From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Wed Jun 05 2002 - 14:02:24 MDT
In a message dated 6/5/02 12:00:51, fauxever@sprynet.com writes:
>Is this greed? Or is it "all in the game" (and therefore okay)?
>http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1164914
(article on drug company techniques to increase patent lifetimes)
>
>What kinds of guidelines, in your opinion, would be acceptable - and how
>much should government regulate (if at all)?
Well, the short answer is that the government is handing out monopolies
worth billions of dollars on purely arbitrary grounds (even if you believe
in intellectual property, there are absolutely no objective guidelines
on how broad they should be or how long they should last.) There's no
savory way to hand out the largess, so the contention becomes unsavory.
Although Bristol-Myers didn't "invent" Taxol, they did perform what is
now the most difficult part of getting a drug to market, which is the testing
and regulatory requirements. There was no a priori evidence it would work;
companies can lose a lot for drug that end up not working, and virtually none
of them do. They did deserve *something*. How much? No way to determine
except call in the legal gunslingers and see who's the best shot.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:36 MST