Indian law on generic drugs is upheld »

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 47

• 

  DeLeMaComment has been removed: Retracted by user
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  SlapALib

  Aug. 6, 2007, 4:28 p.m.

  What's the point of investing to create new drugs just to have your research stolen and produced by someone else?
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  khudania

  Aug. 6, 2007, 4:43 p.m.

  As far as I believe the only point of creating new drugs is to fight deseases. And if some body can provide a mechanism to produce it cheaper, it should be respected and welcomed. At least the person suffering from the desease will recognise this.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  joeblowe

  Aug. 6, 2007, 5:34 p.m.

  HA! About 1 or 2 paragraphs is all you need to read here. Here's what the sneaky weasels are complaining about: The inability to secure a renewed patent for the SAME medicine if they just put it in a "time release" form. Since Novartis says they don't plan to appeal, it appears that even they know what a lousy, sneaky tactic that is. To my way of thinking, they should apply the same rules HERE. Making a minor change like that - or COMBINING two existing drugs - should NOT qualify for a new patent. Let's face it, it ain't new - it's just repackaged.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  DEMONSLAYAR

  Aug. 6, 2007, 5:58 p.m.

  i guess india likes that "free market" thing that republicans created....lol pay back is a b@#$%
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  vvv63vvv

  Aug. 6, 2007, 6:06 p.m.

  these slave created rx are banned from internet sales to protect big rx profit margins
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  PoliSci

  Aug. 6, 2007, 6:51 p.m.

  Apparently if you're poor, it's okay to steal.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  LARK

  Aug. 6, 2007, 9:59 p.m.

  Rich Indians are very rich and have been rich for decades at least, and very proud too.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  fgmahoney

  Aug. 6, 2007, 11:36 p.m.

  This is nothing more than thief. Selling someone else's work and investment. I understand the suffering of the sick but the companies that are making these drugs are not doing it for free. They are profiting and getting rich. The US needs to protect patents of US companies. People have a right to disagree but if I told them I would only pay them 1/2 pay after the work was done they would be up in arms.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  stangme01

  Aug. 7, 2007, 1:01 a.m.

  the problem is that the pharmaceutical market is the most profitable business in the world. That alone is sick, very sick. Most of the meds on the market aren/t there to help people, they are on there for profit. They don't care about long term affects, they hide the info on test patients who have had undesireable effects that would stop most people from buying the meds. All the psychological drugs on the market are absolutely horrible for people. I had no idea how many people in my life are on some sort of "mental health" meds, and lately i'm finding out almost everyone i meet is/or has been on these crap "be happy" drugs. My brother is still recovering from his damn ridilin days.

  Anyway i'm rambling ****** all these companies. Meds should cost as much as advil, cough syrup etc. Not $1000's per month on pills that have already pulled in a huge profit over their overhead costs for research. The oil companies are poor compared to these companies.......
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  ALL4IT

  Aug. 7, 2007, 6:23 a.m.

  I agree with you regarding the dangerous manipulations we can suffer from the big pharmaceutical Co's but I don't think that a "no-demand no-profit" approach will be the answer to our needs, but a combination of public/private development might.

  The problem with the public organizations is that a lot of resources are lost to administrative corruption and established interests.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  LARK

  Aug. 7, 2007, 5:39 a.m.

  Is it possible that some of the pharm "evils" lie in malpractices other than protection of patent rights? If what's said about patent in this thread applies, shouldn't this apply to other products such as software and other brand names?
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  ALL4IT

  Aug. 7, 2007, 6:11 a.m.

  Protection patent laws should be made fairer, for the sake of human health but also to stimulate continuos research. While too long time of protection will stiffle a company's interest in new developments, not enough revenue will cause the needed resources to be invested in other sectors of the economy leaving laboratories only in colleges and universities.

  If pharmaceutical companies continue abusing their ownership of life-saving or life-improving chemicals, they will loose even what is rightfully theirs.

  Monopolies of any kind or type and under any disguise are incapable of creating sustanaible benefits for consumers nor, eventually, for investors.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  albionperfide

  Aug. 7, 2007, 9:10 a.m.

  slapalib

  The latest info on big pharma is that R&D amounts for about 17% and advertising and admin about 31%. They don't tell you that do they?
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  LARK

  Aug. 7, 2007, 10:13 a.m.

  I think separate issues are involved although they are related -- 1. respecting patent rights and intellectual property 2. how the phamr cos are profiteering, how they should act more for people's health with what they have got by not getting so much money from the poor, by not hiding truths etc.

  The current issue may or may not be justified, but if one justifies it with all the unfairness and bad things pharm cos do to patients, it seems to say that from now on, it's morally okay to copy meds.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Neef

  Aug. 7, 2007, 11:05 a.m.

  skier07--In my university much R&D on drugs is done at tax payer expense...So is the research done in the big labs that are gov't funded. Pity the POOR pharmaceutical companies who spend all that money on R&D...NOT... Most is spent on TV ads.

The first 45 comments are shown. Show all 47 comments »