From: chitoor@dwalin.cis.udel.edu (Srikrishnan R. Chitoor)
Subject: Re: AIDS drug by indian firm
Followup-To: soc.culture.indian
Keywords: patent law, US, India
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:46:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.004207.13870@ennews.eas.asu.edu> pinto@enuxva.eas.asu.edu (Kevin A. Pinto) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.192508.6484@udel.edu>, chitoor@dwalin.cis.udel.edu (Srikrishnan R. Chitoor) writes:
>>    So X makes a whopping profit (after `recovering' its investment).
>> At the end of 17 years, we have Y facing a loss of a few million (billion?)
>> dollars and X facing a profit of a few m(b)illion dollars. Now X has an
>> unfair advantage (it can even buy scientists from Y). This naturally
>> leads to a monopoly system (the next time X and Y start researching on
>> some thing, X can pump in more resources than Y). So do u agree
>> that in the long run the US patent laws encourage monopoly ?
>
>1.	Can you give us a concrete example of this happening in the
>	past or the present?

I am not able to give you an example off-hand, but unless the US patent
law specifically prevents this (if it does not, it can very well
happen *legally* in the future even if it had not already happened), 
you have no argument.

>2.	The fact that company Y might have won the race does not alter the
>	fact that it did not.

Why ?

>Company X is entitled to whatever monopoly may result from its having
>carried out basic research, generated ideas and taken the risks necessary
>to produce its drug or product.

This is the point I am opposing.

>The reason why patent laws have an expiration date on the patent is that
>a patent _sometimes_ restricts research in a closely related field.  Patent
>laws protect the investment of the producer.  They are not meant to give the
>consumer the right to have a product cheap, even when that product is deemed
>essential.  Bear in mind that the product in question would not exist but for
>the efforts of the original inventor.
>
>Let's consider B_W and its AZT product patent.  B_W spent millions/billions
>of dollars (the amount is not important) to even come up with the idea that
>AZT might have an impact on AIDS (No, it's not obvious).  They would have
>experimented with several prototypes on animals and human beings, and to
>put it crudely, mixed several compositions of A, Z and T before coming up
>with that composition which made a difference in the treatment of the disease.
>(I hope nobody takes my usage of A, Z and T literally - on s.c.i, you can never
>tell! :-) ).

Okay. Just because B_W comes up with the idea that AZT has an effect on
AIDS, it need not be given the exclusive rights to market the
product. I have suggested a better system in my previous article
where monopoly is not resorted to. Ofcourse if you support monopoly
I have no arguments with you. I can just say that you believe in some
thing the US economic system does not believe (remember that AT*T 
was dismantled because it was tending to be a monopoly).

>And then our brave inventive Indian company would have obtained a sample of
>clinical AZT and analyzed it in some laboratory in Bombay for less than
>Rs. 10000. (Actually, even that isn't necessary; the drug composition can
>be obtained from any U.S. Patent Registry Site, such as the one in my univ).
>It would have then found some other way to mix A, Z and T and presto!  A
>new way to make AZT!  I don't wonder that the U.S. Trade Representative gets
>pissed off.

Well, why cannot B_W come up with a cheaper process. As Steve had
pointed out, Indian manufacturing process is cheaper.

>Plainly speaking, the Indian company has hijacked B_W's research for a song.
>To say that they developed a new way to produce AZT is a joke - any B.E. or
>B.S. in Chemical Engineering (like me) could devise a way to produce AZT.

Thanks for supporting me. If it is so easy, why is it that B_W could
not think of the cheaper way of manufacturing that Indian firm 
thought of ?

>A product patent makes sure that these "inventors" don't get away with what
>is not their due.

Agreed, that does not mean that one should resort to Monopoly. As I said
product patents should exist but should not be confused with process
patents.

>Kevin Pinto			agkap@acvax.inre.asu.edu

-Krishna.
Opinions are mine.