ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ม.ค. 2019
- How pharmaceutical companies game the patent system
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a company reaches the top of the ladder, they typically kick it away so that others cannot climb up on it. The aim? So that another company can't compete. When this happens in the pharmaceutical world, certain companies stay at the top of the ladder, through broadly-protected patents, at the cost of everyday people benefitting from increased competition. Since companies have worked out how to legally game the system, Amin argues we need to get rid of this "one size fits all" system, which treats product innovation - "tweaks" - the same as product invention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAHIR AMIN:
Tahir Amin is an attorney with more than 25 years of experience in intellectual property law. Amin’s pioneering work challenging patents has established a new model for treatment access, one that restores balance to the system by upending the structural power dynamics that allow inequities to persist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
TAHIR AMIN: There's a great quote by a German economist from the 1700s, and it got translated into a book by a Cambridge professor, it's called Kicking Away the Ladder. And the idea being, when you reach the top of the ladder, you kick it away so that no one can climb up it. And that's how the laws and the trade rules get framed in intellectual property, is you don't want someone to compete. So intellectual poverty really is about the political economy of comparative advantage and who holds the power and who really can then dictate how economies work in this modern economy.
Pharmaceutical companies-typically what they will do in the small molecule space, which is the organic chemistry space-so there's a lot of products that are based on small compounds-what they'll typically do is get the first patent, and it's the broadest coverage to protect the area that they want to do the research in. And typically, the first patent could cover millions of compounds, which they've screened. And then they will get into looking at which of those compounds have the best properties for a particular disease area they're going to look at, and then they will formulate it.
And typically, in the first patent, they will cover all those aspects broadly so that they've ring-fenced off the area so that nobody gets into that research space. And then typically, they'll add another patent, which we'll talk about how they deliver the product, the compound, into the body. And then they will then find various ways to tweak the dosage form. They'll say, "Well, we used to have three pills and we'll make it into one," or "We will change the coating of the drug to get fast/extended release."
Now, people might say, well, something innovative in terms of putting three pills into one, it never existed before for a particular product. "That's inventive, that's innovative." I would say it's more innovative in the sense of somebody just applied it, but the basic science behind it has already been done, and it's known that it can be done.
Now, science isn't exact, for example. Some things don't work with every particular chemical or every particular bio-logic. But largely, you would know to try it. It's been done before, you know that there's a root there. So for me, that is not an invention. That is probably maybe more innovation in the sense of, "I've taken existing science, I've reapplied it, I've come up with a different product." Now, for the purpose of the patent system, I don't think you should get 20 years for that. I think, yes, your investment should be rewarded. That's fine. That, for me, is an incremental iteration of existing science, of existing knowledge. But the counterargument to that then is, "Well, if we don't give them something- if we don't give companies this incentive, they won't come up with these slightly varied formulations." And my answer to that is, "Fine, we want those, but you don't get 20 years for it."
And I think that's where this one size fits all, "putting everything into the patent system as the incentive" model is skewed now, because companies have worked out how to game the system. And I think this is where we need to step back and realize, do we need a different model for those low-hanging fruit type, slightly innovative tweaks? I don't call them inventions, because, for me, innovation is a byproduct of invention. Invention comes first. That's the really new path-breaking science. Innovation is just commercializing it.
When we use the term plan...
For the full transcript, check out bigthink.com/videos/how-pharm...
I really wish that pharmaceutical companies have less of a monopoly on medications in the US. Why would a $20 medication outside of the US cost $160 inside the US, same medication from even the same company. They need to allow generic medications to exist. Not to mention its those graduate students that do the research while gaining student loan debt.
@@TH-camTookMyNickname.WhyNot Not just the companies invented, what about the graduate students who work 80-100 hours a week and get paid almost nothing in return for the research they do while corporate executives get the lavish lifestyles...
I am in the process of making a documentary about pharma, for what it's worth..... there is so much corruption that it is hard to know where to start.
Follow the money. The United States Corporation is the majority stock shareholder in most if not all fortune 500 companies including the largest pharmaceutical companies.
A documentary needs to be made!!! THANK YOU
@Max M I am sure they know it already well.... lol :) I am about 50 pages into it already, but I have made several videos about pharma in the past. There are positives to medicine, but more abuses
Careful, you might "disappear".
As the manager of a surgical specialty office what I see the most is a drug or material used by doctors or patients has a " shortage", the item is in short supply resulting in the price being increased. The price never returns to the "pre shortage " price, it remains elevated. I've seen this on everything from prescription drugs to normal saline to sterile water.
Well done.
This kinda thing of big shots gaming the system is something most folks understand intuitively, but don't know the methods used.
Good explanation of how the system works...
I used to think patents were a good idea, now I think they're only a good idea for companies that can afford them. IBM was granted 9,100 patents in 2018 alone.
thank you for this
Very informative. I want more!
*Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago. ^^*
not just chop it down, but cut it into lumber and build shelter using todays technology - not just shade but environmental controls ... and plant 50 more from cuttings
@Max M - no - it's simply 'pragmatic' ... plant 50 tree's each year for fifty years using cuttings from the healthiest samples, harvesting rotationally continuing the cycle (timing adjusted to species) ... can be scaled for commercial applications or held for communal sustainability modeling - care little about tree hugging as much as resourcing ... again, pragmatic
And that someone almost always isn't someone but rather a species growing scattered out over the generations
Well said!
Limit patents/IP duration is a good start.
Also create a self assessed tax on those patents.
As the IP nears expiration the tax rate rises.
At any point the state or competitor can buy out the patent and return it to the public domain.
If they set the price too high, they risk paying more tax than it is worth as a monopoly. If they set it too low the IP can be expired by a 3rd party.
This way the filer of the IP has an incentive to try and set the IP at somewhere near it's anticipated true value.
Well done..
The big question now is how to convince lawmakers that the companies don't need such a large incentive or that they shouldn't be able to blanket cover a whole field for privacy. The irony is that competition drives innovation so by cutting out competition with a patent, real progress is stifled in favor of showmanship and legal hustling.
Securing & rewarding research and risk while protecting consumers from martin skrelli-esque abuse is a very tricky job, but the overwhelming facts speak for themselves in that, the current system is fundamentally & utterly flawed & corrupted.
Tragically, time and time again mankind has shown that when presented with a dilemma pitting the better angels of our nature against profit...its very rarely even a contest as to which is chosen.
Allowing unrestricted lobbying, coupled with minimal ethics oversight...I do not foresee the pillaging of the public at the hands of “big pharma” ending anytime soon.
I agree but would like to mention how it can still work with a different market, health care pricing in the USA is way out of proportion.
SInce 1998 our brazilian law for protection of industrial property makes this particulary difference between 'invention patent', a genuine new product or proceeding, and 'utility model', a mix of preexisting things, this allowing the half of protection time.
I’m surprised he didn’t go into how the Bayh Dole Act plays into the larger space of corporate patent exploitation.
It’s entirely possible he’s gone over it and they’re saving it for another video (they tend to split chunks of an interview into separate vids)
I personally think getting rid of the patents would the best solution, but not in every field, just the medical field. These things being created are saving lives, daily, monthly and yearly. Most other things patented don't save lives on the scale like the medical industry. Creating a larger competition in the field would drive prices for medicines down a ton. If some new disease arose, the ones who first find the cure should be the ones to begin selling it. They could get a short term patent on the cure, but this patent would still allow companies to make generic versions, the founding company would get maybe a small percentage of the other companies profits. The creation would be fueled by being the first to find, produce and sell the cure. And a smaller bonus would be racking in a small percentage of profits from other companies for producing the cure under your short term patent. This way the companies that lost the race for the cure, could still make money from the drug, and in theory wouldn't go bankrupt after losing the race because they can still make profits, and after 30 days, the small percentage would stop being taken out. Just a idea, im sure there's flaws. Lowering prescription costs at the pharmacy would also decrease payments for certain healthcare plans as well, because getting sick wouldn't cost these companies hundreds, or thousands of dollars, just for a damn pill.
Please put a biography of the speaker below your videos.
5 min talking,he hardly scratched the surface.
What else can you expect from 5 minutes?
Unclear which patent system you are talking about as there are big differences between how US and European (EPO/GB) approaches patentability and specifically what you mention: 'Inventive Step' (how you weed out obvious incremental changes from genuine advancements).
Fusion in of the human Adam.. is a very powerful element
You don't get 20 years for it ... especially if it is a continuation patent carrying on from the one before. it runs from the date of the original patent. Simplified info for the masses ...
or take the basic compound, and hell we'll apply those basic incremental changes for you and see if its actually a trade secret, take that!
dope
In others word. Give freedom to those who want to innovate. Don't stop them. Be fair with the patents. Don't overprotect a company because they were "first". I doesn't sound that crazy to me🤔
US Congress has announced hearings on how pharma sets prices and their actions to manage market share. This topic will be part of the hearings. Let's hope the new members of the house haven't been bought off yet.
Health care for profit is immoral. The US should join the civilized community and provide universal health care. The current mad hous antics we see in D.C. are a measure of the contradictions and death throws of corruption.
Personally, I'm against IP of chemicals. I don't think that a novel drug chemical formula should be owned by it's inventor. A synthesis method, sure. But a chemical?
This guy sounds and looks like Jango Fett lol!
Does this mean that pharmaceutical companies could prevent customisable drug administration by patenting the innovations required to make it happen? It would be great if patients who are sensitive to reductions in their drug dose could get more precise doses as they try to withdraw from them. I'm thinking of people on psych drugs. Though this could be beneficial for people on all kinds of drugs like antihypertensives, anti-diabetic drugs and what not. Could drug companies block this development by making a process and patenting it, then never using it? That's disgusting and goes against progress. This shouldn't happen.
never understood the logic of the patent systems. we didn't have patents for most of history but it didn't stop innovation. and the idea that people will die because some jerk at a tall building thinks he didn't make enough money yet sickens me to the core.
This guy is more than welcome to start his own pharma business and not bother with IP protection.
Like Jonas Salk?
Greed is evil!!!
Only the government could change this, but why would they$?
5 years should be enough
And how pharma companies game political system as well?
subtitles are only available in dutch wtf
Thx fbi bro XD
Who are the 31 haters?
20 year is to long
I would be happy with 20 year patents. How the hell is Mickey Mouse still protected intellectual property? That is way more than 20 years old. The thing is patents should be 20 years period. No extensions, no new innovative thing that prolongs the patent. Found a new use for your old drug? Sure patent it, but people can make your old drug now. Found a new use for Mickey Mouse? That's cool, but its open to the public now. Gatekeeping should be banned after 20 years of introduction of the product into the public.
Eli Nope the difference is that Mickey Mouse is a fictional cartoon character sold to kids. Pharmaceutical Research will literally save lives if the companies were welcoming and open. Patents on pharmaceutical research should be much shorter than “20 years” because it stifles competition and slows the rate of potentially beneficial treatments. A Mickey Mouse mascot is replaceable.
Learn the difference between patents, trademarks and copyright. Mickey Mouse is not patented
Did you know that approximately from 10 to 14 years are spent doing clinical trials both on animals and humans, developing the formulation, doing HTS etc
So from those 20 the companies have around 8 years to benefit, but in neurodegenerative diseases it may shorten to 4 years. I don't know man it's very tricky, but I honestly don't think 20 years is that much
#Dispatches #NHS #BREXIT #BREXITmeds
If you get rid of intellectual property this goes away
never let businesses be immunize to replication.
Imagine only 1 company could make CARS 🚗. OR 1 company could make toaster, thru world charge exorbitant price for it.
Competition drives innovation, of you kill competition no more innovation.
Oh and with my comment, I’m not even saying that there’s nothing wrong with pharma... I’m just saying that if your not able to fluently talk me through those topics (which would mean you don’t know jack shit), then your simply nowhere near qualified to throw your “opinion” around.
Would love to chat if you’re ever up for that. Also, despite the negatives of the industry (which there are plenty), overall pharma has saved lives and improved the quality of countless others. Ppl don’t realise how many ppl they know that would be dead if it wasn’t for pharma (usually from simple things).
i have hearing problems. i can't understand a word of what this man is saying. it sounds like mumbling to me. closed caption is not doing a very good translation.
Generally we have developed a very bad and extreme attitude for criticizing the big corps.
I m not talking about the extreme case scenario of this video but it has become a sort of fashion to criticize the tech giants in order to get pretended as some "Intellectual" or a "revolutionist"
Mohammad Umer
How can you sustain your point as a truth ? Your statement against people's reaction based on the knowledge that Big pharma industry started with Rockefeller greedy focus on exponentially big money without regards "for the good of the people's health", is subjective and shows that by some reason it hurts you...
Are you in pharma business, or somebody around you ?
No I don't have any stakes in pharma business.
But the point I want to make is that the big corps r really the engine of innovations and tech development. That's the reason they buy small innovative startsups and make them huge e.g Android cannot make it what its today without the Google.
The focus should be to regulate the business titans in order to create harmony among the corps and the masses