[olePigeon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4366514.stm

Some big pharmaceutical company called Roche owns the patent on the vaccine for the Avian/Bird flu. Of course, they're selling it to all the other companies and governments so they can make a vaccine to protect.

Well, the Taiwanese government went into negotiations to get the vaccine for cheap. Roche didn't want to sell it to them for the price Taiwan wanted, so.. f*ck the patent. They're took the vaccine anyway and are reproducing it to help their people.

But let's see how this works out. I know India tried to do this at one point, but the WTO threatened them into submission.

[cpt kangarooski]

Doesn't particularly bother me. If they have a patent in Taiwan, it was granted by the Tawainese government. Exceptions to patents for crises such as health emergencies are hardly a new idea. Given that Taiwan got to define the terms of the patent, they're probably acting within the bounds originally set.

While there is the argument that these sorts of exceptions to patents make them less of an encouragement to inventors, resulting in a reduction of the public benefit that is the purpose of a patent system, that's a policy decision that is up to Taiwan. If they think they're best off marching in, then by all means, they should do so. It's not as though inventors automatically deserve patents.

[mojo2]

The thread title was a bit sensational don't you think?

This is like Taiwan telling Roche, "I know we haven't yet reached an agreement but I'm sure we will. In the meantime, because it takes time to create enough of the drug and time is of the essence, even though we have yet to reach an accord, we will begin copying the drug now and sign the agreement later."

The government has said it will not market the drug commercially.

H5N1 BIRD FLU VIRUS

Principally an avian disease, first seen in humans in Hong Kong, 1997
Almost all human cases thought to be contracted from birds
Isolated cases of human-to-human transmission in Hong Kong and Vietnam, but none confirmed

Production of the drug on a small scale has already started.

A top health official said Taiwan had demonstrated its goodwill to Roche in talks - and the country hoped it would eventually secure permission to copy the drug.

"We have tried our best to negotiate with Roche," Su Ih-jen told Reuters news agency.

"It means we have shown our goodwill to Roche and we appreciate their patent. But to protect our people is the utmost important thing," he said.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The thread title was a bit sensational don't you think?

This is like Taiwan telling Roche, "I know we haven't yet reached an agreement but I'm sure we will. In the meantime, because it takes time to create enough of the drug and time is of the essence, even though we have yet to reach an accord, we will begin copying the drug now and sign the agreement later."

I read it as "We're going to copy your drug. Maybe we'll make up later, but for now, screw you."

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

I read it as "We're going to copy your drug. Maybe we'll make up later, but for now, screw you."

If you read the actual article and have that opinion I must say I little suspected the depth of your cynicism.

I regret yelling at you these past few weeks. One obviously does not come by such an attitude easily or without some amount of suffering.

For whatever you have endured or suffered, however it may have happened and whomever was involved, it doesn't matter to me what or who, please allow me to say for them and for every spirit in the heavens, I apologize. I am sorry.

[Weyland-Yutani]

"Some big pharmaceutical company called Roche"...

That's like saying "Some big software company called Microsoft"..

cheers

W-Y

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm selling Apple computers and iPods that my company made. I'll get together with Apple later - to work out some sort of agreement to copy their products. In the meantime, you can order our Apple products online or by calling us toll-free....

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'm selling Apple computers and iPods that my company made. I'll get together with Apple later - to work out some sort of agreement to copy their products. In the meantime, you can order our Apple products online or by calling us toll-free....

Nono. What they're doing is producing their own Apple computers without Apple's permission.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

If you read the actual article and have that opinion I must say I little suspected the depth of your cynicism.

I regret yelling at you these past few weeks. One obviously does not come by such an attitude easily or without some amount of suffering.

For whatever you have endured or suffered, however it may have happened and whomever was involved, it doesn't matter to me what or who, please allow me to say for them and for every spirit in the heavens, I apologize. I am sorry.

Your sarcasm is simply overwhelming.

[Myriad]

Is the issue so complicated that it needs to be dumbed down with an ill-fitting analogy? Do iPods treat ebola or something?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

Your sarcasm is simply overwhelming.

Ok.

[Athens]

I see nothing wrong with it as long as they dont sell it or provide it until such time as a emergancy, screw patents when it means saving lives.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

Nono. What they're doing is producing their own Apple computers without Apple's permission YET.

Fixed.

The government has said it will not market the drug commercially.

A top health official said Taiwan had demonstrated its goodwill to Roche in talks - and the country hoped it would eventually secure permission to copy the drug.

"We have tried our best to negotiate with Roche," Su Ih-jen told Reuters news agency.

"It means we have shown our goodwill to Roche and we appreciate their patent. But to protect our people is the utmost important thing," he said.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

I see nothing wrong with it as long as they dont sell it or provide it until such time as a emergancy, screw patents when it means saving lives.

I'm with you, Athens!

[Millennium]

The drug industry is arguably the single most corrupt industry in the world, and has richly deserved a smackdown for a long time. The patent system is a good concept, but here we see a case -a single sample out of many- where it has been hideously abused at the cost of lives.

I still say that there's no need to socialize medicine. If the drug industry could be brought under control, healthcare would become affordable to most people almost overnight. Exactly what sort of controls are needed is a matter of debate, but I'd favor a solution whereby any invention developed using public funds has its patent term reduced in proportion to the amount of public funds used. An invention developed with 50% of its funding provided through taxpayer monies has its patent term reduced by half. An invention developed using only private funds gets the full term; an invention developed using only public funds gets no term at all (essentially it instantly reverts to the public domain). The idea is to extend the copyright/patent bargain by reworking the grant system as a form of barter, whereby the grantee barters time in exchange for funding above and beyond that which is supposedly made possible only through patents. If the IP system is accepted as a bargain, then this makes sense, does it not?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The drug industry is arguably the single most corrupt industry in the world, and has richly deserved a smackdown for a long time. The patent system is a good concept, but here we see a case -a single sample out of many- where it has been hideously abused at the cost of lives.

I still say that there's no need to socialize medicine. If the drug industry could be brought under control, healthcare would become affordable to most people almost overnight. Exactly what sort of controls are needed is a matter of debate, but I'd favor a solution whereby any invention developed using public funds has its patent term reduced in proportion to the amount of public funds used. An invention developed with 50% of its funding provided through taxpayer monies has its patent term reduced by half. An invention developed using only private funds gets the full term; an invention developed using only public funds gets no term at all (essentially it instantly reverts to the public domain). The idea is to extend the copyright/patent bargain by reworking the grant system as a form of barter, whereby the grantee barters time in exchange for funding above and beyond that which is supposedly made possible only through patents. If the IP system is accepted as a bargain, then this makes sense, does it not?

I don't know enough about the issue to know what the ramifications might be to your reasonable sounding proposal.

It makes sense on the face of it, but what would that do to research?

Then (and not to muddy the waters here but as an example) there's the issue of natural remedies which are KNOWN to work but for which no patent could possibly be secured since the remedy is OUT THERE in the public domain?

Since no money can be made from it the drug companies try to invent some man made formulation which may not work as well. At other times the drug companies just pass on creating a man made version at all.

And because of the VERY CLOSE relationship between the drug companies and the medical schools, the newly minted doctor knows NOTHING of any of the natural, inexpensive and perhaps very effective treatments or procedures for some ailment or another...all they know is what they were taught in school.

MAN MADE DRUGS.

There is nothing that I'm saying which should be construed as a total condemnation of Western medicine. It's just that there are some aspects of the profit motive that creates GAPS in what should be real comprehensive patient care by our medical industry.

I heard that cancer can be stopped by drinking chalk or something because cancer cells die in alkaline solutions and all a patient has to do is change the diet so that the body becomes alkaline.

Well, assuming that's true where do you see it in practice? No where. Because that treatment won't raise enough money for the doctor or the Drug rep to go on vacation.

Bahhh, humbug!

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mojo2

It makes sense on the face of it, but what would that do to research?

Ideally, not much. Some of it depends on how much research gets public funding these days, and how much of the funds going into that research is actually public. There's a lot of private funding going into research, so this proposal could not have the same

Then (and not to muddy the waters here but as an example) there's the issue of natural remedies which are KNOWN to work but for which no patent could possibly be secured since the remedy is OUT THERE in the public domain?

Since no money can be made from it the drug companies try to invent some man made formulation which may not work as well. At other times the drug companies just pass on creating a man made version at all.

Why is it that no money can be made from something which isn't patented? A lot of companies in the Wintel world are making a lot of money selling computers, and although some of the components in these computers still have active patents on them many do not; their patents expired long ago.

There is nothing that I'm saying which should be construed as a total condemnation of Western medicine. It's just that there are some aspects of the profit motive that creates GAPS in what should be real comprehensive patient care by our medical industry.

Western medicine is based on science. That has some repercussions, among them the fact that Western doctors require scientific proof that something works before they'll use it. Most of the natural solutions you mention were developed long before the advent of the modern scientific method, and so their benefits were never scientifically proven.

To use herbalism as an example, the effects of some herbs have since been backed up by science, and are used in a limited fashion by doctors. For example, though although it's not all that common to see digitalis (foxglove) used to treat heart patients, it does see some use. However, many if not most of herbalism's effects have not been proven, and indeed may not be provable. Chiropractic provides another example: there is scientific evidence for its benefits in the limited context of joint-related problems, but the underlying idea of spinal subluxations as a primary cause of disease are unproven.

Then, of course, there are disciplines such as homeopathy and traditional Chinese medicine, which don't actually seem to be scientifically provable at all. Some, such as traditional Chinese medicine, seem to be untestable, as they rely on factors that have so far eluded our ability to detect and measure. Other disciplines, like homeopathy, verge on being outright debunked, usually proving no better than a basic placebo.

I heard that cancer can be stopped by drinking chalk or something because cancer cells die in alkaline solutions and all a patient has to do is change the diet so that the body becomes alkaline.

I've heard of this before, though not as a cure for cancer. I've never heard about drinking chalk, though.

Well, assuming that's true where do you see it in practice? No where. Because that treatment won't raise enough money for the doctor or the Drug rep to go on vacation.

You have to admit, inducing radical changes to body chemistry sounds both dangerous and far-fetched. I don't doubt that the drug companies would fear such a simple cure for cancer, but humans have known about cancer for centuries. They've found records of cancer patients in ancient Egyptian tombs, well over a thousand years before the advent of the modern scientific method. The ancients would have had to rely on the sorts of natural remedies you espouse; nothing else was available to them. Would something like drinking chalk not have been tried, among the various roots and manipulations and ceremonies? Had it succeeded, would it not have been recorded?

Bahhh, humbug!

That said, it brings up a point. For doctors to work with some of these disciplines, one would have to introduce at least a small split between medicine and science. Is this something you're comfortable with? This isn't to say that modern Western medicine -or at least the way it is practiced today, if not the medicine itself- doesn't have its flaws. The growth of alternative-medicine movements rather proves that some need is not being met. But it does have one aspect that the other disciplines have thus far been unable to come up with: provability.