A few years ago, Brazil broke a few patents on medicines such as medicines to treat HIV mainly. There was no damage to industries that began to compete simply producing more types of drugs. It is possible that many companies have expanded their profits by breaking the patent because it improved its market.<br>
<br>When I go to a pharmacy to buy an aspirin in Brazil, I can buy the product from Bayer or other with similar costs that on average half the value. This is very important in a poor country like Brazil. Bayer continues to sell its product and sells well because invest heavily in marketing.<br>
<br>Rodrigo<br>Brazilian Pirate Party<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/6/17 Reinier Bakels <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:r.bakels@planet.nl">r.bakels@planet.nl</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Actually Benkler in Wealth of Networks surveys econometric studies investigating the nexus between patents and innovation and reports there seems to be no correlation, which induces him to support open source also for pharma. Altho it must be said neoschumpeterians (Dosi et al.) have long argued there is (thus justifying temporary monopoly granted by patents as reward for R&D).<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The typical story is "... in most industries, patents are nmot really needed, such as software. BUT pharma development requires *zillions* of dollars - so in this field patents are indispensable".<br>
<br>
Reality is that the pharma industry is in crisis *because of* patents. So there *is* a correlation, but it is negative. Pharma development is to a large extent financed by public money (either directly or e.g. via academic hospitals), and allegedly most of the patent income is spent to promotion (bribing doctors ...) And perhaps even more importantly, the major pharma firms are so focussed on shareholder value, that they devise all kinds of tricks to prolong the life of their patents - which appears more attractive than engaging into risky new drug development. Fighting generics with all possible means is one aspect of such strategies (see the recent seizures of drugs in transit at Amsterdam airport - smart pharma industry representatives managed to get legislation to be adopted that even (allegedly) prohibit pills to be transported from Brazil to Africa - which are legal in both countries, just not in transit!). Other actions incllude the obstruction of FDA-like agencies to be established in African countries: they may give generic medicines a *safe* image - which they want to avoid.<br>
The patent system also favours medicines for "profitable" diseases: many patentients, rich countries, and chronical diseases. My father died of pancreas carcinoma, but that would be a commercially unattractive disease, because the average life expectation after diagnosis of this type of cancer is 7 weeks - not enough to please shareholders.<br>
<br>
Lately we talk a lot about "perverse incentives" - in view of the present financial crisis. The patent system, in particular in relation to health care. is s dreadful example of "perverse incentives". Incidentally, patent portfolios represent a "patent bubble" that may burst one day, just like the financial bubble.<br>
<br>
reinier <br>
____________________________________________________<br>
Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net" target="_blank">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>