

metalmonstar, I just want you to know that a reason why these countries are not economically productive is because of the lack of drugs to help with HIV/AIDS, and namely, the years lost of productive economic work from individuals in African nations. So without drugs, nations won't become economically productive in Africa.

 

[ballin4life]

wat. HIV/AIDS is not the sole reason for lack of economic productivity in Africa. I doubt it's even a major reason at all. Cite please if you have some evidence to back that up.

 

[Alacion]

Where I'm from, the government made drug companies charge half as much as they used to so profits have been dramatically reduced in the long chain of producers -> buyers -> sellers -> consumers. The warehouse that I work in that provides drugs to shareholder pharmacies is steadily losing money and not doing as well as it once did due to the government's intervention. The jobs of many awesome people there have been lost and the once busy bee hive has fallen victim to the government Pooh Bear.

Removing patents would make things worse for drug companies and eventually this may end to the companies not having enough money to produce more drugs. This will affect the primary market of the drug companies, reduce employment, and cause more of the population to suffer from diseases.

 

[eschemat]

HIV/AIDS is something that holds back on individual workers... while it's not a development trap, when those countries become industrialized, the poor people are still screwed over. I think that I made a point with the wrong words; what I really meant is when those countries become developed, the ones who need the medication are still not going to get it.

 

[Aesir]

Drug patents = greater incentive to research new drugs (the extra profit margin patents allow for cover R+D expenses) = greater development of new drugs = cure for AIDS. (Well, not necessarily, but for unrelated reasons) As long as the patents expire after a few years (which they do, to my understanding) I don't really see the problem.

Actually government probably invests more than private companies do. To lazy to really cite it, but a lot of R and D is a joint effort between government and private companies. Also I'm willing to bet the reason why Africa is so technologically deprived is because it really has nothing to offer. You have a bunch of failed states, or you have decently run countries and then you have South Africa.

 

[GwJ]

The reason companies get 10 years of exclusive sales is so they're motivated to actually make these medicines. If there's no patents, there's no room for profit and therefore no motivation to create these drugs.

 

[AltF4]

The reason companies get 10 years of exclusive sales is so they're motivated to actually make these medicines. If there's no patents, there's no room for profit and therefore no motivation to create these drugs.

Patent duration is 20 years, in the US.

 

[GwJ]

My bad. I couldn't remember the number so i guessed. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Aesir]

The reason companies get 10 years of exclusive sales is so they're motivated to actually make these medicines. If there's no patents, there's no room for profit and therefore no motivation to create these drugs.

However one could argue that leads to over drug R and D, what's to say that the drugs we have today are at all necessary? Speaking from a medical perspective that is. The current patent code should maybe be looked at.

 

[Alacion]

I hope this is somewhat relevant to this topic (because I go off topic at times), but some companies choose not to patent their products since patents require step by step directions on how the drug is made, like Claritin.

While there is a period of time the patent prevents others from reproducing the drug, eventually companies will be able to make generic drugs once the protection ends. Companies might not patent their drugs and keep their products an "insider secret" banking on the fact that nobody anywhere else can create the drug.

I'm no expert at how pharmaceuticals are made, but I imagine some drugs are difficult to produce without the "recipe" for it. Do companies patent only the "easy to make" drugs and hope nobody else discovers how to make their more complex "recipes"? Just a thought :x

 

[eschemat]

Patents are better because they can just continually patent again and again if they have enough political influence.

 

[GwJ]

So how is that better?

 

[eschemat]

Better for the companies. They would prefer to have patents than to just keep the ingredients secret. Just directly responding to Aleate.

 

[Alacion]

A Google search says that patent extensions are extreme cases, and are reserved for pharmaceutical companies. Along with political influence, the patent itself must have been held up by the Food and Drug Administration.

The processing time is rather long for a patent extension, and the extension period of the patent is determined by UPSTO which is typically a year or two.

 

[eschemat]

Unfortunately, all the rich companies who will be creating these drugs and pouring millions of dollars into will have enough political influence, and can do whatever they want. In theory it shouldn't be happening, but in practice it's a sad reality.

IMO though patents should be legal for reasons of incentive.