of course, but it doesn't appear this drug's patent have expired.
Developed cancer drug for 'western patients' who could afford, not 'for Indians': Bayer's CEO
- Thread starter halupridol
- Start date
gslv mk3
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 13,840
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
Vinod2070
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,552
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Those who are watching our pirated movies (and not implementing the Shariah law for stealing for that) are suddenly worried about patents and copyrights.
And of course they are too ignorant to know that no law has been violated in the first place.
And Indian generic medicine has saved millions of lives of their Ummah Muslims. For them, their pathetic self loathing comes first.
pursuit of happiness
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2014
- Messages
- 4,205
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
Nexavar medicine
Liver,cancer and kidney
Patentn in india
To Bayer in 2008
Cost
2.8 lakh for a pack of 120 tablets,
Action by india , How , Why, Reason, Is its legal ?
Action
Compulsory Licence is a patent system under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) where a government allows a company to manufacture a patented drug without the consent of the innovator company.
SO ITS LEGAL as per internlational trety.
India granted its first-ever CL, allowing Natco to sell a generic version of the cancer drug at 8,800 for a month's therapy,
Royalty to Bayer
6% royalty to Bayer on the total sales.
Cost
From 2.8 Laks to Rs.8800 for same dose
Why
· Inability of Bayer
IPAB pointed out that even after obtaining patent, Bayer had not made the drug available on a large scale and at an affordable price within the stipulated time.
· Public Interest first
Is it only against BAYER.?
No.
Indian Judiciary and administrtion also went on same line on
Pfizer Inc’s cancer drug Sutent, Roche Holding AG’s hepatitis C drug Pegasys and Merck & Co’s asthma treatment aerosol suspension formulation. Another case involving drug patents is now in front of the Supreme Court, with Novartis battling against an earlier decision refusing it a patent on cancer drug Glivec.
Conclusion
IF BAYER thinks India did wrong with them.please come to SC or any international court.
Patent is important and high cost of medicine refereed to high investment in R& D.
But what the use of having Doctor next door if he can save neighbor because he is SUPER specialty doctor with USA, UK practice certification.
Doctor ultimate objective is to save life.. same goes for medicine ..
Fiancial can be work out if it can able achieve that goal first.
Cipla could able to rake huge profits by selling HIV drugs in afirca at premium cost but they did not.
Pfzier -1849,Rosche-1896,Glaxo-1180,Bayer -1863, Merck -1891, Novartis – Ciba –Cigay -1859
Are all old pharma companies so they have advantage being started before indian and other world
counterpart as most of these from USA, UK, Swizland .
Indian organization except Cipla are trying to established themselves so it will take time to develop R& D and new molecule.
Liver,cancer and kidney
Patentn in india
To Bayer in 2008
Cost
2.8 lakh for a pack of 120 tablets,
Action by india , How , Why, Reason, Is its legal ?
Action
Compulsory Licence is a patent system under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) where a government allows a company to manufacture a patented drug without the consent of the innovator company.
SO ITS LEGAL as per internlational trety.
India granted its first-ever CL, allowing Natco to sell a generic version of the cancer drug at 8,800 for a month's therapy,
Royalty to Bayer
6% royalty to Bayer on the total sales.
Cost
From 2.8 Laks to Rs.8800 for same dose
Why
· Inability of Bayer
IPAB pointed out that even after obtaining patent, Bayer had not made the drug available on a large scale and at an affordable price within the stipulated time.
· Public Interest first
Is it only against BAYER.?
No.
Indian Judiciary and administrtion also went on same line on
Pfizer Inc’s cancer drug Sutent, Roche Holding AG’s hepatitis C drug Pegasys and Merck & Co’s asthma treatment aerosol suspension formulation. Another case involving drug patents is now in front of the Supreme Court, with Novartis battling against an earlier decision refusing it a patent on cancer drug Glivec.
Conclusion
IF BAYER thinks India did wrong with them.please come to SC or any international court.
Patent is important and high cost of medicine refereed to high investment in R& D.
But what the use of having Doctor next door if he can save neighbor because he is SUPER specialty doctor with USA, UK practice certification.
Doctor ultimate objective is to save life.. same goes for medicine ..
Fiancial can be work out if it can able achieve that goal first.
Cipla could able to rake huge profits by selling HIV drugs in afirca at premium cost but they did not.
Pfzier -1849,Rosche-1896,Glaxo-1180,Bayer -1863, Merck -1891, Novartis – Ciba –Cigay -1859
Are all old pharma companies so they have advantage being started before indian and other world
counterpart as most of these from USA, UK, Swizland .
Indian organization except Cipla are trying to established themselves so it will take time to develop R& D and new molecule.
CZAR
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2012
- Messages
- 398
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Heheh...ignorance, it appears in your case, is bliss.
http://www.elsevierbi.com/~/media/S...ptember/IPAB Order Bayer Natco Sept 2012.pdf
Check out the link. This is one of the orders passed by the IPAB at the interim stage, when Bayer had been seeking a stay on a Govt of India order allowing compulsory licence to Natco to manufacture generic version of Nexaware.
Scroll down to para 6 of the order. It clearly records concerns expressed by Bayer that the reasonably priced generics made by Natco were also being exported to Pak and China. It requires an abominable level of shamelessness to profit from an exercise and then to speak ill of the protagonists.
Meri billi, mujhi se meeoooowww?!
pursuit of happiness
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2014
- Messages
- 4,205
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
You have to only walk through your nearest Government hospital to get a glimpse into the state of the country’s health.
People spill out of doctors’ cabins into the corridors, sitting, even sleeping in the queue, waiting for a few minutes with a doctor. Families of patients sometimes camp for days right outside the hospital, with no money to rent a place to stay. This is the picture in your metros and it only gets more desperate as you move out of the city.
Despite its ills, though, the Government hospital continues to draw patients with modest means — not just for its fine doctors, but because a private facility is way too expensive.
Against this public health backdrop, the Government grapples with charting a course for foreign investment in the country’s Rs 1.2 lakh crore pharmaceuticals sector.
It is no easy task as the Government needs to balance the growth of the domestic industry with the health of its citizens, a large chunk of whom are barely able to eke out enough to support their families. And into this reality, comes the added task of enhancing local opportunities to attract foreign companies to park funds and do business in India.
There is a contentious, ongoing debate on the best path for the country to follow to achieve these objectives. A debate that started in 2010, when Government saw more than six drug companies sell out entirely or in part to foreign owners, in just five years. Questions emerged on whether such buyouts would strike at the heart of India’s health security. Would the combative nature of local, generic drug-makers gradually change to fall in line with foreign owners’ orientation towards bringing in more expensive, patented medicines?
Was it time the nation took a historic step to declare health a strategic sector to ensure that medicines don’t get priced out of the reach of ordinary people?
Generics rising
The local pharmaceutical landscape has changed, and dramatically. The Patents Act was amended in 2005, allowing innovators to get 20 years’ protection on inventive products. The spate of buyouts of local operations by foreign owners added a fresh complication.
While it is early days to take a call on their impact on the local consumer or industry, a recent parliamentary panel report takes a critical view.
In the last 12 years, the report says, 52 per cent of the FDI (foreign direct investment) in drugs and the pharmaceutical sector was for acquiring stakes in domestic pharma companies. And less than 3 per cent of the Rs 18,678 crore FDI in the sector, in the last three years, was for research and development, the report points out.
It was the global economic slowdown in 2008 that queered the battle-ground between innovators and generic drug-makers, as governments were forced to bow their heads to rising healthcare costs. Also rising up the popularity chart were the less expensive generic medicines, as governments began sourcing them for public health programmes.
According to the FDA, in 2010 alone, the use of FDA-approved generics saved $158 billion, an average of $3 billion every week, of US government expenditure on public health, the panel report observes. Naturally, innovator companies, bringing out expensive proprietary medicine, began seeing the wisdom of having a generic arm to make less expensive medicine.
The scene shifts right back to India. Daiichi Sankyo got its generic source in Ranbaxy through a $4.6 billion buy-out in 2008; Abbott has its generic unit from a $3.7 billion deal in 2010 when the erstwhile Piramal Healthcare sold its domestic medicines business; and Sanofi locked into vaccines-supplier Shantha Biotech for $783 million in 2009.
Finally, the Commerce Ministry red-flagged the issue and after much inter-ministerial discussion, the Government put foreign buyouts of existing domestic businesses under its watch, while fresh investments in greenfield operations were to continue through the automatic route.
Attempts are now on to fine-tune this process further, with investments in vaccine or cancer drug-making operations to come under greater scrutiny. Triggering this move is the concern whether local companies, bought out by a foreign player, will show the same commitment to supply drugs at a relatively low price. Or, will they be inclined to, for instance, contest a flimsy patent application of an innovator company?
Regulatory toolkit
The parliamentary panel report, citing available data, points out that there is no indication that medicine prices have increased after a local drug company was bought by a foreign company.
But crystal-ball gazing about the impact on the nation’s health may be too risky — hence, it is necessary for the Government to sharpen its regulatory tools and keep them on so as to maintain a grip on the prices of medicines.
If indeed the Government wants to demonstrate its commitment to the health of its people, it should start with dramatically increasing its spend on healthcare instead of passively nudging it up, bit by bit.
It needs to source medicines, even patented ones, and supply them free or subsidised to people who need them — the poor and the middle-class (the latter being a less fashionable cause to support!).
And then pump in the funds into public sector units, get companies to participate, share technology, co-fund research and ensure that medicines that emerge from there are for the local population. With this under its belt, the Government will be on solid ground to demand that drug companies bring in good medicines, at prices best suited for the local population.
The country has demonstrated its strength by disallowing patents on drugs that it feels do not show greater efficacy than existing medicines. The Government has also exercised its compulsory licensing tool by allowing a third party to make an innovative drug that it felt is not adequately supplied in the local market.
But despite this, there is a mass of people who cannot afford even the cheaper medicines, and a creamy layer who can afford the original, innovator price.
The Government needs to draw up innovative pricing models for the middle class, including life-long health insurance schemes along the lines of welfare schemes in developed nations — where the young pay to be taken care of, when they are older.
As for those who cannot afford it, the Government should simply provide the medicines free.
Open the door
Anxiety over serial buy-outs is not restricted to the Indian Government.
An article in The Economist (March 2010) on Britain’s buy-outs including the Jaguar Land Rover by Tata Motors and Cadbury by Kraft Foods, points out how the US, Japan and Germany have had anxious moments when a foreign buyer landed up at their doorsteps.
“A French prime minister even declared that Danone, a yogurt-maker, was in a strategic industry when an American rival came sniffing,” the article says, concluding that“education and skills, rather than protectionism, are still the best way to safeguard British jobs when foreign buyers come calling.”
The picture in India is a little different since it involves the health of a nation. The Government will have to take the responsible road to protect public health.
But while digging in deep as gatekeeper, it should not prevent fresh ideas and influences from coming in.
In regulating foreign buyouts and holding prices, the Government should be a responsible, not rigid, gatekeeper.
(This article was published in the Business Line print edition dated August 22, 2013)
People spill out of doctors’ cabins into the corridors, sitting, even sleeping in the queue, waiting for a few minutes with a doctor. Families of patients sometimes camp for days right outside the hospital, with no money to rent a place to stay. This is the picture in your metros and it only gets more desperate as you move out of the city.
Despite its ills, though, the Government hospital continues to draw patients with modest means — not just for its fine doctors, but because a private facility is way too expensive.
Against this public health backdrop, the Government grapples with charting a course for foreign investment in the country’s Rs 1.2 lakh crore pharmaceuticals sector.
It is no easy task as the Government needs to balance the growth of the domestic industry with the health of its citizens, a large chunk of whom are barely able to eke out enough to support their families. And into this reality, comes the added task of enhancing local opportunities to attract foreign companies to park funds and do business in India.
There is a contentious, ongoing debate on the best path for the country to follow to achieve these objectives. A debate that started in 2010, when Government saw more than six drug companies sell out entirely or in part to foreign owners, in just five years. Questions emerged on whether such buyouts would strike at the heart of India’s health security. Would the combative nature of local, generic drug-makers gradually change to fall in line with foreign owners’ orientation towards bringing in more expensive, patented medicines?
Was it time the nation took a historic step to declare health a strategic sector to ensure that medicines don’t get priced out of the reach of ordinary people?
Generics rising
The local pharmaceutical landscape has changed, and dramatically. The Patents Act was amended in 2005, allowing innovators to get 20 years’ protection on inventive products. The spate of buyouts of local operations by foreign owners added a fresh complication.
While it is early days to take a call on their impact on the local consumer or industry, a recent parliamentary panel report takes a critical view.
In the last 12 years, the report says, 52 per cent of the FDI (foreign direct investment) in drugs and the pharmaceutical sector was for acquiring stakes in domestic pharma companies. And less than 3 per cent of the Rs 18,678 crore FDI in the sector, in the last three years, was for research and development, the report points out.
It was the global economic slowdown in 2008 that queered the battle-ground between innovators and generic drug-makers, as governments were forced to bow their heads to rising healthcare costs. Also rising up the popularity chart were the less expensive generic medicines, as governments began sourcing them for public health programmes.
According to the FDA, in 2010 alone, the use of FDA-approved generics saved $158 billion, an average of $3 billion every week, of US government expenditure on public health, the panel report observes. Naturally, innovator companies, bringing out expensive proprietary medicine, began seeing the wisdom of having a generic arm to make less expensive medicine.
The scene shifts right back to India. Daiichi Sankyo got its generic source in Ranbaxy through a $4.6 billion buy-out in 2008; Abbott has its generic unit from a $3.7 billion deal in 2010 when the erstwhile Piramal Healthcare sold its domestic medicines business; and Sanofi locked into vaccines-supplier Shantha Biotech for $783 million in 2009.
Finally, the Commerce Ministry red-flagged the issue and after much inter-ministerial discussion, the Government put foreign buyouts of existing domestic businesses under its watch, while fresh investments in greenfield operations were to continue through the automatic route.
Attempts are now on to fine-tune this process further, with investments in vaccine or cancer drug-making operations to come under greater scrutiny. Triggering this move is the concern whether local companies, bought out by a foreign player, will show the same commitment to supply drugs at a relatively low price. Or, will they be inclined to, for instance, contest a flimsy patent application of an innovator company?
Regulatory toolkit
The parliamentary panel report, citing available data, points out that there is no indication that medicine prices have increased after a local drug company was bought by a foreign company.
But crystal-ball gazing about the impact on the nation’s health may be too risky — hence, it is necessary for the Government to sharpen its regulatory tools and keep them on so as to maintain a grip on the prices of medicines.
If indeed the Government wants to demonstrate its commitment to the health of its people, it should start with dramatically increasing its spend on healthcare instead of passively nudging it up, bit by bit.
It needs to source medicines, even patented ones, and supply them free or subsidised to people who need them — the poor and the middle-class (the latter being a less fashionable cause to support!).
And then pump in the funds into public sector units, get companies to participate, share technology, co-fund research and ensure that medicines that emerge from there are for the local population. With this under its belt, the Government will be on solid ground to demand that drug companies bring in good medicines, at prices best suited for the local population.
The country has demonstrated its strength by disallowing patents on drugs that it feels do not show greater efficacy than existing medicines. The Government has also exercised its compulsory licensing tool by allowing a third party to make an innovative drug that it felt is not adequately supplied in the local market.
But despite this, there is a mass of people who cannot afford even the cheaper medicines, and a creamy layer who can afford the original, innovator price.
The Government needs to draw up innovative pricing models for the middle class, including life-long health insurance schemes along the lines of welfare schemes in developed nations — where the young pay to be taken care of, when they are older.
As for those who cannot afford it, the Government should simply provide the medicines free.
Open the door
Anxiety over serial buy-outs is not restricted to the Indian Government.
An article in The Economist (March 2010) on Britain’s buy-outs including the Jaguar Land Rover by Tata Motors and Cadbury by Kraft Foods, points out how the US, Japan and Germany have had anxious moments when a foreign buyer landed up at their doorsteps.
“A French prime minister even declared that Danone, a yogurt-maker, was in a strategic industry when an American rival came sniffing,” the article says, concluding that“education and skills, rather than protectionism, are still the best way to safeguard British jobs when foreign buyers come calling.”
The picture in India is a little different since it involves the health of a nation. The Government will have to take the responsible road to protect public health.
But while digging in deep as gatekeeper, it should not prevent fresh ideas and influences from coming in.
In regulating foreign buyouts and holding prices, the Government should be a responsible, not rigid, gatekeeper.
(This article was published in the Business Line print edition dated August 22, 2013)
Missed this one: what irked me is that you allude to Zyklon-B and Nazis because Bayern's CEO couldn't keep his mouth shut.
The rest of my comment stands: patents should be respected because they drive innovation, while other means must be found to make drugs available to poorer countries (imho, India isn't the case necessarily , if you can afford nuclear subs, you can also afford to subsidize some drugs).
I won;t address the rest since you are just trying to undermine the amount of money & work involved in drug development, albeit the point of maximized profits is true, which is to be expected from a firm.
Guynextdoor2
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 12,286
- Reaction score
- -42
- Country
- Location
BLEED 'Em
And who told you we don't? India is emerging as one of the largest hubs of medical research.
And who told you we don't? India is emerging as one of the largest hubs of medical research.
List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...yeah...because having western firms operating in India has a lot to do with Indian research..
Nice way to debate..should I also start calling you names?
Guynextdoor2
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 12,286
- Reaction score
- -42
- Country
- Location
You came here to make this one post didn't you?
KingCobra
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2014
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Yes go ahead it will be fun...
Since I have 5 posts in this thread alone, I would say no
I'm not 12 to get in to d!ck measuring contests on the internet, just reported him and that's all
halupridol
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2013
- Messages
- 6,153
- Reaction score
- -32
- Country
- Location
well....talking like a true capitalist......
i dont know the technicalities,,,but saying india is a international criminal entity is rubbish,,,as if we r talking about nuclear weapons instead of life saving drugs.........yeah sure few guys wont be able to buy a yacht,,,,thats regrettable(no seriously if there is apatent violation it shud be sorted out)
this is where i totaly oppose greedy capitalist n fully support communist agenda.......
Similar threads
