Researchers Work Around Hepatitis Drug Patent 298
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."
Re:Thumbs up! (Score:5, Informative)
Another patented drug to treat Hep C [reuters.com] is on its way as well.
the so-called "inventor's rights" are in fact ... (Score:5, Informative)
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:Patent ruling is waste of resources (Score:5, Informative)
The relevant bit:
[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:the so-called "inventor's rights" are in fact . (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Thumbs up! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:NICE!!!!!! (Score:1, Informative)
You'd be amazed at the things you can find out when your mind is clean of the concept that drugs are the answer.
Drugs are a treatment for symptoms but unfortunately not the cure.
Re:$1,000 per capsule. (Score:3, Informative)
wrong (Score:3, Informative)
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, the only generally recognized ethical obligation people have with respect to ideas is that they have to attribute them correctly.
Re:$1,000 per capsule. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Thumbs up! (Score:5, Informative)
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:Thumbs up! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Patent ruling is waste of resources (Score:3, Informative)
Some people will still buy viagra when it is off patent. However, research has shown that once generics emerge the revenues of the drug companies decline dramatically -- especially when both the customer and the payor have to pay. This is even true with line extensions.
Not terribly relevant, but no, they're not (I know people high up in the foodchain at J&J).
Their "marketing" budget is little understood and vastly overstated by the likes of people on Slashdot. The "marketing" you are thinking of is DTC ads (TV, Magazines, etc) which are only about 1% of revenues (or about 10% of their promotional budget). They spend about 50% of their promotional budget of providing free samples to doctors (which, in turn, doctors give to patients--which are often beneficial) and most of the remaining amount paying their sales reps to promote new drugs.