--- kate sisco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have seen figures that say 60% of "new drugs" are > existing drugs whose patent is about to expire and > become public domain. The companies tinker with the > formula in a small way and market a new drug, again > covered under patent rights. I am not familiar with > the ins and out of the current argument so perhaps I > should not comment rather than be exposed for an > uninformed layman, but doesn't this type of action > have the consequence of supressing new discoveries > that could lay in other areas than drug development? > > ks
Well, the issue here is that in this situation the old drug has gone off patent and gone generic. So if there's no therapeutic benefit for the new drug then it's a doctor's responsibility to prescribe the old one. Once a drug's patent has been filed, then the clock is ticking on its lifespan. That drug will go generic and nothing is going to stop that. So yes, lots of drug companies try this tactic, but unless the altered drug is therapeutically superior to the earlier one, it doesn't work very well at all. And isn't the purpose of the system to reward new, therapeutically superior drugs? ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
