From: crick@tsp.med.umn.edu (Ed Crick (CD))
Subject: Re: AIDS drug by indian firm
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:46:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.172015.25591@cs.umb.edu> skaveti@ra.cs.umb.edu (Savita Kaveti) writes:
>
>Source  : The NY Transfer News Service 
>Date    : Dec 24, 1992
>Country : India
>

OK SCI Guardians, you want to discuss something with tremendous economic
repercussions?  Notwithstanding the decidedly anti-American prejudice of
Mr. Thadani's article as previously noted by Srinivas Sunder, let's discuss
how this affects India's world trade, and relations with the US etc.
Those of you who may reply, try to avoid that tired motif of accusing me of
India-bashing.  If I get offended I'll ask Aayush Asthana to report you to
your system administrators

>                              * * * *
>* Indian company produces cheaper AZT
>By Shishir Thadani
>
>An Indian drug company recently announced it could produce the 
>AIDS-treatment drug AZT and market it at one-quarter the cost 
>charged to patients in the U.S. But Burroughs-Wellcome, which 
>produces and sells AZT in the U.S., has moved to prevent 
>pharmacies around the world from purchasing the Indian drug.
>Burroughs-Wellcome has threatened the Indian company with a 
>patent-violation lawsuit. But Indian patent laws are different 
>from those in the U.S. Drugs cannot be patented in India; only 
>the chemical processes used to manufacture drugs can be patented.
>The drug is already being produced and many Third World countries
>have expressed interest in purchasing it. Some are considering 
>setting up local manufacturing plants with the Indian company's 
>assistance.

So Indian patent laws are different, and this AZT can be produced and
marketed in India under gov't protection.  But what happens when it is
exported to countries that are covered by patent laws similar to those in the
US, Europe and Japan?  Does it then become an infringement on B-W's patent?

>As a goodwill gesture, the Indian government has sent subsidized 
>shipments of the drug to other Third World countries. Public 
>health officials in Brazil, Thailand and some East African 
>countries are following this development with great interest.

A goodwill gesture or a stab to establish a market for the drug?  More likely
the latter because when the recipients of this goodwill allow any contracts
with Burroughs-Wellcome to expire, the Indian gov't would be ready to charge
for the shipments, and recover the early "investment" costs.

>But the U.S. government and its imperialist allies in Europe and 
				 ^^^^^^^^^^^
Hell, why don't we just bomb the dammed factory, assassinate the scientists
and get it over with.

>Japan are bringing tremendous pressure on the Indian government 
>Washington's tight patent laws in particular retard technological
>development and competition and hurt consumers. This is 

This elicits the ongoing argument of whether US patent laws protect the 
inventors or hinder the competition.  It's odd that this argument often arises
as it applies to AIDS drugs, and seldomly for things like food dehydrators.
Mainly because AIDS is a sensationalized disease, with the media pouring
attention on every alleged discovery and projecting it as a "breakthrough."
And there is tremendous potential for a firm to make money.

>If the U.S. government succeeds in its effort to stymie Indian 
>production of the drug, it would drastically increase the death 
>rate because very few Indians are able to purchase drugs at the 
>monopoly prices charged by the imperialist drug cartels.

This in an incredible ballyhooing of one man's opinion, and an uneducated one
at that.  AZT does not cure AIDS and prevent death, even the question of
prolonging the life of a patient is dubious, as AZT-resistant strains of HIV
develop in some of the patients on AZT.  So the point about increasing the
death rate is a thinly veiled attempt to paint the US as the greedy landowner
who would allow the peasants to die, and India as the hero who champions
their cause.  Who portrays India, Amitabh?

>importing drugs from Third World countries. Shouldn't people with
>AIDS in the U.S. also be permitted to benefit from technological 
>developments taking place in India or any other Third World 
>country?
>                             * E N D *

Is this really a technological development or just a means to grab a share of
an ever-increasing market?  If the benevolent tone of this article is true
then is India also using different processes to produce drugs for unpopular
diseases, and thereby allow prevent the suffering of other pitiable masses?

So let's cut the bleeding-heart nonsense of comforting the afflicted, that's
Mother Theresa's job.  Does a US company have the right to protect its 
product from a foreign manufacturer's replication, or does India have the
right to export (domestic use is almost irrelevant) a replicated product
and seize the profits thereof?

Ed

BTW, for those of you who wish to flaunt your knowledge by referring to the
confusion as to whether or not NIH should share the AZT patent: Save it, such
tripe is irrelevant and serves only to to boost your own ego and impress the
woman/man reading over your shoulder.