Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
This Pill Not To Be Taken With Competition
Started by kbv
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
great article though I disagree with the outcome of it. If a mfg wants to buy out a little guy that is ready to make a big blockbuster drug generic, more power to them
I agree. Anything that will let me as a shareholder take money out of little old ladies pockets and put it in mine is a great thing. Who cares if she can't afford her narcolepsy drugs, a little extra sleep never killed anyone. Antitrust laws are crap. Whoever has the most money should be making the rules.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Interesting article. It leaves me a little confused about patent law, though. I had thought that when a new drug is developed there's a set amount of time after some point in R+D when when generic manufacturers have the right to begin selling that product on the free market. Could somebody fill me in on the distinctions made in the article? For example, what does infirm patent mean in this context?
"Courts that have sided with pharmaceutical companies believe, in essence, that even an infirm patent gives its owner the right to pay competitors not to compete. Yet as the one appellate court that has condemned these agreements explained, "it is one thing to take advantage of a monopoly that naturally arises from a patent, but another thing altogether to bolster the patent's effectiveness . . . by paying" potential competitors "to stay out of the market." "
"Courts that have sided with pharmaceutical companies believe, in essence, that even an infirm patent gives its owner the right to pay competitors not to compete. Yet as the one appellate court that has condemned these agreements explained, "it is one thing to take advantage of a monopoly that naturally arises from a patent, but another thing altogether to bolster the patent's effectiveness . . . by paying" potential competitors "to stay out of the market." "
There is no distinction really. Basically the original patent holder is paying off the generic manufacturers to not put a product on the market. Generic manufacturer will make $X/yr selling the drug, patent holder offers them $X+10m to do nothing. That 10mil is a helluva lot less than the patent holder will lose once a generic hits the market. Generic company makes a truckload of cash for just doing the basic research needed to produce a generic, patent holder makes a truckload of cash by still selling their blockbuster at an inflated price. Both companies win, everyone else loses.
Anti-trust laws were designed specifically to prevent this.
Anti-trust laws were designed specifically to prevent this.
Similar threads
