Posted by Squiggles on July 27, 2007, at 11:36:07
In reply to Re: Should all drugs be generic?, posted by med_empowered on July 27, 2007, at 11:02:19
> the laws on the vary from country to country. In India, a patent is issued only for the process to get a certain molecule. So, for zyprexa, India only recognizes Eli Lilly's process to get the olanzapine molecule. Other companies have found other ways to get the same molecule, so they can market their versions of Olanzapine.
> There are some companies, like Teva, that seem to specialize in generics. There's lots of $$$ to be made, especially in the US, if they can get the first rights to a generic. Then they have 6months of being the only manufacturer of that generic product, which means: a)they can charge more and b)they can establish market dominance for a particular drug, especially if its got a somewhat limited market.
>
It is unfortunate that the FDA or other gov. agencies do not put a limit on competition
in medical products. I think marketing competition is healthy for most products because it allows countries to be productive and there is always a percentage of corruption that goes along with that, but the benefits to welfare and prospertity outweight that. In the case of medical products, and maybe even human parts, i think it can easily enter into a violation of human rights and even criminality.BTW, is there a restriction on patents for elements rather than molecules? I guess not if lithium was patented at one time-- or was it patented along with some other ingredients changing its legal status;
Squiggles
poster:Squiggles
thread:772306
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070719/msgs/772316.html