E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | USPTO News Briefs »

October 11, 2015

Comments

Nice lobbying, but note that so far no drug patent has actually been invalidated by any stock price manipulators.
Also, some Hatch-Waxman Act defendants conduct have not done that system any credibility favors. More AT actions await.
Eventually legitimate generic drug companies and public interest groups will wake up and start their own lobbying to preserve their right to try to drastically lower some U.S. drug prices with IPRs, even though they have rarely done so.

Mr. Morgan,

How do you feel about "lobbying" to end the artificially high prices we Americans pay for drugs due to the unequal IP enforcement mechanisms and country-to-country "arbitrage" that pharmaceutical companies engage in?

Or perhaps you doubt that my PERSONAL costs for such things are out of line with the costs to PERSONS in other countries?

Isn't controlling the costs of pharmaceuticals for citizens one of the things that (in other countries) is a result of single-payer health care due to governmental price control? So shouldn't people in favor of lower prices for pharmaceuticals in the US logically be in favor of single-payer health care? From a policy standpoint, moving to a single-payer system to control pharmaceutical costs would arguably make more sense than destroying the patent system. Come to think of it, maybe all the anti-patent activity we're seeing now is actually the administration's Plan B for controlling pharma prices since it didn't happen with the Affordable Care Act.

Quid: "shouldn't people in favor of lower prices for pharmaceuticals in the US logically be in favor of single-payer health care?"

I'm in favor of single-payer health care. Most logical people are ... unless, of course, they are rich people who can afford whatever they want and don't care about anybody else.

"maybe all the anti-patent activity we're seeing now is actually the administration's Plan B for controlling pharma prices since it didn't happen with the Affordable Care Act"

I don't see much "anti-patent" activity (whatever that means). I do see some effort to make it easier to tank junky patents that should never have been granted, however. That effort is driven by numerous public concerns that aren't usually discussed here. Maybe you should get out more.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31