From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: AIDS drug by indian firm
Date: 6 Jan 1993 18:45:09 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu
Keywords: patent law, US, India

In article <1993Jan6.174610.20060@udel.edu>, chitoor@dwalin.cis.udel.edu (Srikrishnan R. Chitoor) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan6.004207.13870@ennews.eas.asu.edu> pinto@enuxva.eas.asu.edu (Kevin A. Pinto) writes:
|> 
|> Why ?

The early bird gets the worm, even if there were other birds who want the
worm.

|> >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).

That's a fallacious analogy. AT&T was in the position of having a PERMANENT
monopoly to the detriment of competition. It was broken up because that was
the only alternative to an absolute constrictive monopoly. AT&T's near-monopoly
status was more a function of the fact that they had been having a monopoly
on the market for GENERATIONS, not for 5-10 years like for drug-companies. 
 

|> >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.

B_W is being rewarded NOT for the efficiency of its product (with a temporary
monopoly), but for having ORIGINATED the idea in the first place. The Indian
Company is stealing the fruits of B-W's research unless it originated the
entire thing on its own from start to finish. The very least that they could
have done, if they had not originated the idea, is to try some kind of royalty
arrangement with B_W. But then, Indian companies have never been very hot on 
protection of intellectual property.

|> ... 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 ?

Good question. That's a question they will have to answer, or pay for it
with a loss of market-share when their patent runs out. They will probably
spend the leeway afforded by a temporary monopoly to answer that very question.

|> >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.

Yup, I am glad that you acknowledge that they are two different things, and
that the former should exist. That's one of India's problems. They don't
recognize product patents which is why B-W has virtually no legal recourse
in Indian courts and will have to resort to getting the Trade Representative 
to muscle the Indian Govt.

Now that you do indeed agree that the inventors deserve some reward for their
product, a temporary sole marketing right is seen as one way of letting them 
get their due. Maybe you have a better solution? And maybe you will also 
suggest alternative methods of providing incentives for companies to invent 
new products without some interloper coming in and making away with the fruits 
of their research?

|> -Krishna.

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------