Is it ethically wrong for a company to copy drug patents and provide people with cheaper drugs?

2 questions here - one about the Bayer chief's statement and one about Novartis. Let's answer the 2nd Q first: Novartis lost the case in the case in the Indian SC because they were guilty of evergreening. This is what it means: Novartis had a drug which they patented in India for a fixed period of time. When the patent period was going to expire Novartis slightly tweaked the drug composition and applied for a new patent for a different drug. The SC rightly struck it down. This gave generic manufacturers a chance to make the drug cheaply. This was completely justified as Novartis has been making profits off the drug in India for several years now. Coming to the larger Q - do big pharmas make losses because of generic manufacturers? Let's remember that generic drug companies can sell their drugs in only developing countries. In these countries, very few can afford the drug at the prices they sell it at in the West. So they would have been making very little profit anyway, thus they have almost nothing to lose. Bayer made a profit of 2.47 billion euros last year - I'm sure they'll do fine. If poor patients cannot afford the original drug they'll die anyway. It's high time we differentiate between profit and corporate greed.

To all those morons who are whining and blabbering about R&D . It is a billion $ /day industry. It takes nasa < $1 billion for mars mission(don't even get me started about mangalyan). Now if the Big pharmas are sending their scientists to mars every second day (which you might think is highly likely since you are a moron) it seems quite legitimate doesn't it?  Well here's a news for you , they are not! And with technological advancement the price Computers cheaper , mobiles cheaper , cars cheaper , internet cheaper and but oh R&D google has started charging them for every stupid question as it puts unnecessary load on the server. Its simple logic , common sense. Do not complicate it . Don't not show me bar graphs of rising cost vs somecrap on x-y axis . I am not a mathematician but I am aware . You are neither. If you feel its unethical then try preaching your ethics that little bald girl in the cancer ward sitting there with her father(who is not so rich indeed)  waiting for her chemo #the copied Indan verison . And if you have something still beating in your chest that doesn't circulate bullshit to your brain , you will finally get the meaning of ethics.

In my opinion, it is ethically wrong.This answer is not a substitute for professional medical advic...

"Every medicine is an essential poison".....when you're limited by intellectual property law,just figure out a way to proportionately blend and adequately deliver the essential mix of ancient and modern systems of medicine..the circumstantial balance ,as you know is of the ultimate essence, in delivering the right care to the appropriate person....Don't dilute your senses to time ,against your instinct, and(or) over -weighing your options categorically....

There are two sides of the coin. Always. The argument will go on like the researchers must get their due share. And on the other side, the medicines must be in the reach of the needy irrespective of his financial conditions. It is like a tug of war between the people sitting on fences. It depends on the conscience of an individual. May be we should leave it with them.

IMHO it is ethically wrong as you are depriving people access to new drugs in the long run. You may seem to be helping people by providing cheaper alternative (by breaking the law) in short term but what about the innovators --- do you think they need motivation to keep inventing and spending money on R&D and if they stop do you foresee the consequences? If you do - you will have your answer...

People were not made for the law.  The law was made for people.  We are human because we feel for each other.  If the CEO of a drug company does not feel for you, he has lost his rights as a human being. http://www.nature.com/news/social-evolution-the-ritual-animal-1.12256 When I was a graduate student in chemistry in 1974, I accepted a teaching assistant job because I was poor.  I did research that was funded by a NIH grant.  I obtained interesting results that we published.  Why does the government spend tax dollars on research?  Is it to make drug companies so powerful that they can choose to let people die? The answer is no!

No I don't think it is ethically wrong for companies to be allow to copy drug formulas and manufacture cheaper generics. A lot of people seem to be forgetting one simple fact, that we are talking about medicines and healthcare here, and not products like dolls. Healthcare is absolutely essential and key to ensure that people's lives get better. From an Indian perspective it is an absolute heresy the manner how healthcare is set up in the US. Ethics aren't universally true and the same worldwide; they differ by cultures. People often mistake an ethical argument being universal applicable, it isn't the case. And hence I do recognize my own argument's limitation. But as far as India is concerned, healthcare is viewed as a right, even by many of the rich and better off people. In a country where life expectancy rates are worse than countries like Iraq and Palestine, where wars and terrorism are common, arguing about ethics is meaningless. Instead the focus of India, both the government and society, is on improving the lives of her people. If foreign businesses wish to come and do business, they are most welcome, but they should do so keeping one thing absolutely in mind with crystal clarity- India is a very different country, with different culture, which have molded the way we interpret laws and ethics. Bayer's CEO should have kept this in mind, and should spend sometime in a country radically different from the highly developed European ones to see how cultures differ.

Bayer stands to lose chiefly on the fact that India is prime candidate for quality medical tourism. The difference in pricing is so vast that it actually cheaper for a patient to pack his/her bags to go and stay in India for the duration of the treatment. Moreover the cheaper Indian drugs will find it's way to neighbouring markets as well a vast majority of Central and West Africa. Although the sale of the drug will be officially restricted beyond the borders of India, due lower pricing, governments of these countries will look the other way on their entry in their markets. The concept of welfare state forces companies to either do the research as display of charitable route in business and publicity rather than any potential profit motive. This is a tough call. An immense amount of money is required to be invested in research and development of drugs by companies like Bayer. Results are painstakingly slow. In case of successful venture, companies like Bayer, GlaxoSmith, Pfizer hope, that prior  to the stipulated period with respect to which country we are talking about, when the said drug becomes fair game for anyone to manufacture- they can capitalise on profits of selling the new drug to make up on research costs. But the recovery of costs is not proportional to pricing. The drug is by and large, greatly over priced vis a vis investment and research in European and North American markets. Indigenous researched drugs in India invariably find themselves costing more due the aforesaid R&D investment too.There is a reluctance to invest on R&D and it is much easier to apply for a patent on a product researched and developed aboard. Companies like Bayer find this unfair. As for the rest of the CEO comments, they may be socially irresponsible but economically pertinent to company. And we all know Social Responsibility is Economics troublesome and self righteous girlfriend. Annoying as she is, he sleeps better at night with her around.