Drug-Makers Paying Off Competitors To Keep Cheap Generics Off Market

[dixiegrrrrl]

Just found this article over at TPM... do not read if you have high blood pressure.

" In a nutshell, the company that holds the patent on a profitable drug strikes a deal with the maker of the cheaper generic brand: you hold off on marketing your generic for several years, and in return, we'll give you a share of our profits on the drug.

The vehicle for these deals is patent litigation. When a generic drug is approved to come to market, the maker of the more expensive name-brand drug sues the generic for patent infringement. But instead of a conventional settlement, in which the generic pays the patent-holder to settle the claim that it infringed the patent, the payment goes the other way: the patent-holder pays the maker of the generic, in exchange for a pledge to delay bringing the generic to market. That suggests the patent-holder fears its patent wouldn't hold up in court, as many don't. And it runs counter to the intent of the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, which sought to speed the path of generics to market, and to provide a legal framework for these cases.

So common have these deals become lately that they've been given a name: pay-for-delay. "

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/drug-makers_paying_off_competitors_to_keep_cheap_g.php?ref=fpblg

[azul]

1. Health care for profit. This has been going on for years.

This is what you get when share holders are demanding high returns, "innovations" and healthiness of corporations comes before the health of real people, "bottom line".

Some one or thing has messed with our constitution (14th amendment), and it needs fixing.

[KansDem]

2. Thanks for the warning! I made sure I took my Atenolol this morning...

I wonder why this isn't considered the making of a monopoly? Or at least a cartel?

[Fire1]

3. Son of a bitch! n/t

[Thickasabrick]

4. Why is this legal? Someone needs to make it illegal. nt.

[drm604]

5. Gotta love the statement from PhRMA

Patent settlements between brand-name and generics companies can resolve expensive patent disputes to help foster innovation and improve access to medicines so that patients can live healthier, more productive lives.

Law and public policy have always favored settlements, including patent settlements. PhRMA continues to believe that legislation that would impose a blanket ban on certain types of patent settlements or otherwise prevent them could decrease the value of patents and reduce incentives for future innovation of new medicines. This is also unnecessary because the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and others already have the authority to review and evaluate any patent settlement agreement between a brand name company and a generic company. The courts and enforcement agencies like the FTC are in the best position to review these settlements on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they are not harmful to competition. By imposing a general ban or imposing harsh disincentives, pending legislation would effectively remove the decision-making process from this appropriate venue.

They're basically saying "We like (profit from) the way the Justice Department has been handling it, so let's just leave it that way. Screw the consumer".

[JoeyT]

6. +1

There are few things more rage inducing than having someone that understands the entire system of drug patents and markets explain it to you.

[HughMoran]

7. Smash

[Deja Q]

8. I have an idea!

Let's ALL go to the drug companies and say we can make cheap generics.

Dayum, we'd all be rich for doing nothing!

For that is the American Way! :D