Researchers Work Around Hepatitis Drug Patent

Several readers let us know about a pair of British researchers who found a workaround to patents covering drugs used to treat hepatitis C. The developers intend to produce a drug cheap enough to supply to people in the poorest parts of the world. The scientists found another way to bind a sugar to interferon, producing a drug they say should be as long-lasting and effective as those sold (at $14,000 for a year's supply) by patent holders Hoffman-La Roche and Schering Plough. Clinical trials could begin by 2008. The article quotes developer Sunil Shaunak of Imperial College London: "We in academic medicine can either choose to use our ideas to make large sums of money for small numbers of people, or to look outwards to the global community and make affordable medicines."

Thumbs up!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Before the arguments about the effectiveness of this drug compared to the patented one, the morality of patents on medicine and the soviet russia jokes break out; I'd like to show my respect for these people. It's great to see this effort!

Re:Thumbs up!

[wasted (94866)]

Before the arguments about the effectiveness of this drug compared to the patented one, the morality of patents on medicine and the soviet russia jokes break out; I'd like to show my respect for these people. It's great to see this effort!

Another patented drug to treat Hep C [reuters.com] is on its way as well.

Re:Thumbs up!

[arivanov (12034)]

Chemical compounds as such are not patentable. Their use for a specific purpose, synthesis and administration are. That is usually enough to protect a drug to a point where you have effectively patented the compound.

Re:Thumbs up!

[DRJlaw (946416)]

Chemical compounds as such are not patentable.

Absolutely wrong.

Novel and non-obvious chemical compounds are patentable.

Naturally occurring chemical compounds may be patentable when claimed as purified forms, as pharmaceutically acceptable salts, etc. While you may argue that it is obvious to purify a compound, when the application is drafted correctly, it often discloses or is based on a qualifying disclosure of a particular compound having a particular and previously unknown utility other than its mere existence. That is sufficient to eliminate the "obviousness" of a generic purification argument.

Novel and non-obvious uses of known chemical compounds may also be patentable, as you suggested, but that category represents the minority of chemical patent applications.

Re:

[Znork (31774)]

Depends on the patent system. IIRC, the system in India specifically only granted the patent on the specific process to make the compound, which let generics manufacturers develop different methods of synthesis and produce the same compound. While, again, if I remember correctly, other countries granted the patent on the method by which the specific compound worked, essentially meaning the medicine itself is patented.

Re:

[MidVicious (1045984)]

In Soviet Russia, drugs patent you!

Thanks for the assist ;)

Re:Thumbs up!

[AuMatar (183847)]

In capitalistic America, drug companies patent your genes. That will be 1 million dollars for infringing, payable up front.

Patent ruling is waste of resources

[by Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it pathetic that researchers or bussinesses try to find workarounds for patents? This kind of news shows that patent ruling is totally flawed by design. I'm in favor of giving inventor a commercial advantage for his/her invention. This can be tax reduction for product using this patent etc. But giving inventor a monopolistic right is stupid however you evaluate the idea.

Re:Patent ruling is waste of resources

[joelt49 (637701)]

No, it's not. Inventor's don't have to share anything with the outside world. Patents are simply recognizing the inventor's right to say, "I'll show you how to do X if you promise to do Y." Why shouldn't the inventor have the right do do that? It's his invention after all. There may be specific problems with the implementation of our current patent system, sure. But granting monopolistic privileges in some form is still a good idea and respect's the inventor's rights.

the so-called "inventor's rights" are in fact ...

[erlehmann (1045500)]

... just vehicles to ensure progress.

there is no such thing as a "natural right" an inventor has: patent law builds on the premise that a patent is a reward and that many people like to be rewarded.

you are confusing it with copyright law - which grants the author rights because it is his creation - no one else could habe written harry potter, for example. in contrast, sooner or later someone figures out how molecule XYZ can be synthesized - there usually is no "personal creativity" involved.

Re:the so-called "inventor's rights" are in fact .

[AuMatar (183847)]

Actually, copyright is specifically NOT a natural right in the US, although it is considered one in Europe. That was a major hangup in copyright treaties, until they agreed to disagree.

Re:

[FallLine (12211)]

Actually, copyright is specifically NOT a natural right in the US, although it is considered one in Europe. That was a major hangup in copyright treaties, until they agreed to disagree.

Besides the fact that this is really a philosophical debate now, many of the so-called "natural rights" have drifted too, there is considerable debate about this in the US today. Though Jefferson was clearly influential in advocating the view that IP is mere social contract, this was not the predominant view of the time.

Re:

[Da_Weasel (458921)]

Creative thinking, observing things from a unique perspective and hard work is what leads scientist to these discoveries. Saying that these discoveries are simply a matter of putting a few more bricks on an existing wall and that someone else eventually would have done this anyway is an insult to the discoveries of the scientific community.

Harry Potter built on a wealth of previously existing literature about wizards and magic, but that doesn't cheapen it in anyway...

Just because you don't see the artistic

Re:Patent ruling is waste of resources

[poopdeville (841677)]

Perhaps you've heard of the Hippocratic Oath?

The relevant bit:

To look upon his children as my own brothers[1], to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction.

[1] An earlier bit mentions the oath taker's "parents." These are to be understood to be his mentors. Thus "his children" are the oath taker's peers.

Re:Patent ruling is waste of resources

[vandan (151516)]

No, it's not. Inventor's don't have to share anything with the outside world.

And where did this inventor get their education from? And their materials? And their food?

It is the responsibility of inventors to share their ideas with all society. As others have pointed out, they have a right to make a fair living off these ideas. But there is a limit to how 'fair' you can get, and making billions of dollars in profits while others are suffering and dying is going way past that point.

Joelt, You need to have a good, long think about yourself. Profit is not the most important thing in the world.

Re:

[Joebert (946227)]

Profit is not the most important thing in the world.

Perhaps, but the most important thing in the world happens to like guys with big, profits.

Re:Patent ruling is waste of resources

[hclyff (925743)]

And where did this inventor get their education from

Absolutely. All discoveries are done based on previous published research. If every pharmaceutical company kept their research to themselves, there wouldn't be much progress really. Not to mention that in academia, if you don't publish you don't exist. That's where patents sort of come in, to allow and encourage publishing of results done by private companies.

Think of it this way: if those companies weren't guaranteed profit in case of discovering something useful, they wouldn't do the research in the first place.

Re:Patent ruling is waste of resources

[Znork (31774)]

"Think of it this way: if those companies weren't guaranteed profit in case of discovering something useful, they wouldn't do the research in the first place."

Except, of course, they're not guaranteed the profit for the research, they're guaranteed the profit from having a monopoly. Which essentially means their incentive is to get as much profit out of the monopoly as possible (ie, a huge incentive for marketing) while investing the bare minimum necessary to gain another monopoly into research.

And, of course, ignoring the fact that if we didnt grant those monopolies could very well be spending the money now going to the pharmas directly on research instead, thus getting more than five times the R&D done for the same amount of money we spend on medicines today.

Re:Patent ruling is waste of resources

[dwandy (907337)]

To show an example [yahoo.com] to illustrate this (picked purely at random, and may not be typical in the industry, but I suspect it is):

Revenue (ttm) : 52.21B
Gross Profit (ttm): 42.77B
Profit Margin (ttm): 24.17%

...and this [yahoo.com] shows the industry enjoys about a 65% Gross Margin.

Contrast that with an industry that doesn't enjoy protection on it's product, say Toyota [yahoo.com] (also picked randomly but assumed to be more or less industry leader at this time)

Revenue (ttm): 189.92B
Gross Profit (ttm): 34.83B
Profit Margin (ttm): 7.00%
...and this industry has to make do with only about 19% Gross Margin [yahoo.com].

So to agree with what you're saying: Pfizer made some 42billion dollars in profits because they have protection on their product; and that profit comes directly from the consumer, and comes directly at the expense of sick people that can't afford the drugs they produce.

'Research' is an expense which decreases profit. Such large profits are simply monopoly protection income that has not been spent as promised: on research.
This clearly shows us that we need to at a minimum reduce the patent term, and more realisticly review the very concept of drug patents.

Anyone who argues that the current patent system is necessary or healthy in the face of these abnormal profits is sick and twisted or stupid or corrupt or maybe all of the above ...

Re:

[Znork (31774)]

If you in and analyze the numbers on the books of the pharmaceuticals you'll also note a other vast differences between their financials and companies like your car producer.

IIRC, the breakdown is something like this:

Pharmaceutical:
35% production
35% marketing and administration
15% R&D
15% profit

Cars:
80% production
10% marketing and administration
5% R&D
5% profit

Now, the pharmaceuticals of course claim that they invest a high amount in R&D, with the comparison against other industries. However, wh

Re:

[FallLine (12211)]

And you think those 'studies' will not be done? How many people still buy Tylenol, when there is a perfectly good generic acetaminophen bottle sitting right next to it in most pharmacies for half the cost?

The same can be said of many things, however this is usually only with something that costs a relatively small amount in the first place so that the percieved price difference is very small for the consumer. This is not the case with generics. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that unless the doctor spe

Re:

[vandan (151516)]

There is plenty of money at the top end. It's a bald-faced lie that this type of research is not affordable by governments.

There's one thing you can say about cold, callous bastards, they don't suck off the public teat. You'll never find one on welfare, they can pull their own weight.

That's ridiculous! How can you possibly say that they're pulling their own weight? They earn thousands of times what the average worker does. Surely they don't work thousands of times harder. It is these people exactly that b

wrong

[oohshiny (998054)]

Patents are simply recognizing the inventor's right to say, "I'll show you how to do X if you promise to do Y."

Unlike physical property, the Constitution does not recognize the existence of intellectual property or any other intrinsic rights to ideas or inventions.

Therefore, patents create that right, they don't recognize it. And they create that right only temporarily, only for a very limited set of ideas, and only if the inventor actually lives up to specific requirements.

In contrast to physical property

Big Pharm does this too

[Heir Of The Mess (939658)]

For example Australian company Biota [biota.com.au] created and patented Relenza for treating bird flu, then Roche modified their product slightly to produce and patent Tamiflu.

DO these guys accept Paypal?

[Stephen Samuel (106962)]

'Cause, if they do, I'd like to donate $10 to their research fund.

Good old USA

[oman_ (147713)]

A thousand bucks says this is never going to pass FDA testing in the United States... and we'll never find out why.

Re:Good old USA

[MosesJones (55544)]

Which is actually fine as most people in the US can afford to pay for the drug or have the insurance anyway. I don't think that people in Africa are going to care too much that something doesn't have FDA approval if it is actually proven safe and proven effective by people such as WHO or the Red Cross.

This isn't aimed at helping the USA, its aimed at helping the rest of the world.

In further news...

[Ritontor (244585)]

Hoffman-La Roche and Schering Plough released a statement today. It reads as follows:

"FUCK!"

Slashdot headlines

[urbanradar (1001140)]

Looking at the Slashdot frontpage right now, among the stories I see are: "Researchers Work Around Hepatitis Drug Patent", "Wal-Mart Is Pushing Compact Fluorescent Bulbs", "Month of Apple Fixes", "MySQL Falcon Storage Engine Open Sourced", "Creating Prion-Free Cows". Maybe it's just my morning coffee making me optimistic, but it seems to me there's not usually this much positive news on Slashdot! Almost gives you hope for 2007, that does.

NICE!!!!!!

[Rooked_One (591287)]

I've undergone pegaylated interferon treatment twice now... didn't work for me, however did for my brother, and you have to have AWESOME insurance to cover this stuff. I doubt the side effects (which are 11 months of hell) are any different, but if it was cheaper, and for the people who relapse when the drug does keep the virus in check, but comes back, this would be great. After the treatment I felt so good for the couple of months that the viral levels were low... I've been hoping for a prophylactic kind of treatment for a long time... I really hope the pharmco's aren't assholes about something like this.

See?

[Digital Vomit (891734)]

See? Patents do encourage innovation!...by forcing others to work around existing patents. :-P

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

You missed the profits. Don't forget the silly profits. Almost £7 billion profit for Glaxosmithkline. You read that right - £7,000,000,000 - or $14,000,000,000.

They're suggesting making cheap drugs, keeping the patents away from big companies, and having clinical testing subsidised by the countries where they'd be used (which seems fair if they aren't trying to profiteer), as well as developing drugs on obscure illnesses which the west doesn't have (and big business ignores). It's a win/win situ

yes, you are

[by Anonymous Coward]

1. Drug companies have to turn a profit; otherwise, they don't produce the drugs.

Drug companies spend far more money on advertising than they do on research and development. The next time you watch "Wheel of Fortune", you might realize that the billions of dollars being spent pushing viagra and nexium on everyone are NOT making their way to fundamental advances in science.

2. The more money a drug company makes off a medicine, the more valuable it is. A drug company's profits are a function of how much people value that drug -- the drug's social utility (this is basic economics).

No matter what the local basement-dwelling Rand-ite may tell you, economics is not a science and is not necessarily the best model for health care. Human welfare is not a widget that can (or should) be bought and sold like a car or an mp3 player.

3. Once the drug companies patents run out, anyone can produce generic medicines cheaply.

And how many millions of people will die in the meantime?

Re:

[MemoryDragon (544441)]

Problem is that most money is not spend on research but on advertisement... about 2/3rd of the drug money goes into ads, and marketing.

Re:fallacious

[GravelordBocephus (873797)]

"(the more profit, the more useful it is)" So a treatment for cancer taken three times daily for the rest of your life is more useful than a cure for cancer? I'll keep that in mind.

Re:fallacious

[FinalMidnight (652617)]

Wow! I'm gobsmacked at your sheer, unabashed ignorance of "The way things work".

To the first: what do you think the ratio of new drug research is to profits? For a major drug company? Conversely, what do you think the ratio of marketing vs profits? Got a clue? No? Feel free to go do a little googling. It is an open secret that drug companies spend almost nothing (compared) on research into new drugs. Even then the research directed is in very, very specific (eg profitable) areas. Hint! It makes a lot more money to market a drug for "Erectile Disfunction" than to actually make a simple, cheap cure for just about any disease you care to name.

To address your second point: The profits made from a drug are a reflection of the profitability of that drug. Nothing more or less. Concrete examples of how _value_ and _profit_ are distinct concepts to follow.

To the third: Once patents run out, drug companies market new, patented drugs. Older, generic drugs are not marketed. Part of the reason this happens is that drug companies advertise directly to doctors (who write the perceptions) and part of the reason is that drug stores make more money selling drugs that cost more. There are a bunch of simple ways to fix most of this in legislation. That, however, is another can of worms.

Examples of point two and the relationship with point three:

Ritalin: Heard of it? Great! How about Dexamphetamine? Not so much? Little known fact! Dexampetamine is a more effective treatment for ADD and ADHD than Ritalin. However it is perscribed less than a fifth as much. Why? Because the patents on Dexamphetamine ran out years ago. It can be made by any drug company and is a commodity item. Profits are very, very low. Ritalin is very profitable because it is a treatment. A patient will need to continue to take Rtalin for years. Possibly forever. Profitability: High! Value: Fuck All! Ritalin does a worse job than a drug that costs less than a third of the price.

Treatment of stomach ulcers: A method of curing stomach ulcers has been around for more than ten years. Thats right, A complete cure! The Australian who discovered the cure was under attack from many major drug companies, who attempted to discredit him and his research. Why? Because anti-acid treatments of stomach ucers are a) Patented and b) something that needs to be taken _forever_. The cure relys on a simple, generic anti-biotic and some mineral treatments. Not patentable, therefore no profits.

If you give a shit about any of these issues, you might be interested in the process of testing and approval that goes on in the USA compared to other countries (Like the UK or Canada) and what the differences mean. You might also be interested in the "Evergreening" of medical patents and the blatant kickbacks that medical companies give Doctors and Pharmacists.

And YES, I am a fucking Pharmacist.

Re:fallacious

[janek78 (861508)]

Could you clarify that about treatment for stomach ulcers? I thought that omeprazole was already off patent (we have 11 brands available here in the Czech Republic). The cost of treatment for omeprazole is about $0.33 to $1 a day here. It is usually given for 6 weeks, so the total cost is something up to $40. And it actually compeletely cures the ulcers! Wow! Amazing.

I suggest you go back freshen up a little before you come preaching here.

And YES, I am a fucking doctor and no I don't have any shares of pharma companies. :)

Re:

[Daetrin (576516)]

I've seen hundreds of commercials for antacids but this is the first time i've ever heard of an actual _cure_ for ulcers. As a doctor you may know about more effective treatments or even cures for any particular problem, but i don't think that in itself negates the grand-parent's argument that whenever possible treatments are what is pushed by pharma marketing departments, not cures, and if possible they'd rather sell a more expensive patented treatment than a cheaper generic one.

And YES, I am just a norm

15% to research, 85% to other stuff

[Christian Engstrom (633834)]

what do you think the ratio of new drug research is to profits? For a major drug company? Conversely, what do you think the ratio of marketing vs profits? Got a clue? No? Feel free to go do a little googling.

In case the grandparent poster is Google impaired - a condition that medical science has yet to find a cure for ;) - I'll be happy to supply some links:

Here are the Financial Highlights from the annual reports of Novartis [novartis.com], Pfizer [pfizer.com] and AstraZeneca [astrazeneca.com]. They all spend around 15% of their revenues on researc

Re:

[balloonhead (589759)]

You're really a fucking pharmacist? You don't seem to actually have much concept of the way things work.

Stomach ulcers have a cure. In some people. Those with helicobacter. And it's not just an antibiotic - it's three drugs (amoxicillin, metronidazole, and a PPI of your choice - let's say omeprazole. You mention a mineral (presume you mean bismuth?). There are a few different treatment regimens available, some with differences. I believe you can even get them as one pill with all the drugs in. Usually a wee

Re:

[nagora (177841)]

Large profits give drug companies an incentive to develop the most useful medicines (the more profit, the more useful it is)

You have perfectly summed up why drug companies spend most of their time (and budgets) on fleecing rich people instead of curing poor people.

While you can make the argument that a specific drug X or Y would still be developed in the absence of profit motives, this is overlooking the fact that reduced profits mean a reduced incentive to produce drugs in the future.

Reduced profits is no

Re:

[Znork (31774)]

"Large profits give drug companies an incentive to develop the most useful medicines"

No. A monopoly give drug companies a large incentive for marketing. And fails to give drug companies appropriate market incentive for efficiency. 80% of pharma revenue is spent on marketing, administration and inefficient production. The R&D is just a necessary evil to obtail the particular monopoly necessary; witness the classic twist-a-molecule game to gain another 20 years monopoly with minimum investment and minimum

Re:

[joelt49 (637701)]

Your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way things work in a capitalist society. Even with this drug, the researchers will have to convince some drug company to manufacture and distribute this drug. How will they do it? By convincing the manufacturer that they will be able to make a profit off of it. Here's the crux of the issue -- you state, As the above example shows, you don't need extra profit to develop a new drug. That's true. But in rare circumstances. The key is when you say "a" new

Re:

[bitkari (195639)]

You're unlikely to replicate the research large drug companies do in academia.

The good folk at The Wellcome Trust [wellcome.ac.uk] might disagree with you there.

And unlike purely commercial entities, and while they do commercialise some of their efforts, they aren't trying to extract as much profit as possible like Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca are.

Bottom line: Drug companies have to make a profit. They have to recover costs

Drug companies DO have to make a profit, but to say that this is to recoup their R&D costs is a littl

Re:

[orasio (188021)]

The money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is usually from profits from drugs. And as I said earlier, profits are an indication of social utility -- how much people value the drug. The more profits, the more people value the drug. The larger the profit, the more good the drug does, and the more incentive to produce that drug (which is why capitalism is pretty cool).

Capitalism has some cool things. This is exactly where it fails.
You are counting people as equals. You equate amount of money invested with people that benefit. That is just not true, specially in a capitalistic society.

If your reasoning had any logic, then casinos would be more valuable for society than hospitals, because there's more money invested into them.

The most money, globally, is overrepresented for rich people problems, like cancer and alzheimer. Globally, the most short term benefit for people a

Re:

[BCoates (512464)]

Claiming "medical patents spur innovation" isn't the same as claiming that "there would be no research at all without medical patents".

Re:

[phayes (202222)]

I have little sympathy for big pharma but sometimes the high price can be justified. When Taxol was determined to be a promising cancer treatment it's only source was from harvesting the bark of the pacific yew tree. As Taxol was only present in minute quantities in the bark, you needed to sacrifice hundreds of trees to obtain enough Taxol for a single treatment, thus Taxol was extremely expensive. They have since come up with methods of synthesising taxol from precursors in the needles which has allowed th

Re:$1,000 per capsule.

[Quiet_Desperation (858215)]

Are you sure it was really $1000? That's $365,000 a year. The most expensive currently marketed drug is Cerezyme at $175,000 a year, and that's for some weird genetic disorder that only, like 5000 people on the planet suffer from.

Re:

[The Rizz (1319)]

If it wasn't for patents, what would drive people to look for alternate treatments ?

I dunno ... maybe the idea that there are possibly better treatments that could be discovered? Ones with less side effects, that work faster, that work for people that the known treatments don't, or perhaps even ones that have a lower production/materials cost?

Re:

[Overzeetop (214511)]

You could save half of the development costs upfront, as pharma companies already spend more on marketing than on research and development. BTW - only a small fraction of that money goes to the commercials you see - most comes from the armies of representatives that ply doctors offices with samples, notepads, pens, junkets, and other freebies. And it works - they doctors get the dog and pony show, and even if they don't take the free trips/tickets/gifts, they remember the sales pitch.

I happen to be sucepta