[Ip-health] Eminent Domain

George Carter fiar at verizon.net
Wed Nov 28 14:28:32 PST 2012


Right and thanks, Brook! I guess my unspoken question in re a compulsory license is -
Can one be issued prior to a drug being approved by the FDA?

And--if so--would a country be willing to do so? They would probably have to do the compulsory license for BOTH drugs in order to put them in clinical trials.

If not--then we have to await approval of each drug separately.

Here's a more complete report of the remarkable results:
http://hepc-cured.com/new-clinical-studies-high-rate-of-sustained-virologic-response-with-the-all-oral-combination-of-daclatasvir-plus-sofosbuvir-with-or-without-ribavirin/ 

(Would be great if, in a separate matter, countries issued compulsory licenses for the constituents of Stribild that Gilead is selling at $79 PER PILL.)
George M. Carter

On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Baker, Brook wrote:

> George
> 
> I tried to indicate in my earlier email in response to your posting on
> this topic that compulsory licensing is probably the more appropriate
> remedy, which entails permitted use to other generic producers, but does
> not eliminate the patent holder's rights or ownership as such.  In the
> case of compulsory licenses, only adequate remuneration need be paid,
> which is presumably substantially less than would be required in a takings
> (eminent domaine really applies only to real property) case which would
> ordinarily require payment of full market value (all future profits
> discounted to present value).
> 
> Brook
> Professor Brook K. Baker
> 
> Health GAP (Global Access Project)
> Northeastern U. School of Law
> Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy
> 400 Huntington Ave.
> Boston, MA 02115 USA
> Honorary Research Fellow, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, S. Africa
> (w) 617-373-3217
> (cell) 617-259-0760
> (fax) 617-373-5056
> b.baker at neu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/28/12 4:23 PM, "George Carter" <fiar at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> A friend put the question regarding the refusal by Gilead's executives to
>> allow further study of GS-7977 with the BMS drug, and the answer was not
>> encouraging but not surprising either. I probably jumped ahead of myself
>> in previous posts, but basically I had not held much hope that Eminent
>> Domain would be invoked in the United States, given the corruption of the
>> US government and its coziness with pharma--wherefore I was wondering
>> about the use of such a law as it may exist in other countries.
>> 
>> The combo described, GS-7977+daclatasvir, remains the most promising,
>> most effective and least toxic that I have seen. (For example, a recent
>> phase 3 of GS-7977+ribavirin showed inferior results and ribavirin causes
>> horrible anemia.)
>> 
>> The query and reply:
>> http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it-possible-to-sue-a-pharmaceutical-c
>> ompany-for-1017417.html?utm_campaign=answer_notify&utm_content=question_le
>> gal&utm_medium=email&utm_source=notification
>> 
>> The article he references is the same one that I had previously posted
>> here, which he interprets basically as being essentially no chance in
>> hell:
>> http://www.ipprospective.com/copyright-caucus/intellectual-property-and-em
>> inent-domain-a-plausible-combination/
>> 
>> Still seeking further thoughts on this while Gilead--and its CEO John C.
>> Martin, laughs all the way to the bank while we die. Seems to me that's
>> not just moral outrage but a threat to life and limb, representing a more
>> substantial cause of action.
>> George M. Carter
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ip-health mailing list
>> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
>> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
> 





More information about the Ip-health mailing list