karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Most of these groups are concerned with generic drug issue
Yes, that's it. Let's let people DIE so the CEO can afford his 2nd mistress and his new ferrari for his house on the Vineyard. So WHAT if they copy the drug? It's not like they are selling it in the US. Of course, in the US, you get ripped off, so the average american (42K/year), can't even afford the medicine they need to stay alive. "let them eat cake" cried Dubyah, "if they can't afford to pay, then they should die"
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Drug companies aren't as profitable as you seem to think they are. If pirating the drug potentially saves the lives of say, 500 people overseas, but the reduction in the drug companies finances means that drugs in the pipeline are cancelled, potentially killing 1,000 people who could have been helped, what is the right course of action? (And all numbers are potentials, since that drug in the pipeline could have been a waste of money, or the pirated drug could be contaminated due to low quality standards and hurt more than it helps, etc. etc.) |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by EPS  :Drug companies aren't as profitable as you seem to think they are. [...] Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha. And the moon is made of green cheese. George Bush is a scholar. And filtering/capping/throttling/banning users cures "piracy." Please do yourself a favor and wake up. |
|
Toguro
join:2003-10-23
Ottawa, IL
| reply to EPS
This is from one of many sites.
Pfizer Annual Revenue: $48.4 billion ($12.9 billion is profit).
»nymag.com/news/features/2007/profit/32900/
maybe if they pirate there drugs they will stop making so many herpes commercials. |
|
o2cool8
join:2002-04-19
Miami, FL
1 edit | reply to SilverSurfer
said by SilverSurfer :said by EPS :Drug companies aren't as profitable as you seem to think they are. [...] Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha. And the moon is made of green cheese. George Bush is a scholar. And filtering/capping/throttling/banning users cures "piracy." Please do yourself a favor and wake up. He has a point, although I wouldn't go on and say they aren't profitable. The reason they companies are profitable is because they have a 10 year window to sell their new drug before anyone can make a generic. When you buy a name brand, you are paying for the research and money put into making that drug, not just the cost of the ingredients. If they allow any company to copy a new drug, then companies would have no incentive to research for new drugs and nothing new will ever come out to the market again.
Edit: I would like to add that I do agree new drugs should be cheaper, however letting anyone copy a new drug is NOT the answer. Maybe allow the company to re-cope its initial investment into the drug plus 5% or 10% on top of that. Once that has been reached or 10 years(which ever comes first), then open the drug to generics. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
1 edit | reply to EPS
said by EPS :Drug companies aren't as profitable as you seem to think they are. That's not a very helpful way to think about it.
Item by item, it's a pretty big gamble. R&D costs are high, litigation risks are high, and payoffs are high. Some companies are small and only have a few items in development -- they've never made a dime. Some tiny companies have hit the lottery jackpot. Some large companies spread their risk and profit more slowly on a percentage basis. And, frankly, there's nothing wrong with this part of the pharmaceutical industry.
said by EPS :If pirating the drug potentially saves the lives of say, 500 people overseas, but the reduction in the drug companies finances means that drugs in the pipeline are cancelled, potentially killing 1,000 people who could have been helped, what is the right course of action? If those 500 people weren't going to get the drug by paying for it, then how does allowing them to die help anyone at all? How does manufacturing it and allowing them to live hurt anyone at all?
Don't get me wrong -- there is a problem here. Taking that formula from the US (where costs and risks are high) to some legitimate critical needs of the 3rd world may have zero immediate effect for that drug's market success or failure. That said -- within a year, legitimate buyers will start going to to the free sources, instead.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA
| reply to SilverSurfer
said by SilverSurfer :said by EPS :Drug companies aren't as profitable as you seem to think they are. [...] Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha. And the moon is made of green cheese. George Bush is a scholar. And filtering/capping/throttling/banning users cures "piracy." Please do yourself a favor and wake up. i hereby and solemnly declare +1 |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to EPS
It's not the 10year initial period that's the problem.
It's when they change the name add another side-effect and apply for another 10 year patent. Of course they just taking their cue's from content owners who are up to what? The life of the creator plus 90 years? IF you can't make a profit after 10 years you don't deserve to. |
|
