Canada might cut off US drug sales

[southsider2k5]

Sorry but this always kills me. We are talking about drugs made in the US, imported to Canada for cheaper than they will sell in the US, but they don't want American's to buy them.... They should just charge the Canadians what they do American's and see how long that vaunted health care system lasts.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/29/canada.drugs/index.html

[JUGGERNAUT]

He doesn't have a prayer of a chance of getting that passed up there. It's a multi-billion dollar a year industry now. Canadian's are benefiting greatly by using price fixing to in fact be the drug store of the world. We all should move to Canada & set up shop because there is no end to the demand right now.

 

The only thing that threaten's the relationship is the American supply. When was the last time any American company turned down a mega contract in an effort to uphold the integrity of their business sector? It's a joke. The supply will never be threatened. If one company pulls out another will take it's place.

[jackie hayes]

I think this makes sense for Canada, which is really the only thing the Canadian government should be considering. If the drug companies know that a large number of Americans (note the ban would only apply to "bulk" purchases) were getting drugs at Canadian prices, that would drive up the cost of drugs in Canada. (Not on old drugs, but that just delays the effect.) This might hurt sales of drugs to Canadians, but since the U.S. is the big market, that's a profitable tradeoff for the drug companies. But by making drugs more expensive to Canadians, U.S. bulk purchases could hurt Canadians' health.

 

At bottom, this emphasizes that the 'importing drugs from Canada' idea is just a very temporary band aid, at best. If you want to enjoy the benefits of a national health care system, you have to create a national health care system. Surprise, surprise.

[JUGGERNAUT]

You are making the assumption that the drug companies will act like a consortium & slow the supply to Canada. I don't think that will happen. Why?

Because there are Latin American companies just itching to get those contracts. There is simply too much competition for the bulk contracts. Canada's supply would not be threatened.

[jackie hayes]

You are making the assumption that the drug companies will act like a consortium & slow the supply to Canada.  I don't think that will happen. Why?

Because there are Latin American companies just itching to get those contracts.  There is simply too much competition for the bulk contracts.  Canada's supply would not be threatened.

Uh, no. They don't have to act like a 'consortium', they can act like producers with some monopoly power over the drugs they produce. Which is reasonable, because they are producers with some monopoly power over the drugs they produce. They have licensing rights and can set the price they want for their drug (within the laws, of course).

 

These "Latin American companies" cannot just make the same drug and bulk ship it to the US. (Maybe they can sell it locally, depending on patent enforcement. I know that happens in many countries. But that's irrelevant here.) I'm betting the drug companies won't be quite so live-and-let-live about patent violations. Maybe because it's their only major source of revenue. Just a theory.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Patent enforcement is definitely a key factor but if you look at where the local & federal governments are moving on this issue it's in the opposite direction.

Some in Congress are even debating whether this mega-corps should continue to retain their patents.

 

Patents came into existence to give inventors time to acquire the capital they needed to mass-produce their inventions. Otherwise the wealth barrons having a major advantange in that area would simply steal their inventions. But mega-corps don't resemble the inventor of yesteryear.

They are able to go into mass-production immediately & use the patents mainly to charge high prices. It's a good idea unless the wealth barron's themselves possess the patents.

[jackie hayes]

Patent enforcement is definitely a key factor but if you look at where the local & federal governments are moving on this issue it's in the opposite direction.

Some in Congress are even debating whether this mega-corps should continue to retain their patents.

 

Patents came into existence to give inventors time to acquire the capital they needed to mass-produce their inventions.  Otherwise the wealth barrons having a major advantange in that area would simply steal their inventions.  But mega-corps don't resemble the inventor of yesteryear.

They are able to go into mass-production immediately & use the patents mainly to charge high prices.  It's a good idea unless the wealth barron's themselves possess the patents.

Argh.

 

No. Patents for drugs exist b/c they allow the company to gather up monopoly profits for a limited amount of time (by, yes, charging high prices). Without that carrot at the end, there would be zero reason to do drug research -- otherwise, as soon as you produce a drug, everyone'll just grab the formula and drive profits very low. (Although drug companies DO overstate the amount of research and understate the amount of marketing, the research costs are still enormous.) Noone except perhaps a few hyperextreme dimwits in Congress would ever consider getting rid of drug patents. They do control the length of the patent, of course, and it has been adjusted in the past. But make patents too short and you'll kill off innovation, which is in noone's interest.

 

Btw, just for clarity, drug patents are much different than other sorts of patents. In particular, the length of the patent is tailor-made to fit the drug industry.

[JUGGERNAUT]

They do control the length of the patent, of course, and it has been adjusted in the past.  But make patents too short and you'll kill off innovation, which is in noone's interest.

 

Btw, just for clarity, drug patents are much different than other sorts of patents.  In particular, the length of the patent is tailor-made to fit the drug industry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Drug patents were never intended to feed monopolies but I agree that is pretty much what they do today. I've not heard anyone in Congress advocate doing away with them. But there are some pushing for shorter time lengths if the drug companies don't help out with rising drug costs.

[jackie hayes]

Patent enforcement is definitely a key factor but if you look at where the local & federal governments are moving on this issue it's in the opposite direction.

Some in Congress are even debating whether this mega-corps should continue to retain their patents.

 

Patents came into existence to give inventors time to acquire the capital they needed to mass-produce their inventions.  Otherwise the wealth barrons having a major advantange in that area would simply steal their inventions.  But mega-corps don't resemble the inventor of yesteryear.

They are able to go into mass-production immediately & use the patents mainly to charge high prices.  It's a good idea unless the wealth barron's themselves possess the patents.

 

Drug patents were never intended to feed monopolies but I agree that is pretty much what they do today.  I've not heard anyone in Congress advocate doing away with them.  But there are some pushing for shorter time lengths if the drug companies don't help out with rising drug costs.

Umm, okay. It's not much of a debate if everyone advocates the same position.

 

Yes, they are and always were intended to feed monopolies, and that's a good thing. (The first patent law in England was called the "Statute of Monopolies", thank you Wikipedia.) Innovation is difficult, noone'll do it without a prize at the end of the day. Patent laws were not created to allow someone to gather up capital. The first US patent law allowed for a 14 year patent. To get a patent, you must present a finished product. If it takes you 14 years to gather enough capital for yr fully mature widget, face it, it's not getting made.

 

I don't care if Congress plays w/ drug patent lengths, but they should not do it to 'punish' the companies. That won't change the pricing of other drugs, and it'll hurt customers when drug companies drop research drugs that may require more testing, or may not be profitable enough over the shorter time span to make it worth their while.

 

Okay, I'm done w/ this. Where you come up w/ yr particular view of the world, Jugg, I'll never know.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I read history books. Something you should try. Wikipedia does not give you the perspective of how patent laws came into being. Likewise your argument lacks a complete understanding of which companies in America were granted patents & how many of them were monopolies at the time. You really should try doing some in depth research before debating. Wikipedia does not quality for that. Try googling "the history of patents in America" if you are too lazy to read books.

 

History was not meant to be studied by looking up a term in Wikipedia. It was meant to be studied in depth. The word depth seems to escape most of your arguments. Try looking up "history of patents in America" & then come back & tell me how many of the patent holders were pre-existing monopolies. You'll see then your point of view is nonsensical.

 

As for your reading skills I will repeat it so maybe you'll understand it .. again.

The original intention of patents was so that the patent holder would have a protection against mass-producers for a fixed amount of time so that they could mass-produce their invention. They requires accumulation of capital & it does not occur overnight. He must secure investment funds to buy that capital & then he must work that capital so that it can mass-produce his invention.

 

Even if you don't want to study the history of America in depth you could both reading the transcripts from CSPAN on the issue to attempt to understand a point of view different than your own. More often than not the debate will entertain your mind with a historical perspective.

[jackie hayes]

I started to reply but you are just not worth the time. I merely say, this is complete and utter bulls***, and I do know something about patents in fact (they came up incidentally, in my main profession). And I encourage anyone who's interested to look into the history of patents. You know what sources are credible. It's not hard. Also look into Jugghead's post history -- that'll give you some idea of his credibility.

 

Jugghead, I just don't believe you're serious with any of this. Your posts are so often so completely wrong, so obviously wrong, your replies so vacuous yet still full of bile, that I truly believe that if Soxtalk has had one authentic troll, it's you.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Read & learn:

http://www.myoutbox.net/pohome.htm

 

I'm not going to engage in personal sparing since my political views clash with most of the mods & admins at this site. I don't care to risk being banned.

 

I would say though that if said persons have any integrity you should be temporarily banned for your blatant personal attack above.

[jackie hayes]

Priceless. Chapter 1 of this online book you link:

The human race progressed slowly, profiting by the useful inventions of individuals. The race is incapable of making inventions. Only individual humans can make inventions. Unless an individual can profit from making an invention, his incentive for working to perfect the invention is greatly reduced. Some inventions give their inventor a competitive advantage in his trade, usually provided that he does not reveal these inventions to his competitors. Such inventions are subject to being lost when the inventor dies, and humanity does not progress on their account.

 

The first hint of a solution to this problem appeared about 500 B.C. in the Greek colony of Sybaris, which became proverbial for its luxury. The Sybarites, who enjoyed living in luxury, made a law that if any confectioner or cook should invent any peculiar and excellent dish, no other artist was allowed to make this dish for one year. He who invented it was entitled to all the profit to be derived from the manufacture of it for that time. This was done in order that others might be induced to labor at excelling in such pursuits.

Gee, why does that sound familiar? Did your prodigious reading take you into the FIRST chapter?

 

And cut the bulls***. I had quite a bit to say after the s*** you threw at me before, that I then cut out. I only asked that people judge your posts themselves. Although I can understand why that would concern you.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Those that have reasonably good reading comprehension know I make pain-staking efforts to back up my arguments in my posts. Whether they agree or not they at least agree with the effort I put in.

 

No where in your highlight does it advocate that the purpose of a patent is to create a monopoly in the sense they exist today. In fact you will not find that claim any where in the book.

 

As for the general assertion that one should profit from one's invention I don't recall any post in which I disputed that. The issue was never about the importance of patents. The issue we are debating is the factors that come into play in determining the length of the patent.

 

By what you have written you believe that since their purpose is mainly to create monopolies then their length should be defined by what is best for the monopoly.

 

I disagree with that assertion. I believe the length should be defined by what is best for both competition & the inventor whether it be an individual or a company. Our anti-trust laws have acknowledged that the state has an avid interest in maintaining competition so the foundation is there for applying that concern to patent terms. Furthermore the state's interest in competition is relevant to economic stability of the nation. That includes any & all attempts to control inflation.

 

Common sense would tell you that if fed rates have such a dramatic impact on our economy then the state takes an active role in maintaining competition. Adjusting terms of patents would be no worse than fed rate adjustments.

Edited July 10, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[jackie hayes]

No, I don't believe that, and that's terrible logic. Look, if anyone cares (which I doubt), just read it for yourself and make up yr own mind. No offense to the op, it started fine, but the way it's gone made this thread suck, and I apologize to everyone for my part in the threadkill.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Your out of your league. You should stick to what you know. Design has/does occur in places where patents have never existed. Your statement that research would not exist w/out a reason to profit monetarily is as dumb as it comes.

 

History is packed with inventors who choose not to patent their inventions so as to progress society further. Shareware & freeware are perfect examples of this today.

 

Probably the most notable one is Benjamin Franklin. He had several inventions he essentially gave away. The most notable being the lightning rod. Without it skyscrapers would never have been possible.