[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> anthrax[r][tm] digest [hagenlocher,byfield]

[Beatrice Beaubien <i2eye@mac.com>]

Hello Felix,

Comment ça va?

> >Curt Hagenlocher <curth@motek.com>
>>     IP in the Age of Anthrax
>
>>The Canadian government has ordered a million pills of Cipro
>>from a pharmaceutical manufacturer not licensed to produce it.
>[.....]
>>Already, some in the US (such as NY Senator Charles Schumer)
>>are looking to follow the Canadian example.
>
>Right now, the Canadian government is in full scale retreat on this issue.
>The whole affair has turned into a major political embarrassment. The
>opposition is accusing the Health Minister of breaking the law and is
>demanding criminal charges against him.  Bayer Inc., the patent holder,
>claims that it was never asked to supply Cipro which it supposedly has in
>stock in sufficient quantities.

I read the reports in the Star and Globe and Mail today with great interest.

>From my years in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry developing new drugs, and my familiarity with Canadian drug patent issues, a number of things occurred to me.

Patents are bestowed by governments to promote the welfare of their citizens in balance with corporate interests. I am not sure of the verbiage, but it is entirely possible that Canada is within its rights to impose federal edicts that circumvent commercial interests in the distribution of licensed drugs.

It is also entirely possible that Bayer and the Canadian Government may never see eye-to-eye, but this may not prevent Canada from legally acting unilaterally.

Bayer's right to distribute drugs in Canada is at the discretion of the government, as is Glaxo's right to distribute anti-AIDs drugs in South Africa. This is why, when the chips fall, pharmaceutical companies generally attempt to act within the modus operandi of the elected governments.

The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada (PMAC) work closely with Alan Rock's department. I am certain there is much back-pedaling going on in both camps this weekend, and that next week we will see either a resolution or an escalation of the differences.

Whatever the result, it will effect the relations between PMAC and Canada from this point on.

It is of note that Apotex was the provider.

>
>The whole affair is now being blamed on "junior employees" within the
>ministry [1] and Bayer is likely to be compensated (which means that gov
>has to pay twice, once to the maker of the generic drugs and once to
>Bayer.). Interestingly, the generic drug is only ~25% cheaper that the
>brand name [2].

Although this is still early days, likely the issue was one of amount, not of cost.

>
>All in all, it looks like the Canadian government is setting a bad
>precedence when it comes to suspending the patent law under conditions of
>emergency. Perhaps the fallout for the AIDS discussion is rather negative,
>but how strong the links between the cases really are is difficult to
>predict.

It depends on your perspective. In some ways it is exciting news, in others disturbing. Only events over the coming days will tell what the long term implications are.

Biti

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold