[Ip-health] New York Times: India’s Supreme Court to Hear Dispute on Drug Patents
fiar at verizon.net
Tue Mar 6 17:07:19 PST 2012
Thanks for sharing the article.
By this article, the main contention from Novartis is that the patent is necessary to assure innovation. The other quibbles around whether improving absorption or reducing side effects isn't some form of evergreening are trivial to me as their real purpose is merely to screw patients through the hostage-holding ransoms they charge.
Let us hope that the attorneys for the state consider tackling that claim. I know lots of work has been done around this but I decided to look around a bit...
--same for drugs--except people don't die horribly without an iphone.
nice clip -
As a person with hepatitis C, where innovation was directly stymied by the patents (and outrageous licensing fees) owned by Chiron (see, e.g., sippi.aaas.org/utt/WalshetalAAAS.pdf and http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/22/business/fi-chiron22 ), my life has probably been shortened as newer, more effective treatments have been delayed probably a decade due to nothing more than greed.
So question--are there good websites or papers that take a pro and con view of patents' effects on innovation?
Patents in biomedical discovery are ANATHEMA to innovation for a whole host of clearly delineated reasons.
George M. Carter
On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Thirukumaran Balasubramaniam wrote:
> “It is important that the court take on the matter,” Mr. Basheer, a professor at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata, said, “and interpret the law in a way that balances the need for innovation against public health concerns.”
> Vikas Bajaj reported from Mumbai, India, and Andrew Pollack from Los Angeles.
More information about the Ip-health