http://www.blackenterprise.com/yb/ybopen.asp?section=ybbf&story_id=75124369&ID=blackenterprise

Your thoughts?

http://www.blackenterprise.com/yb/ybopen.asp?section=ybbf&story_id=75124369&ID=blackenterprise

Your thoughts?

it difficult to feel any sympathy towards the pharmaceutical companies

Amazing. :thumbsup:

I'm sorry Abbott won't be able to maximize its profits (from Kaletra), by selling its drugs at a premium to millions of poor suffering people in the third world...NOT!

I'm sorry Abbott won't be able to maximize its profits (from Kaletra), by selling its drugs at a premium to millions of poor suffering people in the third world...NOT!

Do you consider Brazil's actions altruistic? Or are they just trying to make a few 'reals'? Does Brazil intend to give these drugs away, or are they going to sell them at a profit? Why is it ok for Brazilian firms to make money, but not the one who developed it?

What about other copyrights? What if the U.S decided to steal Toyota's hybrid technology so that U.S automakers could produce it without paying royalties or development costs? Would you be OK with that?

Fundamentally, I dont believe much in copyrights and intellectual property. I dont believe in profit either though, so I recognize the need for the afformentioned things.

Im guessing Brazil wants to not lose half its population.

Comparing it to cars isn't the way to look at it.


Usually I hate people. All of them. Today I feel nice, so my opinion is : Go Brazil.

If some one came out with a cure for cancer (lets say) and you couldn't afford it, you'd be right pissed, now wouldn't you?....Why should they make a mint on something that could theoretically cut aids down to very minimal numbers?

This is one of those "greater good" scenario's..I guess they'll have to produce them and sell them at the same price....Ohnoes.

I don't think that this is, in principle, the same as seizing a cargo ship full of the drugs and stealing it. Whether you consider theft in this instance ok or not is up to your individual morals however.

Actually, Chinese companies make knock-off cars all the time.

And it would be next to impossibly to steal Toyota's hybrid technology, unless you had one of the designers.

They encrypted it and all that stuff to keep that from happening, and also to keep tuners from juicin up their priuses (prii?)

Actually, Chinese companies make knock-off cars all the time.

And it would be next to impossibly to steal Toyota's hybrid technology, unless you had one of the designers.

They encrypted it and all that stuff to keep that from happening, and also to keep tuners from juicin up their priuses (prii?)
I could copy that engine design exactly if I bought one of the cars and took it apart. . .American car companies have engineers too ya know. You can also 'juice up' a hybrid. . .there is an engine in there too, where all the fast stuff gets done.

Chinese companies knock off the look of a car, they don't exactly copy the engine down to the last screw.


In short, Brazil is stupid.

Comparing it to cars isn't the way to look at it.


Usually I hate people. All of them. Today I feel nice, so my opinion is : Go Brazil.

If some one came out with a cure for cancer (lets say) and you couldn't afford it, you'd be right pissed, now wouldn't you?....Why should they make a mint on something that could theoretically cut aids down to very minimal numbers?

This is one of those "greater good" scenario's..I guess they'll have to produce them and sell them at the same price....Ohnoes.


The guy who gets the cure for cancer will die soon..along with anybody he knows...mainly due it would bankrupt a country if they cured it. Basterds. I say we should use these minds fiannly to make something to "help", instead of something that will "help make more money". I hate money.
Go Brazil.

If the companies who make these drugs and hold the rights to them wouldnt object to helping people in need, this would'nt happen.
They have no right to complain about it in my opinion.

I support Brazil's act. It might make companies offer to help, out of fear for losing their monopoly. And even though it isnt out of the goodness of their heart, it's better than nothing.

If the companies refuse, Brazil should do it.

It's hard, but I would have to come down on the side of the companies in the end.

I don't think that this is, in principle, the same as seizing a cargo ship full of the drugs and stealing it. Whether you consider theft in this instance ok or not is up to your individual morals however.

I meant to type "I do think"

In short, Brazil is stupid.

What an amazingly compelling argument...if you're 8 years old. If Brazil takes your milk money, tell an adult.


I reckon this is a power play by the cats in Brasila. By threatening Big Pharm and winning minor concessions (read: cheaper drugs in the short term), they look swell and the corporations don't have to worry about losing money.

Of course, if they do go ahead and make generic drugs, the cost gets passed along to others. Seems like everyone and their mom is taking pills these days. From heartburn to allergies to limp wang to sweat, they got a pill and we want to take it.

Screw poor people, especially if they have AIDS. It's their fault anyway and if they're not rich enough to afford the drugs they shouldn't have gotten AIDS in the first place. Right? :uhhuh:

Bah. Good for Brazil.

If Brazil takes your milk money, tell an adult.I bet his dad could beat up your dad.

Garbad

maccool said what I was trying to.

See mac, you still got those serious posts in you, you should do it more often.

There are laws for a reason. And that reason certainly isn't that they are there to be broken arbitrarily. I think condoning Brazil's actions sets a dangerous precedent that you can break the law whenever you want if you get public opinion on your side, or if you deem it appropriate.

There are laws for a reason.
Unjust laws should be protested, by disobedience if necessary.

Well then we have a fundamental disagreement, because I think laws that allow people to retain control over their property are quite just.

If I didn't, would it be ok for me to rob you?

So if inventors don't get compensated for their discoveries, why will anyone do medical research?

Garbad

I'm sure the individuals will have been more than adiquately compensated, how ever selling "OMG THE ONE CURE FOR AIDS" and being able to have complete and utter control over the price is not something I'd embrace....

Like shotgun to the face to steal people's aids cure not embrace.

Well then we have a fundamental disagreement, because I think laws that allow people to retain control over their property are quite just.

If I didn't, would it be ok for me to rob you?
If a company somehow managed to get ownership of all the drinking water in the world, and then decided they were not going to sell it for any price, would you just sit back and say "Oh well, the law's the law, I guess I'm dead," or would you take it by force?

If a company somehow managed to get ownership of all the drinking water in the world, and then decided they were not going to sell it for any price, would you just sit back and say "Oh well, the law's the law, I guess I'm dead," or would you take it by force?


Hey!...now were going to a gun issue!..yaaaaay :)

If I have one..and he AJ doesn't...whose getting the water 1st...hmm. :lol:

Drug companies are evil.... They are already overcharging us for some craptastic pills over here in the US.

I have a relative who works for pfizer, he goes to work at 10 am and gets off at like 5 PM. And he gets like 2 hours of lunch break. Most of the workers go surfing during that time. Not to mention how much money he makes... BTW his wife works for the same company.

If the critics are saying that Brazil just wants the profits.... But isn't that still going to help the people? The Drug companies are just changing the subject without DOING anything.


BUSH DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE PRICE OF PILLS YOU #*%#*%Y#Y%)#^#)&#$&#)*%&@#%&@#&*@%&%&@#%*&#%&#%)&#%)#@%&#)%&)##%()#)&#@%*&)(#%

AH.... I feel alot better

I could copy that engine design exactly if I bought one of the cars and took it apart. . .American car companies have engineers too ya know. You can also 'juice up' a hybrid. . .there is an engine in there too, where all the fast stuff gets done.

I'm willing to bet that you could not copy the code for their electric engines. And the engine block in the Prius is the same as in the Toyota Echo, and no one hops those up. It would be pointless. Unless youre gonna boost that electric motor. Because electric engines get all their torque and power at idle, they dont have to rev up.

If a company somehow managed to get ownership of all the drinking water in the world, and then decided they were not going to sell it for any price, would you just sit back and say "Oh well, the law's the law, I guess I'm dead," or would you take it by force?

I'd probably just rig up a device to collect rain water. You're missing another option in your choices there at the end. What about the part where you go through legal means to achieve your goal?

Companies in the states purposely break patents and stuff all the time. There is a strategy to it. In this case, I am actually in favor of the ones infringing. When it involves someone's life, I'd much rather a company lose some money than a nation lose its people.

In this case, I am actually in favor of the ones infringing. When it involves someone's life, I'd much rather a company lose some money than a nation lose its people.


Amen, whats worth more? A piece of paper or a human life?

Drug companies are evil.... They are already overcharging us for some craptastic pills over here in the US.
If they're so 'craptastic' don't take them. Regardless of whether your relative is lazy and abusing the system (there are lazy people at every company by the way) it takes a great deal of expertise and work and risk to come up with a new medicine.



If the critics are saying that Brazil just wants the profits.... But isn't that still going to help the people? The Drug companies are just changing the subject without DOING anything. Who's going to spend millions designing the next effective drug if they know that Brazil is going to rip them off?




[/QUOTE]

If they're so 'craptastic' don't take them. Regardless of whether your relative is lazy and abusing the system (there are lazy people at every company by the way) it takes a great deal of expertise and work and risk to come up with a new medicine.

Who's going to spend millions designing the next effective drug if they know that Brazil is going to rip them off?






No, my dad takes the drugs.

No, my relative isn't "lazy". I proving the point that the drug companies just throwing money around when they can lower the bills for the elderly. Better medicare isn't going to help that.

Yes it is difficult and very expensive to come up with a new drug, but whats the use if no one can afford it? Isn't the purpose of drugs to cure people?

If a U.S. company's main goal is to milk as much money off a drug as they can and gets pissed off that brazil thinks these high prices are BS. And then decides to stop producing these drugs, no the whole world isn't going to stop spinning. Brazil is trying to save its people, other countries see that and will take over the research. Its for the greater good.

If it was as simple as Brazil is greedy then your absolutely right, but since its not like that case your wrong.

Who's going to spend millions designing the next effective drug if they know that Brazil is going to rip them off?

Who cares if no one can afford it? A drug you can't get is worth as much as a drug that doesn't exist.

Who's going to spend millions designing the next effective drug if they know that Brazil is going to rip them off?

Pfizer, Merck, Eli-Lily to name three. You misunderestimate the power of the marketing (not to mention the NIH funding). For every 'useful' pill, we seem to get 3 wang stimulants.

I, for one, welcome our new limp overlords.

Sell them as a package deal with viagra....That'll help...pfft.


If they were selling them at the drug store for 20 bucks sure, thats fine. If they want 2000 dollars a pill because "They're the only one there is"...

Who cares if no one can afford it? A drug you can't get is worth as much as a drug that doesn't exist.

Ah something we can all agree on.

Amen brother.

Eh... my last name is wang...really. Im chinese

I'm willing to bet that you could not copy the code for their electric engines. And the engine block in the Prius is the same as in the Toyota Echo, and no one hops those up. It would be pointless. Unless youre gonna boost that electric motor. Because electric engines get all their torque and power at idle, they dont have to rev up.
Sure you could, there are programs made just for reverse engineering code or just flat out reading it off the chip. Anything done on computers can be opened up and looked at.

The electric motor in hybrids aren't really that fast, you might as well buy a 500 hp electric motor from GM and stick those on your car. There is a reason no one races electric cars against gas engines. . .they aren't there yet in terms of speed, reliability and price.

Wow. The level of idiocy in this thread is astounding.

"I can't believe the greedy drug industry! They spend millions of dollars and several years out of their own lives to make a new miracle drug, and then they don't want to give it away for free????"

The drug wouldn't have existed but for them, and you spit on them for being "greedy".

Nothing more than bandits in self-righteous altruist clothing. "It's okay if I steal because it's for a good cause!" Go sell your computer and give the money to a family in Brazil so they can buy the drug, and then you won't be a hypocrite, thanks.

Get aids.

Not saying stealing is right, I'm saying that they shouldn't have free reign over it. If they go nuts with the prices, then go Brazil. If they are reasonable about it then I see no need.

I'm saying that they shouldn't have free reign over it.
They shouldn't have free reign over a product they invented? It wouldn't even exist except for them!

Not saying stealing is right, I'm saying that they shouldn't have free reign over it. If they go nuts with the prices, then go Brazil.
This is what is known as a contradiction.
"I'm not saying stealing is okay."
"If the price they are charging isn't what I want to see, stealing is okay!"

If they are reasonable about it then I see no need.
You don't get to decide what a "reasonable" price to charge is. You only get to decide what a reasonable price to pay is, and if you think the two aren't aligned, you don't buy it. It's that simple. You don't get to say "I have sole power to decide what companies should charge, and if they charge a price I don't like, I have the right to steal it from them."

Legality and reality are two different things.


Either way, people will get them. If they decide they are going to hold back something that could save a loved one's life, charge 100's of dollars for a pill a month or some such, then they are digging the hole for themselves

Not saying it is right to steal from them, saying that is what will enevitably happen if they take the overlord esque route of "I have all the cure, you do as I say"

...People who realize they will die from Aids may indeed be alot less patient, and alot more desperate ^^... *insert burning office building*

Legality and reality are two different things.


Either way, people will get them. If they decide they are going to hold back something that could save a loved one's life, charge 100's of dollars for a pill a month or some such, then they are digging the hole for themselves

Not saying it is right to steal from them, saying that is what will enevitably happen if they take the overlord esque route of "I have all the cure, you do as I say"

...People who realize they will die from Aids may indeed be alot less patient, and alot more desperate ^^... *insert burning office building*
So what you're saying is they need to hire more security to guard their gates? Fine. They can take whatever action they need to secure their own property. For myself, I won't be cheering for the looters.

Abbott caved in an are lowering the price of their Kaletra drug. The story is in today's Wall Street Journal. I'm not an online subscriber so I can't link to it, sorry.

Abbott caved in an are lowering the price of their Kaletra drug. The story is in today's Wall Street Journal. I'm not an online subscriber so I can't link to it, sorry.
Mighty nice of them, I must say.

"I can't believe the greedy drug industry! They spend millions of dollars and several years out of their own lives to make a new miracle drug, and then they don't want to give it away for free????"

The drug wouldn't have existed but for them, and you spit on them for being "greedy".

.

Of course its not going to be free! Ever notice how the price of drugs have sharply risen over the years? Like 24 pills dealing with allergies costs about 30 bucks. How crazy is that? The drug companies should make the price of drugs reasonable.

Developing drugs is a very expensive and time consumming process, in reality other drug companies may get scared of the fact that Brazil is going to steal their products. But isn't it the drug's company's fault over charging in the first place?

Abbott caved in an are lowering the price of their Kaletra drug. The story is in today's Wall Street Journal. I'm not an online subscriber so I can't link to it, sorry.

How much are they lowering it?

Of course its not going to be free! Ever notice how the price of drugs have sharply risen over the years? Like 24 pills dealing with allergies costs about 30 bucks. How crazy is that? The drug companies should make the price of drugs reasonable.

Developing drugs is a very expensive and time consumming process, in reality other drug companies may get scared of the fact that Brazil is going to steal their products. But isn't it the drug's company's fault over charging in the first place?
See my previous response about who gets to decide what is "reasonable" to charge.

So what you're saying is they need to hire more security to guard their gates? Fine. They can take whatever action they need to secure their own property. For myself, I won't be cheering for the looters.
Absolutist principles must be tempered with reason.

If you stick unwaveringly to absolutism, it is quite easy for any principle to arrive at a theoretical conclusion where you are willing to sacrifice the human race for the principle.

Again, I submit that, if you were in the position where you lived in a country where there are few jobs, and you have no money or education skills to get out of the situation, and have AIDS, you would be willing to steal the drug to survive. If you're not, then you're just a victim of your own absolutism.

If you stick unwaveringly to absolutism, it is quite easy for any principle to arrive at a theoretical conclusion where you are willing to sacrifice the human race for the principle.
I see the the degradation of private property as sacrificing the human race. When you take away the incentive for inventing new drugs, less drugs are invented, and more people die in the future.

Again, I submit that, if you were in the position where you lived in a country where there are few jobs, and you have no money or education skills to get out of the situation, and have AIDS, you would be willing to steal the drug to survive.
If I was tortured with red-hot pokers, I might admit that 2+2=5. That doesn't make it any more true due to the fact that I was under duress when I made the decision.

Absolute truth doesn't change because we make excuses.

I see the the degradation of private property as sacrificing the human race. When you take away the incentive for inventing new drugs, less drugs are invented, and more people die in the future.

What if there was a disease that would undeniably wipe out all of humanity, and a company had the cure but refused to let anyone have it? Would you advocate stealing it, or would you lay down and die?

What if there was a disease that would undeniably wipe out all of humanity, and a company had the cure but refused to let anyone have it? Would you advocate stealing it, or would you lay down and die?
If a company came up with the cure and didn't sell it, they might as well have not come up with it at all. I was going to die before there was a cure anyway, what's changed? If I steal it, I'm a hypocrite. Does that change the fact that it was wrong to steal it? No. If I attempt to steal it and I get shot dead on their property, fair play to them. They don't owe me anything.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4662877.stm

Brasil backed down. It appears it was simply a power play to drive down profits. It will be interesting to read the reactions to this.

Garbad

If a company came up with the cure and didn't sell it, they might as well have not come up with it at all. I was going to die before there was a cure anyway, what's changed? If I steal it, I'm a hypocrite. Does that change the fact that it was wrong to steal it? No. If I attempt to steal it and I get shot dead on their property, fair play to them. They don't owe me anything.
I guess what I am getting at here, and what I am trying to get you to just come out and say "Yes, that's what I mean" to, is that the millions of people in third world countries who have AIDS and who have no access to AIDS drugs short of stealing it (if that is even an option), should choose to die willingly rather than violate property laws, if those are the only two choices for them.

The millions of people in third world countries who have AIDS and should choose to die willingly rather than violate property laws.Unbelievable.

Even I am not that fantically probusiness.

Garbad

I guess what I am getting at here, and what I am trying to get you to just come out and say "Yes, that's what I mean" to, is that the millions of people in third world countries who have AIDS and who have no access to AIDS drugs short of stealing it (if that is even an option), should choose to die willingly rather than violate property laws, if those are the only two choices for them.
I'll try to avoid using words like "should" because they imply a specific goal. ("To reach goal A, you should do B"). As long as they are going to accept the consequences of the actions they take, I don't care what they do.

If the government of Brazil threatens to steal from us, we threaten to cut off all trade negotiations and aid of any kind. Then it's their choice. They can make the determination if stealing this particular drug is worth more to them than everything else they get from the US.

That's what it comes down to. Choice and consequence. If an individual wants to steal my TV, fine. If I shoot him in my living room when he attempts to do so, fine.

If it were me, I don't know what I would do. I'd like to say I wouldn't steal it, but I don't know if I could remain resolved. Anything I did, however, I would accept the consequences of. If I stole it, and tommorow I didn't get my food shipment because they withdrew their support, I'm not going to rant and rave about how unfair it all is.

Unbelievable.
Even I am not that fantically probusiness.

Perhaps you would be fit to read my post again.

The part you quoted is what I was asking SaroDarksBane if he essentially meant.

EDIT: SDB: I still feel like you are avoiding the question a little, but I'll take your answer. I don't disagree as much as it might seem (I'm actually more split), I justed wanted to make sure I understood your argument.

EDIT: SDB: I still feel like you are avoiding the question a little, but I'll take your answer. I don't disagree as much as it might seem (I'm actually more split), I justed wanted to make sure I understood your argument.
Well, to be fair, I AM avoiding it a little bit because it's a question I can't answer.

SHOULD they steal the drug, or SHOULD they die of aids.

Seems deceptively simple.

But if the first SHOULD implies the fact that a few million people die of starvation due to us cutting off aid, does that change the equation? Would you steal the drug to save yourself, knowing you might be killing other people indirectly? Bit harder.

If you want something in SHOULD form, here's the conclusion I'll make:

"If you want us to continue to help you and trade with you, you SHOULD not steal from us."

If you want a further SHOULD, I'll ask whether or not you agree to the above terms and consequences.

I have an idea.

Instead of subsidizing the research of drug companies and tolerating exorbidant prices, how about the US government (or even a coalition of governments) put a price cap on life-saving drugs, but then determine a way to subsidize the companies based on the number of patients saved by their drugs? That oughtta at least get the drug companies working in the right direction.

Just say no to government subsidies!

Still, at least with your system the reimbursement would be based on a measurable quantity, and you'd know it wasn't just burned up in a lab party somewhere. :D

Tech I think you're missing the point that there is a big difference between a person stealing to save their own life, and the government condoning it. Yes, I would imagine if any one of us were dying, and we could steal something to save our lives, we'd do it. But it's not reasonable to expect to get away scot free from punishment because you needed what you stole.

I got an even better idea. Two actually.

#1:The prices for drugs are so high because of marketing. Marketing. Marketing. Let me say it again. Marketing. Marketing is more than 50% the price of the pill. Use the money for something more useful. Let the doctors make the decision, don't air stupid commercials asking people to ask their doc for pill "X" for symptom "Y" that they may or may not have.

#2:I say make patents and copyright infringement expire within a very short time. Let's say a year. That way, the maker will have enough time to make some money, and they will be even more motivated to make new drugs. Each new drug will give you a short patent and once it's expired, you'll have to create something new or compete with the generic price of that drug. And after one year, anyone can make the product. This system will give much more incentive to create new things.

For example:

1.You create a new drug that does some incredible mumbo jumbo. You patent it and keep producing it until you drown in your money.

2.You create a new drug that does some incredible mumbo jumbo. You patent it and make a fat profit in one year. After that year, you can't sustain your high level of profit, so if you didn't make enough money to last you your whole lifetime (and selling your drug generically isn't enough profit), you've got an excellent motivation to come up with something new or look for a new job.

Marketing increases sales volume, which allows the price of the pill to come down.

Marketing increases sales volume, which allows the price of the pill to come down.
If they made a quality drug, then they wouldn't need so much advertisements to create the symptoms for it so they can sell it.

If they made a quality drug, then they wouldn't need so much advertisements to create the symptoms for it so they can sell it.

Virtually every company, even those who make quality goods, advertises their products.

Virtually every company, even those who make quality goods, advertises their products.
And that's the problem with today's society. Prices are too high because of things like spam and billboards and other crap we don't need. Some advertisements are needed, but it's too excessive nowadays.

If things weren't advertised, how would you know what was available?

It also costs quite a bit of money to get certain drugs certified and all that, in other words, there's a large investment put into each drug before it is released. Now you're going to let a generic brand undercut that? No one will make drugs at all. At least with the system we have now, people will get medicine. Getting rid of patents will be incredibly worse for those who are sick.

Marketing increases sales volume, which allows the price of the pill to come down.

Do me a favor and look up their 10-Q and explain to me how they can be making $5,382,679,000 in sales, spend $436,656,000 in R&D, yet still only have a $837,888,000 earnings. Care to take a guess where the bulk of the rest is going?

When a company is spending over a billion dollars on marketing, it's hard to make the claim it is driving prices down. Competition drives prices down, marketing drives sales up.

If things weren't advertised, how would you know what was available?

It also costs quite a bit of money to get certain drugs certified and all that, in other words, there's a large investment put into each drug before it is released. Now you're going to let a generic brand undercut that? No one will make drugs at all. At least with the system we have now, people will get medicine. Getting rid of patents will be incredibly worse for those who are sick.

Did you read what i wrote? Don't get rid of them entirely, but only have them valid for a short time. (Which is debatable, a year is just a ballpark). If the drug you make is so great, then it should make you enough money to certify the next drug you make.

Did you read what i wrote? Don't get rid of them entirely, but only have them valid for a short time. (Which is debatable, a year is just a ballpark). If the drug you make is so great, then it should make you enough money to certify the next drug you make.

There are limits on how long a drug patent lasts--which is why generics are available.

There are limits on how long a drug patent lasts--which is why generics are available.
Apparently, the patents are good for too long. Lately, half the drugs the drug companies produce require engineered symptons as well...

Do you sneeze once a day? Trouble concentrating? Sleepy in the morning? Sleepy at night? Unhappy? Breath air? We got a drug for you!! :clap:

They certainly do a good job convincing people they need to take their drugs.

The thread called me in a dream and told me to post this. (http://www.jibjab.com/cu_play_full.html)

I may be mistaken, but wouldn't the drug companies not advertise if the advertising didn't imporve their bottom line. I mean, they're in business to make money. no crime there. the only way to make money in the long term is to either find a way to add value to society, or leech off taxpayers. I guess they do a bit of both.

Apparently, the patents are good for too long. Lately, half the drugs the drug companies produce require engineered symptons as well...

Do you sneeze once a day? Trouble concentrating? Sleepy in the morning? Sleepy at night? Unhappy? Breath air? We got a drug for you!! :clap:


Why would a company invest in R&D if other companies are going to steal their research soon after? It takes something like 10 years for a particular drug to make it through all the R&D and testing and such. The patent lasts for a particular amount of time to allow the company to make its product and make its profit and in turn create more drugs to treat more diseases. Without the profit the product would be missing.

What is really ridiculous is why people buy Tylenol when Acetaminophen or whatever it is is SOOOOO much cheaper. It is the same damn thing for godssake.

Why would a company invest in R&D if other companies are going to steal their research soon after? It takes something like 10 years for a particular drug to make it through all the R&D and testing and such. The patent lasts for a particular amount of time to allow the company to make its product and make its profit and in turn create more drugs to treat more diseases. Without the profit the product would be missing.

What is really ridiculous is why people buy Tylenol when Acetaminophen or whatever it is is SOOOOO much cheaper. It is the same damn thing for godssake.

is that aspirin? I don't have any acid problems but i've heard if you've got reflux you gotta take tylennol or something else besides aspirin. That's too bad though, cause aspirin is really strong stuff. and it works on headaches and body aches. I'm a fan. Although I did hear once that if aspirin was a new drug it would never pass muster with the FDA. anyone with medical knowledge know if that's true?

Has anyone brought up the fact Brazil isn't trying to make a profit from these AIDS drugs?


I may be mistaken, but wouldn't the drug companies not advertise if the advertising didn't imporve their bottom line. I mean, they're in business to make money. no crime there. the only way to make money in the long term is to either find a way to add value to society, or leech off taxpayers. I guess they do a bit of both.

This is a bit different than saying it causes the price of the pill to go down. Marketing allows drug companies to sell more product, but by the sheer amount of money they waste on it, they have to sell their product at a larger price. Although this whole tangent seems irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Has anyone brought up the fact Brazil isn't trying to make a profit from these AIDS drugs?
And that matters why?

Go make copies of your *crowbar swings* CD and give them out for free. Blizzard won't mind because you're not making a profit!


Why would a company invest in R&D if other companies are going to steal their research soon after? It takes something like 10 years for a particular drug to make it through all the R&D and testing and such. The patent lasts for a particular amount of time to allow the company to make its product and make its profit and in turn create more drugs to treat more diseases. Without the profit the product would be missing.
Amen, man, Amen.

There are laws for a reason. And that reason certainly isn't that they are there to be broken arbitrarily. I think condoning Brazil's actions sets a dangerous precedent that you can break the law whenever you want if you get public opinion on your side, or if you deem it appropriate.


That is the beauty of being a goverment or a country, if you want to do something that the law doesn't allow, change the law!! Countries doesn't have any laws to follow, people, companies and such IN countries has to follow that countries law. If the Brazil goverment want to have its patent laws to allow making these drugs, they can make it, in whatever way they like. It might not be good, but they can do that.

What can be an issue though is that in the field of patents (which is the case here) and related things, there are usually international treaties between countries. Brazil might not be following these though (that has nothing to do with legality or not though). But on the other hand, countries decide to break such treaties now and then, including countries like many EU ones, US and so on. Alternatively they can decide to simply leave the treaty and not be part of it any more and so on. Might be good or bad, but then, it is not like Brazil is the only country ever to do so. Many rich and civilized countries do it and have done it in many areas, typically claiming they just want to protect themselves and their industry (typically at the expense of those of foreign countries).

I think rules should be broken arbitrarily. Society changes, people wisen up.