(Somewhat off-topic -- patent law)
<<snip part>>
<<<In the U.S., pharmaceutical companies have been allowed an
extra 5 years--they pay lots of campaign donations. This is
a bit ironic, considering that so many U.S. citizens now go
to Canada to buy drugs they can't afford here.
>>>>
Actually, there is a good argument that extending the term should *lower* the cost of medicines under patent. A pharmaceutical company must apply for a patent on a drug when it is first developed, before any approval stages are entered. Then it must go through a lengthy FDA approval process, the end result of which is that the pharmaceutical companies have only a few short years to recoup their R&D expenses before the drug goes generic. The market for drug prices is driven in large part by the goverment because of Medicare. The government will agree to prices which the pharmaceutical companies can show have some reasonable relationship to their costs plus a reasonable profit level. With a longer patent term over which to recoup costs, the government, in theory at least, should accept a lower mark-up over marginal costs to cover the fixed R&D costs, which can now be amortized over a longer period. That's the theory anyway. Reality is more likely to be that the price point is set at the maximum the market will accept for a drug, and with most drugs, that's really high, because health is so highly valued. Extending the patent term just extends excessive profits.
-David Hale Received on Tue Oct 17 2000 - 14:30:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:41 GMT