I am sorry for your pain. Having said that, I do not appreciate you calling me greedy and immoral. You don’t know me at all, and your representation is unfair and inaccurate.

I realize you want this drug and you cannot afford it. Eventually this and many other drugs will be available for very little money, as is the case with many truly life saving drugs that we all enjoy today for very little money.

While I am sincerely sorry for your situation and your pain, the alternative would be to simply not allow such drugs unless they can be affordable by all. That would mean we would not get the drugs at all, and the many millions and billions of people who could benefit once the drug comes off patent would be denied exactly what it is that you want. It is my belief that it is better to have drugs and treatments even if there is an unfairness for many between the time the drug is created and when the drug comes off patent.

Unfortunately, there is no solution and I understand that is not helpful or fair. But during our life we have all paid very little for drugs that are life saving, such as antibiotics, which were once on patent and once far more expensive.

I wish I had a solution for you. I just don’t think preventing the creation of such drugs and treatments in the first place is the answer.

-Gene

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong you are or naive your world view may be. To question my intellect, however, shows a complete lack of security in your own views and opinions. You can choose to view me as a mental midget if you like, but the truth is your comment lacks any substance, makes statements without conclusions or support and evidences your own inability to articulate a point without resorting to low ball tactics that call into question my understanding and intelligence.

Insofar as my “watchdog” status. Lets get real for a moment if we can. I realize that the term “watchdog” has grown to be synonymous with the term “opposition.” That is not at all what IPWatchdog is about, as you would know if you cared to look through the site and blog. To the extent I am a “watchdog” it is to get quality and accurate information out, and to make sure that those who are intellectual property haters are called on their misinformed opinions that are based on prejudice and lack of understanding. The fact that folks choose not to become informed and educated on issues is certainly a viable personal choice and way to go through life. When misguided, know-it-all babble threatens to undermine progress someone needs to stand up and shout that the emperor is not wearing any clothes, and that is a role I am more than happy to take on.

You, my friend, are the one who lacks the intellect necessary to meaningfully contribute to the debate. Nevertheless, I do thank you for reading IPWatchdog.com.

-Gene

Name one case where any complex molecule or even close to complex molecule like low molecular weight heparin- Lovenox- has had their patents abruptly invalidated and needed any type of exclusivity? You can’t. And as the FTC report noted, biologic patents are more robust than small molecule because you do many forms of formulations, manufacturing techniques as well as the specific mechanism of action.

For an intellectual property watchdog, this post shows a lack of intellect.

If a patent doesn’t matter, and the industry tells you we won’t make them unless we have patent protection, by minimizing patent protection you are basically saying — We don’t want biologics and please don’t make them. If brand name companies will dominate with or without a patent, and they require a patent in order to make the investment at all reasonable and rational, there is only one thing to do — give patent protection long enough to make them happy and get them making this stuff. With advances in 10, 15 or 20 years generics might be cheaper to make, but we will never get there if we don’t have them in the first place.

_Gene

I’m certainly not a rocket scientist, but this seems to me to be the exact opposite lesson to be learned from the report. All of your summary points say that the sale of biologics will be extremely robust to competition, regardless of the presence of FOBs in the market. In other words, the pioneer biologics will continue to make lots of money, regardless of when their patents expire. This means that the patent period will have minimal impact on the decision of whether or not to do research. In addition, FOBs will not drop the price enough to make treatments available to everyone, but, as the report points out, even a 10% savings on a $48,000 drug can be significant to an individual patient.

So, it seems to me that patent period is not all that important when it comes to biologics. However, a shorter patent period will have minimal impact on the amount of research being done, but a significant impact on some patents’ ability to buy the treatments. Am I reading it wrong?