Posted on 10/23/2005 1:37:24 AM PDT by gondramB
Taiwan has responded to bird flu fears by starting work on its own version of the anti-viral drug, Tamiflu, without waiting for the manufacturer's consent.
Taiwan officials said they had applied for the right to copy the drug - but the priority was to protect the public.
Tamiflu, made by Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche, cannot cure bird-flu but is widely seen as the best anti-viral drug to fight it, correspondents say.
Bird flu has killed at least 60 people in Asia since December 2003.
Scientists fear the lethal H5N1 strain of the virus could combine with human flu or mutate into a form that is easily transmissible between humans, triggering a flu pandemic.
Several countries have asked Roche for the right to make generic copies of Tamiflu.
Taiwan will produce six kg of its version of Tamiflu - enough, according to the government, to renew its stocks.
The government has said it will not market the drug commercially.
Sounds OK to me.....
---
Is copying CD's, books, computer software ok with you?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007444
'Political Virus'
WSJ Editorial
But if your neighbor borrows your lawn mower without paying for it, is it not stealing?
Like I said, I have no problem with them making the drug they need for the emergency that has not yet surfaced, but they should pay the fees for the use of the substance. Emergency or not, the fee is due and payable.
Paying for what they took is not an emergency, they can get around to paying for it at their own rate, as long as it is paid. If it is not paid, then it is theft, using the emergency to cover the deed.
If the drug saves millions of lives, do you want to short the company that invented it the R&D funds for the next drug you need to "borrow". Because if this becomes the standard, the next pandemic may be without a cure, because of greed.
Going further ... A Patent is intangible. It is not instrinsicly possessable. A Sovereign -- the King or the Government -- may grant multiple companies the rights to to manufacture an item, and with patents not only does the Government give (grant) the right, it gives an exclusive right to those companies -- the rest of us and our companies are excluded from manufacturing and/or selling and/or using the item that the patent covers.
Once it hold a patent, in our country, the company may grant others the right to manufacture, to sell, to use the item. It is possible, and if I understand correctly, that in Britain certain types patents are not so transferable -- only the grantee itself may produce or sell the item.
The item that the patent covers is not singular. There may be and always are many of it, many are made. When one person holds one of those items it does not preclude anyone else from having full possession of a item that is exactly the same. A person has a patented item, another person has an item covered by the same patent -- neither person's holding of that item affects the other. There is no theft, no borrowing, no lending.
The patent itself, a type of contract, is not intrinsicly exclusive. The sovereign may make grants to many grantees. If the sovereign does so there is no theft by those to whom it grants the right. This is the instant case, the case of the flu drug in Taiwan.
Going on ... The recipe, the method, the specifications for making what the patent covers is not possible to be exclusively held. That process or plan, in our country, is published and recorded publicly at the Patent Office. A manufacturer or inventor does NOT have to register an invention or novel process as a Patent. He and his company can keep it private as a Trade Secret.
Yet many inventors opt for giving away the secrets of their invention. Why? Because then, by means of the Patent the Government grants to them in return, they can have exclusive rights, protected by the forces the police and judicial powers of the Government.
Many inventions covered by such exclusive Patent would if not so covered, be re-invented independently by others or the design or recipe would be reverese engineered, copied, by others. It is the Government, at our expense raised by taxes, which gives any value whatsoever to such exclusive Patents.
In conclusion: A Patent is always and instrinsically property of the Government (the Sovereign). It is granted upon some contracted basis to a person or company. It is like a rented property, a rented apartment, a leased thousand acres used by a cattleman. It can be reclaimed by the Government at the whim or necessity of the Government. In good Governments, like we have, for the Government to do so by whim requires fair notice, some due process, and compensation. For a good Government to do so by necessity requires nothing. It is then Force Majeur, like an Act of God, a hurricane for example.
And here's another different example: I have a long extension ladder. Some neighbor comes and grabs it and uses it without my permission. Normally that's theft. In the case I'm thinking of it is not theft. Why? Because in this case his house is on fire and he needs the ladder to rescue his family. If it is damaged I would have some claim against him, though. In that liabilty for damages he, not being Sovereign, not to mention in some way more liable himself for the house fire than I would be, must pay for any damage to or replacement of my property taken from me be his necessity.
"Just exactly why do they deserve a bitch-slapping?"
two words, INFLATED PRICING
Clever, but not the same. Tamiflu is NOT a zero-sum game. Taiwan is not taking the drug from anyone, they're making more on an emergency basis. I've yet to see anyone in Zimbabwe make any new land.
After reading this thread I'm convinced there are FReepers who would refuse to offer emergency first aid to a victim if there wasn't some kind of payment for services rendered involved.
I think so....dayum, that's ice cold.
In this case they are manufacturing a drug without paying the licence fee. I am sure if they are honest they will pay the fees when the fee is settled, I would hate to think that theft is justified with the heading emergency.
Only problem is, by taking the drug before settling the fee, they tend to put themselves in a bad position when it comes time to settle the fee.
Kinda like taking a six pack of beer from the store saying I will settle up later, going fishing now. One tends to pay a higher price for empty bottles when it comes time to dicker over how much the beer was worth.
Successful drugs have to generate immense profits, in order for the company to be able to afford the enormous regulatory costs approving drugs, whether they are successful or not. Additionally, the regulatory process is so slow, ~7 years, that whatever profits they are able to generate must be done so in only 10 years, before the patent expires and knock-offs can be legally made by others. You are lashing out at the pharmaceutical firms, in retaliation for a problem that is caused by regulations. You anger would be better directed at the FDA.
Nope ....But then I don't need a CD , book or software to save or protect life so your little attempt at a jab is funny.
But then I don't need a CD , book or software to save or protect life so your little attempt at a jab is funny.
---
So, in order to 'save life' anything goes? Taking someone's organ? Demanding highly specialized surgeons perform a costly operation at gunpoint because you can't afford to pay them?
As difficult as it is, the rule of law must triumph over leftist 'collectivism' and 'confiscation'. If this is not done, health care will be destoryed, as that WSJ editorial illustrated.
After reading this thread I'm convinced there are FReepers who would refuse to offer emergency first aid to a victim if there wasn't some kind of payment for services rendered involved.
---
I don't see how that comment is relevant or why you would draw such a conclusion. It is sad to see that those who merely attempt to defend property have their intentions questioned.
Go bother someone else please....your spin on the matter is BS.
Your assumption is that more people will live if the government steals from the private company. This is your opinion, not a fact and I would argue it is actually the opposite of what would occur. Again, see the WSJ article I posted before.
You're questioning intentions by not believing that I and other likeminded freepers desire the same end result as you do; the best health care and most virus protection to the most people.
Its always best to debate on the merits of arguments, not intentions. One would think on a 'conservative' forum this wouldn't be too much to ask...
I'm not interested in reading your WSJ article. Sometimes property rights are trumped for self preservation. It's not communism, socialism or liberalism. It's common sense.
Drug Company Coverups Revealed! Why Big Pharma doesn't want you to be healthy
Google | Madison | Brian
Posted on 10/24/2005 4:42:28 AM EDT by lollimama003
I just completed this fantastic new "prescription thriller" novel, called "Carmen Piper and the Protest". It was released earlier this year after the Vioxx scandal. I wonder if a person could be sued for the claims made in this book, names are actually named! It's mystery suspense fiction, but it centers around fact-based events surrounding the Food and Drug Administration's financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies. I don't wanna give any spoilers, but you can expect to find a few surprises about Big Pharma.
This book is very intelligent, full of cliffhangers, really fresh and witty, and very entertaining and informative. It sheds light on a lot of facts that not everyone is aware of concerning drug companies. I love conspiracy theories, and learning about the ins and outs of what's going on around me. If nothing else, it will definitely open your eyes about what you put into your body.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1508052/posts
But, one thing to consider as far as legalities, Patent rights are granted via our Consititution.
To protect intellectual property internationall an organization has been set up called WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). One files their international patents via the PCT. This works because member states join and agree to the framework.
As far as Taiwan, take a look at the WIPO member states here
You'll note Taiwan is not on that list. Nor is a fake named used for Taiwan, like Chinese Taipei etc...
Taiwan is banned from this organization as far as I know and the US has not stood up to get Taiwan in. This is of course all at the behest of the Chinese communists.
Taiwan is banned or has to join in limited "non-nation" status in all sorts of these international organizations. Taiwan generally abides by the agreements despite not being allowed entry.
In this case, Taiwan does abide by WIPO, but legally, Taiwan doesn't have to. A US country technically and legally can't complain if Taiwan were to do this.
Just another example of stupid China policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.