From: chitoor@dori.cis.udel.edu (Srikrishnan R. Chitoor)
Subject: Re: AIDS drug by indian firm
Followup-To: sic.culture.indian
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:46:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.184653.25567@news2.cis.umn.edu> crick@tsp.med.umn.edu (Ed Crick (CD)) writes:
>
>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

Okay. We are going to discuss the economic effects of this on India.

>
>>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?

Are we assuming that US patent laws are RIGHT ? Does not that kind of
patent law encourage Monopoly and inefficiency (even if someone else
finds a more efficient way to produce AZT, isn't it true that it cannot
me made use of commercially ?).

>>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.

What is wrong with trying to establish a market for drug  or is it that
you support monopoly. You might be trying to show the
anti-US sentiment in the article, but then agree to that (don't say that
you are discussing the economic impact on India or some crap).

>
>>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?

Agreed. AZT may not save lives, but it does have a lot of market and there
is nothing wrong in India trying to claim a market share for the drug.
You are just trying to divert the attention from the US patent laws
by claiming that AZT is next to useless. US is indeed a greedy landowner
(I am not saying that anything is wrong or right with that), infact
US's whole economic system is based on that isn't it ?

>>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
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If AZT is next to useless (you say that AZT does not save lives) why the
heck is the market increasing ? Whom are you trying to kid, pal ? and even
if it is so, what is wrong with trying to grab a share of ever-increasing
market ? Aren't you trying to rationalize US's monopoly by usage
of some unfair patent law ? Doesn't the patent law contradict US's
own economic system of free competetion ?

>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?

So all through this article you have been concentrating on bashing the
tone of the article without even discussiong about the effects of the news
on Indian economy. Guess you got carried away when you saw the `US and
its imperialist allies' sentence. As regards to the point you raised,
I think, the Indian patent law which goevrns just the process and not the
product is much more progressive than the US patent laws and thus
India should be allowed to export the replicated drug IF the process
is found to be different.
   Under the US patent law I might even be able to patent a cow and
anyone anywhere in the world who owns a cow should pay me for using
his cow :-).
   After all, the US which likes to boast that it `loves' competetion
should not have any problems coming up with a better manufacturing
process isn't it ?

>
>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.

I have seen only cowards using such kind of logic, like `Anyone
who opposes my idea is a _______' (fill up the underlines with any
abuse you can think of). 

-Krishna.
Opinions are mine.