SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Andrew Pollack reports at the NYT that a federal judge has blocked an attempt by the drug company Actavis to halt sales of an older form of its Alzheimer’s disease drug Namenda in favor of a newer version with a longer patent life after New York’s attorney general filed an antitrust lawsuit accusing the drug company of forcing patients to switch to the newer version of the widely used medicine to hinder competition from generic manufacturers. “Today’s decision prevents Actavis from pursuing its scheme to block competition and maintain its high drug prices,” says Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general. “Our lawsuit against Actavis sends a clear message: Drug companies cannot illegally prioritize profits over patients.” The case involves a practice called product hopping where brand name manufacturers (“product hoppers”) make a slight alteration to their prescription drug (PDF) and engage in marketing efforts to shift consumers from the old version to the new to insulate the drug company from generic competition for several years. For its part Actavis argued that an injunction would be “unprecedented and extraordinary” and would cause the company “great financial harm, including unnecessary manufacturing and marketing costs.” Namenda has been a big seller. In the last fiscal year, the drug generated $1.5 billion in sales. The drug costs about $300 a month.
(Score: 1) by schad on Monday December 15 2014, @04:17AM
I'm not a fan of community service, either. As an alternative to a fine or jail time or probation or any number of other possible punishments, sure. But there is a difference, to me, between the government (or anyone else) telling me I cannot do something, and being told that I must do something. I think the bar for justifying the latter is, or at least ought to be, quite a bit higher.
One interesting thing the government could've done would be to grant the patent to somebody else. Just for the last six months, of course, but it might still screw up the launch of the new drug. I'm definitely a fan of the "use it or lose it" approach to patents: if you don't want to take advantage of your government-granted monopoly, then the government should feel free to revoke said monopoly early. Though we would need to be careful to ensure that small inventors don't get locked out of producing or selling their inventions specifically so that the patent will be revoked.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday December 15 2014, @05:08AM
Revoking the patent wouldn't help in this case though. It appears several companies already have a plan underweigh to start selling in June. They probably can't make it happen much sooner at this point, patent or no patent.
I can understand discomfort with community service, but it is worth considering that in theory (practically never enforced), a corporate charter is supposed to be permitted only when it is in the public interest in the first place. On top of that boon, they also have made a bajillion bucks due to their patent (another boon). Surely it's not too much to ask that they at least pretend to compete fairly.