 |
| |
|
|
Whoha
|
 |
The TOC is supposed to be classified guys...
Dec 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
How the hell? I'm not registered.
"By Jerry Hirsch, Times Staff Writer
Angered by subsidies to U.S. cotton growers, Brazilian lawmakers said Thursday that they were considering suspending the intellectual property rights of American products in their country if the U.S. government did not explain how it intended to change subsidy programs by July 1.
The deadline was set earlier this year by the World Trade Organization, which found that U.S. assistance to cotton farmers distorted world prices by encouraging overproduction. If implemented, Brazil's plan would negatively affect a range of U.S. industries including entertainment, software and pharmaceuticals.
ADVERTISEMENT
Use Unusual Elements to Spice Up Your Patio
Add Color with Window Boxes
Make Spring Cleaning More Spiritual
See How Sexy Sectionals Can Be
Create a Family Room that’s Chic…and Cozy
Update Metal Beds with New Materials
What is the Square Root of Chic?
Spring for Stripes this Season
Learn to Create a Personal Style for Your Home
Turn your Kitchen into an Island Paradise
"Essentially, the Brazilian position would be, 'We're going to have state-sanctioned piracy,' " said Neil Turkewitz, an executive vice president of the Recording Industry Assn. of America, the music industry's largest trade and lobbying group.
Although it's not unusual for nations to slap high tariffs on a marketbasket of goods as retaliation in trade disputes, sanctioning the copying of one country's products is unconventional and possibly illegal, trade officials said. At the minimum, the move would require a new law in Brazil and WTO approval, they said. The plan was the topic of a legislative committee meeting in Brasilia, the nation's capital, Thursday.
Richard Mills, a spokesman for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman, called talk of Brazilian action premature. "We intend to comply so there will not be any need for retaliation," he said.
U.S. cotton farmers received $1.6 billion in federal subsidies last year, with California growers getting $144 million, according to Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based nonprofit that tracks the data.
Brazil's proposed strategy is designed to draw Hollywood, Silicon Valley and the pharmaceutical industry into the trade battle, said Pedro de Comargo Neto, head of a large farm organization and a former trade official who oversaw the nation's successful challenge of U.S. cotton payments.
"We want other parties in the United States to understand that what the cotton lobby is doing is not in their interest," Comargo said Thursday.
Rather than enlisting allies, the strategy could have the opposite effect.
Any Brazilian move against U.S. copyrights or patents probably would draw retaliation from the U.S. government on key Brazilian exports, said Dan Glickman, chief executive of the Motion Picture Assn. of America and Agriculture secretary during the Clinton administration.
"They sell a lot of airplanes in the U.S.," Glickman said, referring to commuter aircraft maker Embraer. "This could become a pretty serious ***-for-tat trade dispute."
A trade war would be the last thing Brazil wants, said Alan Tonelson, a trade expert at the U.S. Business & Industry Council in Washington. "They need the U.S. market far more than we need them," he said.
Brazil is the U.S.' largest trading partner in South America and ranks 14th overall, according to the World Institute for Strategic Economic Research. About $35 billion of trade occurs between the two nations each year.
Ordinarily, Brazil would raise tariffs on U.S. goods, the typical WTO-sanctioned remedy for getting nations to comply with the trade body's rulings. But such a strategy is rarely effective and only raises the price Brazilian consumers pay for imported U.S. products, Comargo said.
Entertainment and software products are especially tempting targets because of the ease with which they can be copied. Piracy of music and movies is already a big problem for U.S. entertainment companies in Brazil, accounting for as much as 60% of the market. According to the U.S. trade representative's office, American companies lost nearly $1 billion last year from copyright infringement in Brazil.
Nonetheless, Brazilians see economic and social advantages to easing copyright and patent restrictions. Making generic versions of drugs that fight HIV infection and other maladies is attractive because it serves a social value and reduces Brazil's healthcare expenses, said Brazilian congressman Fernando Gabeira, a member of the Chamber of Deputies' committee that took up the issue Thursday.
Allowing the copying of U.S. goods is meant to provide Brazil with leverage to overcome foot dragging in Washington caused by the powerful influence of the cotton industry lobby, Comargo said.
In March, the WTO told the U.S. to change a system that subsidizes cotton sales to fabric mills and exporters when the domestic price exceeds the prevailing world rate. Over the last decade the U.S. has paid out more than $2.4 billion in such so-called Step 2 payments, according to the Environmental Working Group.
Another program ruled in violation by the WTO provided guarantees to allow developing nations to purchase domestic cotton on favorable financial terms.
Brazilian officials are skeptical that the Bush administration can come up with a plan to trim payments to cotton farmers that will win approval in Congress. They say the issue has seen little movement since the WTO decision in March. Federal farm subsidies have proved among the most resilient programs in Washington, surviving numerous domestic assaults and pressure from abroad.
"Even when they have the right, it is hard for poor countries to go against rich countries," Gabeira said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Sorry but most drugs aren't invented by governments or universities but instead are the result of private capital. Will inovation stop if private capital goes else where? Nope, but it will greatly slow down and that's bad for sick people. If we want to keep coming up with cures then we need to keep protecting the flow of money which makes these cures possible. It's as simple as that. |
Most drugs do NOT treat things that kill you. Athletes foot, heartburn, indegestion, impotance; these are NOT deadly things. Inconvinient, lower your quality of living, but don't kill you. Smallpox was eliminated from the world without any corporation being there. Ditto for polio. I can't think of a single disease erradicated due to the life saving work of corporations making profits. If anything, corporations utterly ignore diseases like diahrea and Malaria that still kill millions because there is no profit there (poor people can't afford the little purple pill, nor do they have a doctor to ask). But universities and government backed reserach will continue trying to find a way to cure them, and if in 50 years malaria goes the way of Smallpox, I will be 50 bucks right now it won't be western drug companies that save those millions upon millions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Most drugs do NOT treat things that kill you. Athletes foot, heartburn, indegestion, impotance; these are NOT deadly things. Inconvinient, lower your quality of living, but don't kill you. Smallpox was eliminated from the world without any corporation being there. Ditto for polio. I can't think of a single disease erradicated due to the life saving work of corporations making profits. If anything, corporations utterly ignore diseases like diahrea and Malaria that still kill millions because there is no profit there (poor people can't afford the little purple pill, nor do they have a doctor to ask). But universities and government backed reserach will continue trying to find a way to cure them, and if in 50 years malaria goes the way of Smallpox, I will be 50 bucks right now it won't be western drug companies that save those millions upon millions. |
There have only been 2-3 diseases eradicated ever in the history of the world and they've all been the same pattern type. Highly virulent but burning out quickly; that meant it was easy to contain those diseases. Diseases like AIDS and other viruses require complex cocktails in order to treat and universities don't have the funds to keep up with private research there. True, there is always a role for government and philanthropy but I already repeatedly acknowledged that. Didn't I?
Instead the question is what approach is most likely to lead us to a cure or at least life sustaining treatments? I'm not sure how Lula's plan to legalize software, music, and video piracy will help but it seems like he's just using the odd drug piracy to justify his grander theme of theft. This will not help Brazil, its economy, or the sick people in Brazil. Instead it will result in adverse consequences which will harm Brazil's economy and its ability to treat the sick.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
There have only been 2-3 diseases eradicated ever in the history of the world and they've all been the same pattern type. Highly virulent but burning out quickly; that meant it was easy to contain those diseases. Diseases like AIDS and other viruses require complex cocktails in order to treat and universities don't have the funds to keep up with private research there. True, there is always a role for government and philanthropy but I already repeatedly acknowledged that. Didn't I? |
NO. You state that corporate interest are the most important, but you fail to acknowleged the underlying obvious truth- only is a drug is likely to be profitable will it be created. Malaria is an obvious case of a huge killer which is unprofitable to cure currently. BUt impotence, or male enhancement, there we see billions invested. Universities and the government were crucial in making those drug cocktails work, and of course the government gives out its findings for free.
The basic point is that no private interest could EVER gather capital like the government.
quote:
Instead the question is what approach is most likely to lead us to a cure or at least life sustaining treatments? I'm not sure how Lula's plan to legalize software, music, and video piracy will help but it seems like he's just using the odd drug piracy to justify his grander theme of theft. This will not help Brazil, its economy, or the sick people in Brazil. Instead it will result in adverse consequences which will harm Brazil's economy and its ability to treat the sick. |
The thing that would lead to a cure most rapidly would be for rich governments in the western world to devote say .5% of GDP towards medical research.
BUt the fact is Lula's actions will not lead to any of the problems you quote realisitcly. I doubt US and European consumers will all of a sudden flock to Brazil to buy drugs there, meaning the cash cows that keep western drug companies the most profitable businesses in the world will continue to rake in the dough to insure Americans are able t have satisfying long term erections. As for Music and movies, like Brazilians will see their society collapse if foreign entertainment all of s sudden isn;t there. I mean, its not like Brazilians can find ways to entertain themselves free of Hollywood, right?
Oh, and since when can the poor in Brazil actually afford the expensive drugs from western companies???
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
I am trying to compare investment into drugs by government and the private sector. Its not easy.
This is a report a decade old. I am not sure about fundamental changes since then. BUT it is a good summary of the business overall:
http://www.cptech.org/pharm/pryor.html
it's Summary:
quote:
Summary of Comments
Our comments today will address the following points.
* According to the National Institutes of Health, the federal government funds 42 percent of all national expenditures on health care research, compared to 47 percent from private industry.
* The federal government's role in the development of new drugs spans a wide range of activities, encompassing nearly all aspects of drug development, such as the discovery of new therapeutic agents, clinical testing of drugs in humans, and the development and refinement of manufacturing techniques. The notable exception concerns the final step of drug development, which is the request for an FDA New Drug Application (NDA), which is required before the drug can be commercially marketed.
* The federal government plays a particularly important role in the highest risk research projects, including basic research, where commercial payoffs are least certain.
* In the area of federal expenditures on human use clinical trials, a relatively advanced area for drug research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will spend an estimated $868.8 million in fiscal year 1993, a 75 percent increase over NIH's 1989 expenditures of $495.5 million. By comparison, the members of the Pharmaceutical Manufactures Association (PMA) reported spending $1,555 million in clinical trials in 1989 (the most recent year for which data are available).
* Federal support for the development of new drugs is focused on those drugs which represent the greatest gains in therapeutic value or which are used to treat the most serious illnesses.
* While the FDA approves hundreds of drugs for marketing every year, the number of new or important drugs is relatively small. In 1991 the FDA approved 327 new and generic drugs and biologic products. Thirty of the approvals were for new molecular entities (NMEs) -- drugs distinctly different in structure from those already on the market. Only five of these drugs received an FDA efficacy rating of A, which is reserved for drugs which afford "significant therapeutic gain." Nine of the NMEs received an FDA classification of E, which is reserved for drugs that treat "severely debilitating or life threatening illness," including four of the five Class A drugs. Two drugs received FDA Class AA priority status for the treatment of AIDS.
* All five 1991 FDA Class A drugs were developed with federal funds.
* Six of the nine 1991 FDA Class E drugs were developed with federal funds.
* Both 1991 FDA Class AA drugs for AIDS were developed with federal funds.
page 2
* For the group, seven of the ten 1991 FDA NME priority drugs (Class A,E or AA), were developed with federal funds.
* Among the FDA NME priority drugs approved in 1991, those that were developed with federal funding were priced considerably higher than those developed without federal funding.
* Drugs developed without federal funding were priced at $321 to $2,376 (based upon a full year or completed course of treatment, whichever was less).
* Drugs developed with federal funding were priced at $368 to $546,000 (based upon a full year or completed course of treatment, whichever was less).
* Among the seven priority drugs developed with federal funding, five were priced at more than $7,000 and only one was priced less than $1,000.
* The federal government has played an enormous role in the development of new cancer drugs. There have been 37 new cancer drugs discovered and approved for marketing since the National Cancer Institute's new drug program began in 1955. Of the 37 cancer drugs, 34 were developed with federal funding.
One firm, Bristol-Myers Squibb, has benefitted the most from the NCI new drug program. Of the 34 cancer drugs developed with federal funding, 11 are marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, including the recent blockbuster drug Taxol.
In comparing the relative contributions of the government and the private sector in the development of new drugs, it is important to recognize ways that industry spokesman manipulate the data. For example, studies of the industry's costs of developing new drugs typically adjust nominal expenditures for inflation, risk and the opportunity cost of capital. In contrast, the government's costs of drug development are frequently presented in nominal terms, without any adjustments for inflation, risk or the opportunity cost of capital. As a result, many observers have a grossly distorted view of the economic value of the government's drug research investments. For example, some studies report industry Phase I investments at 11 times the initial nominal cash outlays, while government agencies often report drug development costs that only reflect nominal cash outlays to contractors, and ignore the government's costs of intramural research.
While there is ample evidence that private sector prices for drugs are excessive, there is very little data available to the government to determine fair prices. It is easier to determine what is unfair than what is fair. In order to determine fair prices, the government needs better economic data on the pharmaceutical industry, including the costs and risks of development, manufacturing and marketing drugs, and it also needs to develop better methodologies for determining fair prices.
The recent attempt by NCI to determine a fair price for Taxol illustrates the primitive nature of NIH efforts in this regard. Taxol was discovered, manufactured and tested in humans by the National Cancer Institute. NCI gave Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) that assigned to the firm the exclusive rights to commercialize all NCI past and future Taxol research. BMS, the NCI's favorite partner in drug development, paid nothing for the CRADA and will pay the government no royalties on its Taxol sales. However, BMS did agree to a "fair pricing" clause in the Taxol CRADA.
BMS's only contribution to the NDA approval for Taxol was to supply NCI with approximately 17 kilos of Taxol, and to process the paperwork for the NDA. When the NDA was approved in December 1992, BMS announced a price of $4.87 per milligram. The cost of a completed Taxol treatment will exceed $10,000 for some patients.
The Taxol price was the product of bizarre negotiations between NCI and BMS. NCI claimed that BMS simply refused to disclose any information on its development, research or marketing costs. NCI then gave BMS a list of the monthly wholesale prices for 15 arbitrarily chosen drugs and told BMS to price Taxol below the median for the group.
To consider the adequacy of the NIH's "fair pricing" methodology, consider the following facts. NCI was able to produce Taxol in small research quantities at $.60 per milligram prior to its 1989 agreement with BMS, using the same third party contractor as is used by BMS. According to the BMS contractor's recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), it is under contract to produce approximately 400 kilograms of Taxol for BMS by August 1994, for which the firm expects to be paid $100 million. The wholesale value of 400 kilograms of Taxol, on the other hand, is $1.948 billion.
Since BMS is able to manufacture Taxol for about $.25 per milligram -- about 5 percent of the current wholesale price, the company's cost of providing 17 kilograms of Taxol to NCI for research purposes (which BMS owns the rights to) was less than $5 million.
In the face of criticism of the Taxol price from Representative Ron Wyden and the Taxpayer Assets Project, BMS claimed that it had made "huge" investments in the development of Taxol, which were in excessive $114 million. However, while the company refused to provide any accounting of where these "huge" expenditures had gone, the $114 million figure clearly was based upon BMS long term contracts to supply Taxol for manufacturing purpose, and not for the research costs of the drug, which were largely borne by taxpayers. Moreover, NCI's claim that it was denied access to the BMS data reflects its contempt for its responsibilities to determine fair consumer prices for government funded drugs. The fact that BMS refused to provide financial data to NCI was a regrettable but hardly unsurmountable obstacle. While NCI is not run by rocket scientists, a child with a fourth grade education and a pencil and paper could have easily estimated BMS's development and manufacturing costs from a review of publicly available SEC documents. |
Last edited by GePap on 11-06-2005 at 06:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Good for the Brazilians, but I don't think the US will comply either way.
Who cares if Brazil joins the list of pirate nations? Already you have Russia, the Ukraine, China, Southeast Asia all full of rabid infringement...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Just comparing gross dollars from the pharma industry compared to government research grants and/or university funds will prove the private industry is THE big source of money when it comes to new drug research. |
Not true, given that that the biotech industry spends an enormous portion of its money in advertisements. Furthermore, gov't research grants disproportionately go into fundamental research. And getting back to this case in particular, this research is disproportionately important for a place like Brazil (i.e. it's not going into correcting erectile dysfunction). Putting research into, say, vaccines primarily designed for helping the third world, is not a money maker, and won't be in the near future; to the extent that it is done by big pharma (such as the recent cervical cancer vaccine from Merck), it's primarily an exercise in PR. So, such a facile comparison is patently absurd.
Anyways, good for Brazil. In contrast to skirting absurd IP laws, our agrisubsidies actually do steal (that is, immorally take money). And from poor people barely getting by, rather than big pharma trying to fleece said poor people.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-06-2005 01:07
|