I believe there are loopholes to extend patents by making minor changes not necessarily related to the active ingredient that extends said patent for the actual active ingredient such as changing the delivery method.
Taking down big pharma?
- Thread starter johnbryanpeters
- Start date
I believe there are loopholes to extend patents by making minor changes not necessarily related to the active ingredient that extends said patent for the actual active ingredient such as changing the delivery method.
You aren't wrong, but sometimes those changes enhance half life or delay breakdown of the drug (long acting insulin). Those are inherently better than the original product. Yes, you can grind up 10000 pigs and get insulin, but some of the newer stuff is better.
A how to
Patent protection strategies
It is widely recognized that the pharmaceutical industry faces serious financial challenges. Large numbers of blockbuster drugs are losing patent protection and going generic. The pipeline of new drugs is too sparse to fill the gap and generate a platform ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Wait, so the fact that most very large pharma companies spend more on R+D than sales and marketing (and some significantly more) is not a compelling argument that most R+D companies spend more on R+D than marketing? Excuse me but what the fuck?So there is some abiguity in what is classified as marketing costs. The numbers I was looking seemed to include generic expenses that may or may not be related to marketing. Using the numbers from your article we can say some pharmaceutical companies spend more, and on average almost as much on marketing as they do on R&D.
My statement still stands.
I have never heard anyone defend drug prices because those superbowl ads are really expensive.
My doctor should be telling me what drugs I need, not my TV. And my doctor should be prescribing me the right drugs based on data and not because he got an all expenses paid golf trip to Maui.
just for posterity ????
Feel free to gloat over the semantics over the actual value. But the reality is vast amounts of money are spent on direct to patient marketing and wining and dining doctors, which add little to no value to the patient and actually poses the risk of over or incorrectly prescribing based on a nifty jingle or and handjob on a golf course.
Drug companies do it because it drives sales in competitive markets. But perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to. It perhaps could lower drug costs and actually increase profits for the companies that actually make drugs that perform the best, which is how they should be selected.
When I worked at Merck the only employees that were regularly drug tested were the ones working in sales.
But you can't just have people using weed for pain when they could be taking opioids and getting addicted!
McKinsey's plan to pay pharmacies a rebate for each overdose by users of their product
How the fuck are you not going "Maintenance de routine, pas grave" already????
How the fuck are you not going "Maintenance de routine, pas grave" already????
Might be part of why purdue actually plead guilty
Purdue Pharma pleads guilty to federal criminal charges related to nation's opioid crisis
Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, pleaded guilty Tuesday to three federal criminal charges related to the company's role in creating the nation's opioid crisis.
www.cnn.com