Developed cancer drug for 'western patients' who could afford, not 'for Indians': Bayer's CEO

[IND151]

NEW DELHI: Global medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres slammed on Friday a statement by Bayer's chief executive that the giant German firm only developed its cancer drug Nexavar for people who could afford the medicine, not "for Indians".

India's controller general of patents angered Bayer in March 2012 when he authorized a local drugmaker to produce a generic copy of Nexavar, saying the German company charged a price that was too costly for most Indians.

"We did not develop this medicine (Nexavar) for Indians," Marijn Dekkers said at a little reported pharmaceutical forum last month, according to the January 21st edition of Businessweek.

"We developed it for western patients who can afford it," Dekkers said, and called the Indian regulator's action "essentially theft".

Bayer said the statements attributed to Dekkers were accurate and forwarded written comments made later by the German chief executive seeking to explain his remarks.

Dekkers said the comment had been a "quick response" at the industry forum to the Nexavar issue and added Bayer wants "all people to share the fruits of medical progress regardless of their origins or income".

But Dekkers added in the written comments he had been "particularly frustrated" by the Indian regulator's decision, which marked the first time a so-called compulsory licence of a patented drug had been awarded in India.

Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said on Friday that the Bayer chief's remarks summed up "everything that is wrong" with the multinational pharmaceutical industry.

"Bayer is effectively admitting the drugs they develop are deliberately going to be rationed to the wealthiest patients," Manica Balasegaram, executive director of MSF's Access Campaign, said.

The medical charity said big pharmaceutical companies believe "research and development (R&D) can only be rewarded by a patent and through high prices to recoup the R&D costs.

"Those who can't afford to pay are basically cut out of the system," Balasegaram said.

The Indian government gave local pharmaceutical house Natco Pharma a licence to produce a copy of Nexavar, used to treat liver and kidney cancer, at a 97% discount to the original selling price of the Bayer product in India.

Global drugmakers say India's powerhouse generics industry and strict patent filtering reduce commercial incentives to produce cutting-edge medicines.


Developed cancer drug for 'western patients' who could afford, not 'for Indians': Bayer's CEO - The Times of India

Right decision by GOI.

 

[janon]

It does not matter if Bayer lose any market share or not. If I have one million dollars, does it make it morally acceptable that you steal one dollar from me? That one dollar would not affect my lifestyle in the least.

But that is where you are making a false equivalence. Indian companies making generics does not equate to ''stealing'' even one cent from a millionaire. Nobody is taking anything away from Bayer. They can keep all the drugs they produce, or sell them to Europeans for whatever price they choose. Nobody is taking that freedom away from them. All we are doing is producing the same thing in India for a fraction of the price, and selling it to people who couldn't have bought from Bayer. How are we stealing anything?

In short - nobody is taking anything away from bayer. Not a single pill, not a single cent.

 

[drunken-monke]

It does not matter if Bayer lose any market share or not. If I have one million dollars, does it make it morally acceptable that you steal one dollar from me? That one dollar would not affect my lifestyle in the least.

Excellent example you have quoted... I support the innovation and contribution to the healthcare system by doing so. But does the comments made by Bayer CEO justify the whole Idea of Indians being treated of with prejudice??
As a American, whats is your perspective towards such healthcare system if health insurance taken out of equation??

 

[Audio]

But that is where you are making a false equivalence. Indian companies making generics does not equate to ''stealing'' even one cent from a millionaire. Nobody is taking anything away from Bayer. They can keep all the drugs they produce, or sell them to Europeans for whatever price they choose. Nobody is taking that freedom away from them. All we are doing is producing the same thing in India for a fraction of the price, and selling it to people who couldn't have bought from Bayer. How are we stealing anything?

In short - nobody is taking anything away from bayer. Not a single pill, not a single cent.

saying the German company charged a price that was too costly for most Indians.

Source: article in OP

Last year, the patent authority noted that Bayer's branded drug Nexavar sells for $5,181, or 284,428 rupees, for a month's supply.

India Rejects Bayer's Nexavar Plea - WSJ.com

If above is true, the drug was on sale in India. Contrary to your claims of it being exclusive to Europe.

 

[janon]

If above is true, the drug was on sale in India. Contrary to your claims of it being exclusive to Europe.

Notice the title of the thread? The CEO of Bayer says that they don't want to sell to Indians anyway.

 

[Audio]

Notice the title of the thread? The CEO of Bayer says that they don't want to sell to Indians anyway.

Doesn't matter. He said that in affect. I edited above post, with more proof that the drug was on sale in India. So, essentially, you're cute little attempt at portraying theft as a win win for everyone is invalid.

 

[janon]

Doesn't matter. He said that in affect. I edited above post, with more proof that the drug was on sale in India. So, essentially, you're cute little attempt at portraying theft as a win win for everyone is invalid.

Oh actually you omitted some parts of the article that doesn't support your 'theft' theory. The fact that the generic manufacturer will give 7 percent of the profits to Bayer. The fact that Bayer sells for 5200 dollars, and the generic sells for 160 dollars, and is expected to gain more profits than Bayer ever can at that price. So yes, it is a win-win. And it is not theft if we are making it ourselves, and sharing the profits with Bayer. Theft would be raiding Bayer's godown, and stealing their drugs and selling it. Not making it ourselves at reasonable prices, selling to people whom Bayer could never have sold to, and giving some part of the profits to Bayer.

 

[surya kiran]

Here is a little fact on why the support for compulsory licensing will slowly find more takers, especially in the developing world.

MSF (Doctors without Borders) relies on quality, affordable generic medicines made in India, often called the ‘pharmacy of the developing world’, to treat more than 80% of the 220,000 people in its HIV projects across 23 countries. Competition among generic manufacturers in India is what has brought HIV medicine prices down by nearly 99% since 2000, from US$10,000 per person per year to roughly $150 today.

Now can anybody debate against this?

 

[Audio]

Oh actually you omitted some parts of the article that doesn't support your 'theft' theory. The fact that the generic manufacturer will give 7 percent of the profits to Bayer. The fact that Bayer sells for 5200 dollars, and the generic sells for 160 dollars, and is expected to gain more profits than Bayer ever can at that price. So yes, it is a win-win. And it is not theft if we are making it ourselves, and sharing the profits with Bayer. Theft would be raiding Bayer's godown, and stealing their drugs and selling it. Not making it ourselves at reasonable prices, selling to people whom Bayer could never have sold to, and giving some part of the profits to Bayer.

lol i omitted nothing that is relevant. You have price for Indian market quoted, in the article it states the patent was issued in 2008.

Uh and, as for giving Bayer 7%, this is not their choice. They would much rather sell it on their own like they have been so far, proof of this is applying for the patent extension to keep selling it alone.
So, it's still theft but with Indian court sugarcoating on it in the form of 7%.

Now can anybody debate against this?

Yeah, i can. Go **** with a condom if it's a person you don't know.

 

[janon]

lol i omitted nothing that is relevant. You have price for Indian market quoted, in the article it states the patent was issued in 2008.

Uh and, as for giving Bayer 7%, this is not their choice. They would much rather sell it on their own like they have been so far, proof of this is applying for the patent extension to keep selling it alone.
So, it's still theft but with Indian court sugarcoating on it in the form of 7%.

.

If Bayer has been selling in India, and even filed a patent in India, then that only serves to further legitimize ruling of the court. Because Indian law, and indeed the law applies across WTO in all countries, says clearly that if the foreign company cannot manufacture the drug at affordable prices, then compulsory licensing can be issued to local manufacturers in public interest. They knew this law fully well when they applied for a patent and got it in 2008. It has been nearly six years, and they have not yet made the drug affordable to most Indians. They still sell it at several times the annual income of an average Indian. They made no effort to bring the price down in these years. They have no cause to cry now, because the law of the land allows for compulsory licensing in such cases. And that applies to any country in the world trade organization.

Compulsory licensing is the law in any country, if the OEM cannot make the drug affordable. If they have a problem with that, they should not have applied for a patent in India or sold it in India.

Yeah, i can. Go **** with a condom if it's a person you don't know.

Way to miss a point. What if it is not a sexually transmitted disease, like the one on topic?

 

[surya kiran]

Yeah, i can. Go **** with a condom if it's a person you don't know.

Aah yes. I hope you do know, that HIV also spreads through blood transfusion and from mother to child? But then, I guess I am expecting you to be knowledgable I also wonder, what will be told to the African countries which is where Doctors without Borders actually operates and uses the drug in numbers? But, then again...I am expecting too much of you.

But here is the bottom line. You dont want to play the rules in this country, you arewelcome to exit. Nobody is stopping you from moving out. Even after all this Bayer will continue to be in the country. Cry me a river

 

[Audio]

If Bayer has been selling in India, and even filed a patent in India, then that only serves to further legitimize ruling of the court. Because Indian law, and indeed the law applies across WTO in all countries, says clearly that if the foreign company cannot manufacture the drug at affordable prices, then compulsory licensing can be issued to local manufacturers in public interest. They knew this law fully well when they applied for a patent and got it in 2008. It has been nearly six years, and they have not yet made the drug affordable to most Indians. They still sell it at several times the annual income of an average Indian. They made no effort to bring the price down in these years. They have no cause to cry now, because the law of the land allows for compulsory licensing in such cases. And that applies to any country in the world trade organization.

Compulsory licensing is the law in any country, if the OEM cannot make the drug affordable. If they have a problem with that, they should not have applied for a patent in India or sold it in India.

Article 31
Other Use Without Authorization of the Right Holder

.........This requirement may be waived by a Member in the case of a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of public non-commercial use.........

Do tell how these requirements for compulsory licensing were fulfilled.

WTO | Intellectual property (TRIPS) - fact sheet - pharmaceuticals - 2

Way to miss a point. What if it is not a sexually transmitted disease, like the one on topic?

O ye, live healthier. Also have sex with condoms.

Aah yes. I hope you do know, that HIV also spreads through blood transfusion and from mother to child? But then, I guess I am expecting you to be knowledgable I also wonder, what will be told to the African countries which is where Doctors without Borders actually operates and uses the drug in numbers? But, then again...I am expecting too much of you.

But here is the bottom line. You dont want to play the rules in this country, you arewelcome to exit. Nobody is stopping you from moving out. Even after all this Bayer will continue to be in the country. Cry me a river

Yes, it seems i'm also expecting too much of you when i defend intellectual property. Anyways, gypsies you are and gypsy stuff you do. Should come as no surprise.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

WTO | intellectual property (TRIPS) - TRIPS and public health: Compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals and TRIPS

Do tell how these requirements for compulsory licensing were fulfilled.

WTO | Intellectual property (TRIPS) - fact sheet - pharmaceuticals - 2




O ye, live healthier. Also have sex with condoms.




Yes, it seems i'm also expecting too much of you when i defend intellectual property. Anyways, gypsies you are and gypsy stuff you do. Should come as no surprise.

WTO | intellectual property (TRIPS) - TRIPS and public health: Compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals and TRIPS
Does there have to be an emergency?

Not necessarily. This is a common misunderstanding. The TRIPS Agreement does not specifically list the reasons that might be used to justify compulsory licensing. However, the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health confirms that countries are free to determine the grounds for granting compulsory licences.

 

[janon]

Do tell how these requirements for compulsory licensing were fulfilled.

WTO | Intellectual property (TRIPS) - fact sheet - pharmaceuticals - 2




O ye, live healthier. Also have sex with condoms.




Yes, it seems i'm also expecting too much of you when i defend intellectual property. Anyways, gypsies you are and gypsy stuff you do. Should come as no surprise.

I don't know why I should respond to somebody who cannot engage in basic civil discourse, and hurl racial epithets in leu of proper arguments. For your info, the US and UK have also issued compulsory licensing before. Anyway, your selective quoting continues, so here is the full law -

The TRIPs Agreement and Pharmaceuticals: III. TECHNICAL ISSUES: 3.3 Compulsory license

A compulsory license is an authorization which is granted by the government without the permission of the patent holder. Most countries have provisions for compulsory licenses, either under their patent law or, as in the US, through anti-trust legislation. Under the TRIPs Agreement, countries have the right to issue such licenses. While the Agreement does not limit the grounds - or reasons - for granting compulsory licenses, countries can only use those grounds which are allowed by their national legislation. The development of appropriate national legislation is therefore crucial. TRIPs further states that the conditions under which a compulsory license is granted should be regulated in accordance with the TRIPs Agreement (Article 31).

Grounds

Countries have specified many different grounds for issuing compulsory licenses; these can include public health reasons. Other grounds are for instance emergency situations, epidemics, public non-commercial use, to remedy anti-competitive practices or to protect the environment; it is entirely up to the national law to decide which are the grounds, so there is a lot of flexibility. The German law, for example, simply states that compulsory licensing is allowed ‘for reasons of public interest’; a broad description that can be used in many situations. Under US law, compulsory licenses can be issued to remedy anti-competitive practices and for use by the Federal Government; both these grounds are used extensively for issuing such licenses.

Conditions

A compulsory license limits the rights of the patent holder, but does not take those rights away. TRIPs therefore specifies the conditions that need to be applied when countries want to grant a compulsory license. An important condition is that each case shall be considered individually. Also, in general, efforts should first be made to obtain a license from the patent holder (a so-called voluntary license), on reasonable terms. What is considered ‘reasonable’ depends on national (case) law.

The conditions mentioned in TRIPs merit careful reading, and it is important to select carefully the wording when translating TRIPs into national legislation:

• Remuneration for the patent holder shall take into account (not “be equal to” or “be based on”) the economic value of the authorization. So if the contribution of a patent is minor, as for instance in case of a formulation patent, the royalty rate can be lower. Under US national law, compensation is based on what the patent holder has lost. In case of a CL to provide drugs to a population who would otherwise not be able to afford those drugs, it could be argued that the patent holder lost nothing.

• In case of public non-commercial use or government use, TRIPs does not require countries to provide for the right of injunction, only for payment of compensation. Again, this is important for the actual implementation of a CL for public use. This is practiced in the US; the US Government cannot be sued for infringement of a patent, it can only be sued about the amount of compensation paid. Under US law, the same applies to contractors acting on behalf of the US Government.

• A decision to issue a CL must be subject to review, but this does not have to be a judicial review; TRIPs only requires that the review is independent, so countries may opt for an administrative review, which is less burdensome and much faster. It seems advisable for developing countries to provide for an administrative review only, to prevent patent holders from blocking the use of a CL by initiating time-consuming court procedures.

• A compulsory license shall be predominantly for the supply of the domestic market. A CL therefore would hardly interfere with practices of differential or tiered pricing. However, “predominantly” is not exclusively, so some export is still possible. Public interest groups advocate that export to a market where a CL has been issued, should be allowed; otherwise, countries with small markets, where local production is not viable, would not be able to use CL provisions effectively.

• If a CL is issued to remedy anticompetitive practices, many of the conditions do not apply, such as the requirement to first try to obtain a voluntary license. Also, the restriction on export no longer applies; this is important for the US, which frequently issues compulsory licenses to remedy such practices.

Main function

At times, the fact that few such licenses have been granted is used as an argument against the compulsory license system. While it is true that in some countries, e.g. UK, few compulsory licenses have been issued, other countries, such as the US, have granted a large number of compulsory licenses. But regardless of whether or not they are used frequently, provisions for compulsory licensing are needed, because they will encourage the patent owner to behave correctly. They give a sign to the patent owner that in the case of abuse of rights and/or non-availability of the product, a third party could be allowed to use the invention; this prevents malpractice and misuse of the monopoly rights. In fact, one of the most important aspects of a compulsory license system is its impact on the actual behavior of the patent owner, therefore it is a necessary element in any IPR law. However, to ensure the system can be used effectively, it is important to carefully state the grounds and conditions for its use in the national legislation; these should include its use for reasons related to public health.

 

[surya kiran]

Do tell how these requirements for compulsory licensing were fulfilled.

WTO | Intellectual property (TRIPS) - fact sheet - pharmaceuticals - 2




O ye, live healthier. Also have sex with condoms.




Yes, it seems i'm also expecting too much of you when i defend intellectual property. Anyways, gypsies you are and gypsy stuff you do. Should come as no surprise.

They were asked to produce the drug, they refused to produce. Cool? Dont know the case, dont show your 'knowledge'. And this is the last reply to you crybaby