Developed cancer drug for 'western patients' who could afford, not 'for Indians': Bayer's CEO

[Butchcassidy]

Because it's not possible to make a generic version of petrol.

Could u plz name 5 life saving drugs that came out of R and D done in India?
U should know that these companies are in the business of making money and have to fund their own R and D. It cost hundreds of million dollars to bring a drug into the market. Why should they not be entitled to make profit?

 

[kbd-raaf]

Could u plz name 5 life saving drugs that came out of R and D done in India?
U should know that these companies are in the business of making money and have to fund their own R and D. It cost hundreds of million dollars to bring a drug into the market. Why should they not be entitled to make profit?

I suggest you go back to page 1 and start again This has all been covered.

 

[Butchcassidy]

I suggest you go back to page 1 and start again This has all been covered.

Yes bro i went over the theead, would u point out what i missed?

 

[gambit]

He didn't say that Bayer profiting would cost Indian lives.

There are three groups of people this will affect

a) People who could never afford the original drug
b) People who could afford the original drug but will not buy the generics
c) Bayer's shareholders

The availability of the Natco drugs for a) is not affecting Bayers bottom line.

Most people who could afford the original drug (people with Western Insurance companies) will not come to India to get the generic version of the drug. (Westerners are only paying ~$100 after insurance and Indians will pay ~$170 for the generics)

So all in all @gambit explain to me, how is this affecting Bayer shareholders too much. Don't you think the benefits (potentially saving many lives) is worth the cost (a tiny reduction in potential profit, if at all)?

You are treading into dangerous grounds when you starts asking this kind of questions. Whether I give %1 or %10 of my salary to charity is my business -- PRIVATE business. Same for corporations. Whether they chose X amount of profit over Y amount of profit is their PRIVATE business. Did you know that Amazon, despite its high stock value and revenue, have not posted a profit? Amazon chose to invest its revenue into expansion, new technologies, new products, and improved customer service, over profits. That is Amazon's PRIVATE business.

Shareholders provide seed money. It is their money, not Indians', that for however you like it, that must come first. So when it takes billions and years to develop a product, profits are divided into investments of newer products, newer technologies, manufacturing, and yes -- repaying the shareholder's risk taking. You talk as if profits every quarter are rained from the ceiling at every shareholders meeting. I do not care if the shareholder is a German billionaire using his pocket change of millions or an American plumber whose 401k is being used to invest. Like it or not, Bayer's shareholders contains idle rich millionaires and laboring plumbers. If there is a profit, I want both to be reimbursed BEFORE any humanitarian issues are raised.

We'll see about that, a lot of govt.s have also started enforcing compulsory licensing in their nations. Bayer and co. would have to not enter those markets too.

You guys ragged on the Chinese for being copycats and thieves. Now...???

 

[Butchcassidy]

You are treading into dangerous grounds when you starts asking this kind of questions. Whether I give %1 or %10 of my salary to charity is my business -- PRIVATE business. Same for corporations. Whether they chose X amount of profit over Y amount of profit is their PRIVATE business. Did you know that Amazon, despite its high stock value and revenue, have not posted a profit? Amazon chose to invest its revenue into expansion, new technologies, new products, and improved customer service, over profits. That is Amazon's PRIVATE business.

Shareholders provide seed money. It is their money, not Indians', that for however you like it, that must come first. So when it takes billions and years to develop a product, profits are divided into investments of newer products, newer technologies, manufacturing, and yes -- repaying the shareholder's risk taking. You talk as if profits every quarter are rained from the ceiling at every shareholders meeting. I do not care if the shareholder is a German billionaire using his pocket change of millions or an American plumber whose 401k is being used to invest. Like it or not, Bayer's shareholders contains idle rich millionaires and laboring plumbers. If there is a profit, I want both to be reimbursed BEFORE any humanitarian issues are raised.


You guys ragged on the Chinese for being copycats and thieves. Now...???

Their motto is if cant make it, steal it. If Indian government cares so much about lives why does it not invest money in RandD for a change. They have made zero contribution in the field of medicine but want to reap the benefits.

 

[kbd-raaf]

You are treading into dangerous grounds when you starts asking this kind of questions. Whether I give %1 or %10 of my salary to charity is my business -- PRIVATE business. Same for corporations. Whether they chose X amount of profit over Y amount of profit is their PRIVATE business. Did you know that Amazon, despite its high stock value and revenue, have not posted a profit? Amazon chose to invest its revenue into expansion, new technologies, new products, and improved customer service, over profits. That is Amazon's PRIVATE business.

Shareholders provide seed money. It is their money, not Indians', that for however you like it, that must come first. So when it takes billions and years to develop a product, profits are divided into investments of newer products, newer technologies, manufacturing, and yes -- repaying the shareholder's risk taking. You talk as if profits every quarter are rained from the ceiling at every shareholders meeting. I do not care if the shareholder is a German billionaire using his pocket change of millions or an American plumber whose 401k is being used to invest. Like it or not, Bayer's shareholders contains idle rich millionaires and laboring plumbers. If there is a profit, I want both to be reimbursed BEFORE any humanitarian issues are raised.


You guys ragged on the Chinese for being copycats and thieves. Now...???

What the Chinese are doing/did is illegal copying. What the GoI has done is completely legal. Every news website I go to has Americans praising the GoI's move (yes, not very scientific) That being said, I'm a believer of the meritocracy, i.e a fan of both of the Chinese and American systems.

For this case, both sides have very valid arguments, you can't deny that. The GoI is just following it's interests and that of the Indian people, it is not required to promote the profit margins of a foreign multi national. I would be decrying the GoI's moves if it wasn't legally covered by the WTO.

Let me repeat, the GoI isn't breaking any patent laws, it simply isn't doing what is in Bayer's interests but in India's and by extension 1/6th of humanity. How can anybody cry foul over that?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your Amazon analogy. But yeah, Bayer is free to continue their private business in India and the GoI is free to use all available tools to promote the upliftment of it's people as long as it is legal.

Bayer is free to take the GoI to the International Courts if it likes.

Their motto is if cant make it, steal it. If Indian government cares so much about lives why does it not invest money in RandD for a change. They have made zero contribution in the field of medicine but want to reap the benefits.

steal
stēl/
verb

1. 1.
   take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

The above is the definition of steal, please tell me how the GoI has stolen anything.

 

[Kloitra]

You guys ragged on the Chinese for being copycats and thieves. Now...???

You very well know you are comparing life saving drugs with petty consumer products. An illegal and morally wrong act with a legal, life saving act which has multiple but not so publicised precedents globally.

It was 'dangerous grounds' that the Indian govt treaded on. IP rights vs lives of hundreds or thousands or more people. And it set a dangerous precedent. Was it worth it?

India never was, as the CEO mentioned, an intended costumer. And the company's Indian arm proved so, or so the govt got convinced. Bayer could not prove that it treated Indian people as customers, or expected any sales. And it was reflected well by its stock and sales in India.

They made a questionable decision of placing importance over the lives of citizens than IP rights and profits of a Pharma company. Is that decision morally wrong? Depends on what you think is more important. Is the decision legally wrong? No.
Is it something internationally unprecedented? No.

 

[gambit]

What the Chinese are doing/did is illegal copying. What the GoI has done is completely legal. Every news website I go to has Americans praising the GoI's move (yes, not very scientific) That being said, I'm a believer of the meritocracy, i.e a fan of both of the Chinese and American systems.

For this case, both sides have very valid arguments, you can't deny that. The GoI is just following it's interests and that of the Indian people, it is not required to promote the profit margins of a foreign multi national. I would be decrying the GoI's moves if it wasn't legally covered by the WTO.

Let me repeat, the GoI isn't breaking any patent laws, it simply isn't doing what is in Bayer's interests but in India's and by extension 1/6th of humanity. How can anybody cry foul over that?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your Amazon analogy. But yeah, Bayer is free to continue their private business in India and the GoI is free to use all available tools to promote the upliftment of it's people as long as it is legal.

Bayer is free to take the GoI to the International Courts if it likes.

Of course what GoI did was legal -- under Indian laws. If the US make stealing from France legal but from Britain is illegal, then stealing from France will go unpunished. If India uses compulsory licensing laws to force foreign companies to hand over intellectual property rights to Indian companies, then of course such theft is legal. The flaw in your thinking is that theft is automatically illegal. Theft is simply taking what is not yours. Making theft illegal is a different issue.

take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
The above is the definition of steal, please tell me how the GoI has stolen anything.

Compulsory licensing is effectively taking without permission.

You very well know you are comparing life saving drugs with petty consumer products. An illegal and morally wrong act with a legal, life saving act which has multiple but not so publicised precedents globally.

It was 'dangerous grounds' that the Indian govt treaded on. IP rights vs lives of hundreds or thousands or more people. And it set a dangerous precedent. Was it worth it?

India never was, as the CEO mentioned, an intended costumer. And the company's Indian arm proved so, or so the govt got convinced. Bayer could not prove that it treated Indian people as customers, or expected any sales. And it was reflected well by its stock and sales in India.

They made a questionable decision of placing importance over the lives of citizens than IP rights and profits of a Pharma company. Is that decision morally wrong? Depends on what you think is more important. Is the decision legally wrong? No.
Is it something internationally unprecedented? No.

Then have the courage to come out and say it: The Indian government have the right to force companies to perform humanitarian acts within its jurisdiction.

 

[kbd-raaf]

Of course what GoI did was legal -- under Indian laws. If the US make stealing from France legal but from Britain is illegal, then stealing from France will go unpunished.

Yes.

If India uses compulsory licensing laws to force foreign companies to hand over intellectual property rights to Indian companies, then of course such theft is legal. The flaw in your thinking is that theft is automatically illegal. Theft is simply taking what is not yours. Making theft illegal is a different issue.

That's not what the definition I posted earlier said. In any case, if your whole case is based on semantics, that's not one you're going to win.

WTO | intellectual property (TRIPS) - TRIPS and public health: Compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals and TRIPS

^ Kind of a FAQ for the World Trade Org's TRIPS agreement regarding Compulsory Licensing.

Of course what GoI did was legal -- under Indian laws. If the US make stealing from France legal but from Britain is illegal, then stealing from France will go unpunished. If India uses compulsory licensing laws to force foreign companies to hand over intellectual property rights to Indian companies, then of course such theft is legal. The flaw in your thinking is that theft is automatically illegal. Theft is simply taking what is not yours. Making theft illegal is a different issue.


Compulsory licensing is effectively taking without permission.


Then have the courage to come out and say it: The Indian government have the right to force companies to perform humanitarian acts within its jurisdiction.

Well then, Bayer should take India to court Of course the Indian side would immediately cite the WTO legislation of which both US and India are signatories which will immediately throw Bayer's legal defense out.

And for the second part:

Of course it does, (wasn't it the judiciary that gave the licensing rights to Natco, not sure), as long as it is legal.

 

[Kloitra]

Then have the courage to come out and say it: The Indian government have the right to force companies to perform humanitarian acts within its jurisdiction.

This right is internationally (WTO) recognized, and has international precedent, set by multiple nations.
What is there to declare?

 

[Butchcassidy]

What the Chinese are doing/did is illegal copying. What the GoI has done is completely legal. Every news website I go to has Americans praising the GoI's move (yes, not very scientific) That being said, I'm a believer of the meritocracy, i.e a fan of both of the Chinese and American systems.

For this case, both sides have very valid arguments, you can't deny that. The GoI is just following it's interests and that of the Indian people, it is not required to promote the profit margins of a foreign multi national. I would be decrying the GoI's moves if it wasn't legally covered by the WTO.

Let me repeat, the GoI isn't breaking any patent laws, it simply isn't doing what is in Bayer's interests but in India's and by extension 1/6th of humanity. How can anybody cry foul over that?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your Amazon analogy. But yeah, Bayer is free to continue their private business in India and the GoI is free to use all available tools to promote the upliftment of it's people as long as it is legal.

Bayer is free to take the GoI to the International Courts if it likes.



steal
stēl/
verb

1. 1.
   take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

The above is the definition of steal, please tell me how the GoI has stolen anything.

If they are taking it with permission and without intimidation then where is the problem? Medical research coming out of india is zero/darkness. Skimming off somebody elses hard earned money is called cheating if not stealing

 

[kbd-raaf]

If they are taking it with permission and without intimidation then where is the problem? Medical research coming out of india is zero/darkness.

Not really, there is medical research in India, it's just not very path breaking.

 

[gambit]

That's not what the definition I posted earlier said. In any case, if your whole case is based on semantics, that's not one you're going to win.

WTO | intellectual property (TRIPS) - TRIPS and public health: Compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals and TRIPS

^ Kind of a FAQ for the World Trade Org's TRIPS agreement regarding Compulsory Licensing.

Compulsory licensing is nothing but a paper thin veneer of legalism for theft of intellectual property.

Ideas cannot be patented, but the products from ideas can and this is why we developed the concept of intellectual property rights in the first place. Being the origin of a product have a market prestige that usually translate to profitability. Intellectual property rights are about preventing others not just from producing that product but more importantly from claiming to be the originator of that product.

A patent secure reasonably secured the first concern that of being the originator of a product. Licensing is about a VOLUNTARY partnership in production of the product and the profit sharing of the same. Compulsory licensing is about taking away the RIGHT TO CHOSE on which product I want to partner in production and which partner I want to ally with.

It may be allowed under the law but that does not mean it is morally correct.

 

[Butchcassidy]

Not really, there is medical research in India, it's just not very path breaking.

Bro i did my med schooling from india and now am in the states. I also have dabbled in diagnostic test development in the US. I know the garbage that comes out of india in the name of research. Even countries like spain are light years ahead of India. Compulsory licensing is a way by which GOI tries to rationalize its utter failure in promoting original research and development work back home.

 

[kbd-raaf]

Bro i did my med schooling from india and now am in the states. I also have dabbled in diagnostic test development in the US. I know the garbage that comes out of india in the name of research. Even countries like spain are light years ahead of India. Compulsory licensing is a way by which GOI tries to rationalize its utter failure in promoting original research and development work back home.

Lol, I know first hand the state of academia in India. American academia and research infra is by far the best in the world, no other country comes remotely close. But that is not the subject of discussion here today.

Compulsory licensing is nothing but a paper thin veneer of legalism for theft of intellectual property.

Ideas cannot be patented, but the products from ideas can and this is why we developed the concept of intellectual property rights in the first place. Being the origin of a product have a market prestige that usually translate to profitability. Intellectual property rights are about preventing others not just from producing that product but more importantly from claiming to be the originator of that product.

A patent secure reasonably secured the first concern that of being the originator of a product. Licensing is about a VOLUNTARY partnership in production of the product and the profit sharing of the same. Compulsory licensing is about taking away the RIGHT TO CHOSE on which product I want to partner in production and which partner I want to ally with.

It may be allowed under the law but that does not mean it is morally correct.

You are one to talk about 'morally correct' when you would have potentially millions of Indians suffer from lack of affordable access to medicine.

Whether you agree with the law or not, is not relevant.