I don't believe most patent violators are doing that out of the kindness of their hearts. They steal a product, and then sell it for cheap to score cash. If a patent violator sold the med discussed in this thread for peanuts, I would agree with you. Judging case by case is my preference.
In cases where a distributor is already pricing their stuff reasonably breaking the patent would neither be economic nor meet the standards India is setting up for allowing this ignoring of patents, iirc. Indian stuff is not exactly black market. Don't buy from the actual black market, though.
if its not black market then that implies there is a legal remedy. I don't see how there can be a legal remedy against a company that is already breaking international laws and I use them anyway, but I don't claim to be an expert on this subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry_in_India#Patent Seems like they added a lot of patent recognition in 2005 ... Apparently they'll still be producing generica, but on a lesser scale. I just hope it won't lead to skyrocketing prices by profit-hungry monopolists, like, well ... this example.
Interestingly, with "black market drugs," you will find that while most are cheaper, some actually cost MORE. These are typically drugs who have abuse potentials due to "euphoric effects" or other such things and whose access are normally regulated by doctors and pharmacies.
It is an antiparasitic often used to treat those with HIV of CA. 9-18-2015 A drug treating a common parasite that attacks people with weakened immune systems increased in cost 5,000% to $750 per pill. At a time of heightened attention to the rising cost of prescription drugs, doctors who treat patients with AIDS and cancer are denouncing the new cost to treat a condition that can be life-threatening. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-complication-aids-cancer-daraprim/32563749/
The company is now being investigated for anti-trust violations: http://wtkr.com/2015/10/13/company-that-hiked-drug-price-5000-now-under-antitrust-probe/
Oh, my friend got back to me. She said that it does seem absurd at the surface (the price hike), but that there is a lot of information we don't really know (such as the terms of the purchase). She also said that the drug is allowed to be made by others generically (though the anti-trust case does suggest the company might be trying to prevent that), which makes the brand name price less of an issue than it would otherwise be. Lastly, she also wonders why people have no problem spending and paying high margins for iPhones, designer clothes and other such things, but scoff at paying high prices for things that actually matter like medicine. Note: She is not a suit, she is a scientist.
there was a thing that went around where someone matched with the ceo guy on tindr and asked him about it- iirc he viewed it as more of a milking of the insurance companies than the users (also something about fewer people using this medication) i tend to view it as a **** move, but i'd be surprised if it weren't blown out of proportion because it made a good headline
No? Her point is this, a life saving drug that EXTENDS life should be worth more to us than an iPhone, but based on people's reactions, it isn't. There are, of course, arguments to be made here, but it does speak to how our priorities are a bit messed up at times - look what we pay athletes vs what we pay teachers, for example.
But she has an absurd view on where the problem lies ... The problem is being willing to pay for a status symbol, not being unwilling to pay for something life saving. I agree that the priorities of people are completely messed up, but that's pretty much because most people are status-hungry morons.
But what about those that can't afford either? That's the real problem, not those that could afford overpriced medicine anyway.
I can't speak to this specific situation, but when I was unemployed, before Obamacare, I was able to get an "uninsured discount" when I went to the doctor. I was paying about the same as a normal insurance deductible.
Who picks up the tab then? Fact is that the medical company is making profit off someone's back. I don't like this with consumer items either - they make their money off the exploitation of workers, mostly. Not much empathy for the people buying them, wasteful and shallow persons they are.
Eh, but the insured patients hand off the bill to the insurance, which hands it off to those that have insurance but don't need it, creating a pseudo-tax that doesn't benefit the public. At least if IÄm not terribly mistaken about the system.