What's happening to money?

[milquetoast1]

A license doesn't normally apply to a physical consumable item though. That's called a purchase, and after you own it, you can do what you like with it by virtue of the ownership.

 

But you will void your warranty, and any liability claim, if you fit a vehicle part (for example) the way you want to rather than the way the manufacturer tells you to.

[Cyclone]

But you will void your warranty, and any liability claim, if you fit a vehicle part (for example) the way you want to rather than the way the manufacturer tells you to.

 

Of course, but they can't stop you doing it.

 

Here's a story in the news today that's related to this aspect of the discussion.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11647600/Statins-can-halve-patients-risk-of-dying-from-cancer.html

 

---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 13:09 ----------

 

Ultimately it comes down to a simple choice.

 

Do you want cheap drugs now and never develop anything new.

 

Are you going to pay into the R&D fund and let them develop new drugs for future use.

This is an entirely false dichotomy. The fact that they might lose money on this specific drug (the MD one) because another, cheaper one, supercedes it, will in no way stop companies from researching new drugs.

Normally consumable items don't have intellectual property tied up in them however.

 

Of course they do. Car engines have all sorts of patented parts in them, modern electronics have lots of patents associated with them, on the back of my watch it probably says that patents apply (or are pending).

 

---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 13:12 ----------

 

And this story also goes a long way to disprove the idea that big pharma can or does squash or hide results about cancer treatments that won't make a profit.

Statins are cheap, very, very cheap, yet this research has taken place and is being widely reported.

Conspiracy theory disproven.

[Obelix]

That's a breach of contract situation, however, not patent infringement

 

Obviously yes but there is no way round it as you cannot just make the drug without running into patent infrignment so the two are indelibly intertwined until the patent expires.

 

At that point you just get a cheap generic made (assuming that you can make the generic cheaply... that's never a given and the mauf doesnt have to reveal how to make it)

 

---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 14:23 ----------

 

This is an entirely false dichotomy. The fact that they might lose money on this specific drug (the MD one) because another, cheaper one, supercedes it, will in no way stop companies from researching new drugs.

 

Really? You think they are going to invest billions and not have a reasonable expectation of return? You go bankrupt with that attitude - and that certainly stops them from researching new drugs!

[Cyclone]

They could refuse to sell you the drug for any reason other than the one they wish, and form a contract with you to that effect.

I suspect that their only remedy if you ignored the prohibition on certain uses would be to terminate the contract as they would have suffered no material damages to sue for.

And the NHS is a huge customer, with the weight of legislation behind it should the government wish to use it. So if the government wishes the drug to be properly evaluated for an additional use I'd suggest that a single Pharma company would think long and hard before trying to fight it.

 

They DO invest billions with an expectation that 9/10 drugs will make nothing but a loss and never make it to market. It's a highly speculative game. In this one case, if the new drug supersedes the older, more expensive one, then the speculation hasn't paid off. That's business as usual for them, many, many drugs don't pay off, they don't quit R&D every time a single drug fails.

[Anna B]

Ok. So they can charge what they like. But what that means is that there will be more and more cures, drugs, treatments that the NHS just can't afford.

So, we'll just have to sit by twiddling our thumbs, while the solution is available to others but not to us. And die.

 

But that's OK 'cos the drug companies will at least get nice and rich...

[Cyclone]

No it doesn't, because the NHS is a huge customer and they want the NHS to be buying from them.

[Obelix]

Ok. So they can charge what they like. But what that means is that there will be more and more cures, drugs, treatments that the NHS just can't afford.

So, we'll just have to sit by twiddling our thumbs, while the solution is available to others but not to us. And die.

 

But that's OK 'cos the drug companies will at least get nice and rich...

 

You know Anna if you just thought about things instead of assuming the worse oh woe ie me the sky is falling then you'd understand a little more....

 

Do the petrol stations charge what they like? Fuel is as important to us as medicine

 

Do the supermarkets charge what they like, Food is as important etc...

 

No.

 

There is something called "market forces" that mean that if you have more than a couple of players in the market then someone will undercut them and sell at a lower price. As such you can buy petrol within a few pence of it's production costs. You can buy food at a few pence higher than it's production costs.

 

The same is true for drugs.

[truman]

Ok. So they can charge what they like. But what that means is that there will be more and more cures, drugs, treatments that the NHS just can't afford.

So, we'll just have to sit by twiddling our thumbs, while the solution is available to others but not to us. And die.

 

But that's OK 'cos the drug companies will at least get nice and rich...

 

Not much point in spending billions developing a drug only to overprice it for one of your largest customers..maybe,just maybe, the price is right..? Pharma doesn't get to be "big" pharma by not being able to sell it's products...

[jfish1936]

Which drugs used to cost a grand that now cost less than a penny?

 

In 1960, as a junior resident, I had to get approval to use tetracyclines in our hospital (in UK) because of their cost. Now they are much cheaper.

In my specialty of anaesthesia, many agents like halothane required consultant authorisation because of cost.

I doubt you'll get any drugs at less than a penny, because of handling costs and costs of observing safety regulations

[Anna B]

Not much point in spending billions developing a drug only to overprice it for one of your largest customers..maybe,just maybe, the price is right..? Pharma doesn't get to be "big" pharma by not being able to sell it's products...

 

Both you and Obelix have a point, but can I return you to the title of this rant. I was not targeting pharmacuetical companies in particular, although that's what it seems to have turned into.

 

I am concerned that just like some salaries, certain things seem to be taking off and are becoming well outside the 'norm' in terms of cost, and are no longer affordable to ordinary people.

 

For example, Martin Sorrell has just received this years bonus. £43 million. (That's in spite of the shareholders objecting.) Is anybody worth that much? He is, however, in the private sector, but there are several people in the public sector, who's salaries are paid by the taxpayer, who are trying to keep up, and we are paying for them. What concerns me is that these amounts are skewing the economy for ordinary folk.

 

The London housing market is an obvious example. London is now full of rich oligarchs for whom money is no object. Property people are cashing in and now it's almost impossible for ordinary people to buy there. The price of many other things are being pushed up, (Care home fees, dentistry, British holidays, etc) all seem to be rocketing. Is this the 'growth' in our economy? It certainly isn't coming from production.

 

Many in the public sector now seem to think their salaries should be comparable to the private sector, and now expect a salary in the hundreds of thousands. The NHS, MPs Councils, Police, etc are all trying to compete with the private sector, yet their wages are paid by us, from taxes, and we are supposedly in a recession. Meanwhile, those without clout remain on minimum wage, and low salaries even though they have to live in this high cost country. Who listens to them?