[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> the drug of monopoly

["Steven W" <steven.cw@home.com>]

It occurs to me that Bayer shareholders shouldn't pass under the radar as
possible suspects in the anthrax mailings.  At least it should be an open
question whether prospective terrorists have recently invested in Bayer?

sincerely, Steven Whittaker

----- Original Message -----
From: "McKenzie Wark" <mckenziewark@hotmail.com>
To: <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 6:42 AM
Subject: <nettime> the drug of monopoly


> Index to This Fabulous World / 25th October 2001
>
> M is for Monopoly
> McKenzie Wark
>
> Drug companies profit by misfortune. Your disease and
> suffering is their cash and carry. But as recent events make all to
> clear, the drug business is really just a part of the intellectual
> property business -- a post-capitalist business with peculiar laws
> of its own.
>
> The only drug approved in the United States for 'inhalation
> Anthrax', the most dangerous form, is Cipro, made by Bayer
> AG. Other drugs, penicillin and doxycycline, are known to be
> effective against Anthrax, but nobody knows whether the
> designers of 'weapons grade' Anthrax have bred strains
> resistant to these longstanding cures. That leaves Bayer with a
> cosy monopoly in the new bio-war economy.
>
> It is unlikely that Bayer could produce enough Cipro in event
> that -- heaven forefend -- there was a major Anthrax attack.
> But Americans will not be getting ready access to the generic
> substitute, ciprofloxacin, any time soon. Bayer's $93,000 in soft
> money contributions to the Republic Party in 2000 has paid off,
> bigtime. Secertary for Heath Tommy Thompson may have
> bargained down the price the government will pay for Cipro to
> less than $1 per tablet, but unlike the Canadian government, the
> United States would not seriously consider breaking Bayer's
> monopoly by setting aside its patent rights.
>
> Given that the drug industry as a whole gave the Republicans
> $10.3 million, and the Democrats $5.6 million in 2000 alone,
> patent rights clearly have more friends in Washington than
> patient rights. Despite its manifest inadequacies in meeting the
> crisis, privatised intellectual property is too sacrosanct to touch.
> The remedy Thompson and Bayer offer is neither cheap, nor
> efficient; it is not enterprising and is a hell of a long way from
> 'free'. A product that can be easily made by many laboratories
> for which there is ready demand ends up overpriced and under
> supplied.
>
> The Anthrax by post threat has been good news for Bayer.
> Bayer's share price languished below $25 before the Cipro boom,
> and was up around $31 even after news broke of the $1 price
> deal. Even if Washington obliges Bayer to lower its price, it
> keeps its monopoly, and will probably do better on the price issue
> with governments with less leverage.
>
> Monopolies in intellectual property are very artificial things,
> held together by a host of legal fictions and backed by the
> authority of the state. By way of illustration, consider the day-
> trippers to Mexico, who stock up on generic ciprofloxacin,
> which can be readily bought over the counter in Mexican
> pharmacies for a fraction of the price of Bayer-brand Cipro.
> Given the quantities some Americans are buying down there, it
> seems likely there is already a black market flourishing back in
> America. A perverse result.
>
> The drug companies claim that their state-sponsored patent
> monopolies are necessary for them to recoup the development
> costs of inventing and marketing new drugs. They argue that it
> is in the public interest for them to do so. Where is the public
> interest in the unnecessary suffering and death that results from
> monopoly? The drug industry was forced to retreat on the issue
> of AIDS drugs for the developing world, when some developing
> world governments announced their intention to buy cheap
> generic substitutes. The revelation of the staggering gap
> between the price of the brand name drugs and the generics let
> the whole world on just what a high price we all pay for
> intellectual property monopolies. Patent is clearly not an
> instrument functioning as it was intended, as a balance between
> private incentive and public interest. But then this is no longert
> an economy based on workers who make and sell things; its an
> economy based on corporations owning information and
> defending it with lawyers.
>
> NOTES
> Greg Winter, 'Anthrax Drug a Top Seller in Mexico', New York
> Times, 20th October 2001; Elisabeth Bumiller, 'Public Health or
> Public Relations', 21st October 2001; Keith Bradsher With
> Edmund L. Andrews, 'U.S. Says Bayer Will Cut Cost of Its
> Anthrax Drug', New York Times, 24th October 2001.
> http://www.nytimes.com
>
> INDEX TO THIS FABULOUS WORLD
>
http://www.fineartforum.org/Backissues/Vol_15/faf_v15_n09/text/feature.html
>
> See also: A HACKER MANIFESTO 2.0
> http://www.feelergauge.net/projects/hackermanifesto/version_2.0/
>
>
> ___________________________________________________
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> #  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net

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