Gov't threatens to ignore Bayer's patent on Cipro

Post #14,918 by bluke 10/24/01 7:26:37 AM Reply	Gov't threatens to ignore Bayer's patent on Cipro The US gov't has threatened to ignore or void the patent on Cipro. Can the gov't do this legally? How? [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42255-2001Oct23.html\|U.S. Seeks Price Cut From Cipro Maker] "said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has called on Thompson to ignore Bayer's patents and ask other firms to supply generic Cipro."
Post #14,920 by bluke 10/24/01 7:37:34 AM Reply	To answer my own question ... It seems that it is legal based on 28 U.S.C. 1498. Here is one view about this: [link\|http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/malkin.htm\|Mr. Schumer's proposal is theft, pure and simple] I agree with this, it sets a terrible precedent, once the government does this once, it will do it again.
Post #14,944 by JayMehaffey 10/24/01 11:07:21 AM Reply	Don't have any sympathy Personally I'm amazed that people think this is a radical proposal. Nobody thinks is radical when the government uses "eminent domain" to take land, the same principle applies to any other property also. Intellectual property isn't nearly as fundamental as your right to land. As long as the government arranges to pay a fair price then the government can force you to sell. I also don't have a lot of sympathy for drug companies. They are another prime abuser of intellectual property for the sake of high profit margins. Cipro cost $4 per pill commercially, Bayer wants to charge the US government $1.83 per pill, Canada is paying $1.30 and the generic manufacturer offered them for $.99. These numbers suggest that at $1.83 Bayer is making at lest $1.00 profit per pill and probably close to $1.50. Moreover, notice how Bayer told Canada that it couldn't supply as much as Canada wanted. Right up until Canada put in the contract with the generic manufacturer, then suddenly Bayer had more to sell. Jay
Post #14,969 by ben_tilly 10/24/01 1:11:45 PM Reply	I think this govt action is wrong though Cipro is not the only drug approved for anthrax. It is the only one whose approval specifically mentioned inhalation anthrax or terrorism, but penicillin and doxycycline are both widely available, approved for anthrax, and have been effective in past outbreaks. Why then has Cipro gotten so much publicity? Well governments preparing for biological warfare have bred anthrax strains that are resistant to penicillin and dyxycycline. Cipro was a new drug that would handle anthrax which there weren't resistant strains to. However the current outbreak is from a strain which is not believed to be resistant to the existing drugs, and besides which if the terrorists have the resources to breed resistant strains then it is as easy to develop Cipro resistance as anything else. So we have generic drugs available that meet the need as well as Cipro. Publicity notwithstanding, the government should go with those before selectively rewriting the rules. Cheers, Ben

Welcome to IWETHEY!