Blog Source 8

Avik Roy posted a commentary on a blog called The Science Business that is located on the website Forbes.com, on July 8, 2010 entitled ‘Why Drug Patent Settlements Are Good For Consumers’. Forbes is an institution built around business info and a pro-business ideal, the blog area the Science Business focuses on issues of health care. Roy is an equity research analyst for the investment firm Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co and He blogs on healthcare policy at The Apothecary. Roy’s postion in the Pay-For-Delay debate is that in the majority of cases settlements between generic and brand name drug companies is good for consumers. He contends that the consumer only loses in a case when a generic company has a strong case for dissolving the patent of a brand name drug but chooses to settle any way, which according to Roy would be stupid for the generic company, so they would never do that. Roy goes on to claim that if legislation was passed to ban settlements that consumers would in fact have to pay more than they currently do. The article ends by saying that the United States has a large and dynamic generic drug market that does not need to be messed with as the legislation intends to do. http://blogs.forbes.com/sciencebiz/2010/07/why-drug-patent-settlements-are-good-for-consumers/

Blog Source 7

In an article entitled ‘Pay-For-Delay Or Pay-For-Innovation?’ written by Anup Malani for the website Forbes.com posted on July 7, 2010, the author critiques the NY Times stand on the Pay-For-Delay issue. Forbes is an institution built around business info and a pro-business ideal. Malani is a heavily qualified man to write on this subject, he is Professor of Law and the Aaron Director Research Scholar at the University of Chicago, who teaches health-law and food and drug-law, and he serves as the director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Malani’s position is that the NY Times position that Pay-For-Delay settlements between for pharmaceuticals should be banned is incorrect. He writes that these settlements are not bad for consumers, but in fact typically encourage the release of generics sooner. He defends this possition by citing research from several very qualified people that shows that changing prices in prescriptions doesn’t usually translate to a change in purchasing habits of customers. He continues to write that if the legislation is passed the patent system will be weakened and it will discourage innovation and research in the industry.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/15/drug-patents-pharmaceuticals-opinions-contributors-anup-malani.html

Blog Source Report 4

In the article ‘The Times Reproduces The FTC’s flawed position on Drug Patent Settlements’ the author Glen G. Lammi responds to an article in the NY Times written to endorse legislation discouraging the practice of settlements between brand name and generic prescription drug companies. Lammi wrote this article for Forbes.com, the website of the financial magazine Forbes. Lammi is chief council of legal studies for the Washington Legal Foundation (WFL). The WFL is an organization that fights legal battles that encourage the open market and limited government intervention.
This article is critical of the NY Times position claiming that the Times article correctly grounds the situation but falls short in its conclusions, which according to Lammi suffers from faulty logic. The position of this article is that the settlements that occur between companies are a necessary function of the market and that generic companies pushing to produce patents create an open market that is good for competition and business. To support his claims Lammi cites Bruce Downey, chairman of generic drug maker Barr Pharmaceuticals to clarify the purpose of settlements which the Times messed up on. This article was published on the website on July 12, 2010.

http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/07/12/the-times-reproduces-the-ftcs-flawed-position-on-drug-patent-settlements/?partner=artctrlinboxmain

Blog Source Report 6

In a statement released by Pharma by it president and CEO Billy Tauzin which was published on their website on March 5, 2010, the organization expressed it’s collective approval of Senators Leahy, Sessions, Hatch and others for their work in reaching an agreement on patent reform. It is the view of Pharma that only through strong defense of patent laws, can companies who do work to save lives continue to exist. They believe that these senators who have acted to defend the legitimacy of patents appreciate the “importance of intellectual property protection to the U.S. economy and to the jobs that it provides. A strong patent system is crucial to our economic competitiveness, especially in these economically trying times.” The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) represents the country’s leading pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies and they hold a predictable stance vehemently defending laws that help the companies that make up the organization make money.

http://www.phrma.org/news/news/phrma_statement_patent_reform_agreement

Blog Source Report 5

In an article published in the Legal Pulse sponsored by Washington Legal Foundation (WFL) author Glenn Lammi explains why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is advocating a de facto ban on settlements between generic and brand name prescription drug companies. Lammi is chief council of legal studies for the WFL. The WFL is an organization that fights legal battles that encourage the open market and limited government intervention. According to this article the FTC is responding to the actions of a generic pharmaceutical company Watson Pharmaceuticals. This company has been acting in a way that some view as illegal which has drawn the attention of the FTC. According to Lammi the FTC’s response to this specific problem is to regulate all of the pharmaceutical industry in a way that would be detrimental to business for everyone. Lammi sees settlements between drug companies as “Patent litigation has become a necessary, and expensive, precursor to the release of new generic drugs. Rather than incur millions in litigation costs, branded and generic companies often prefer to settle.”
This article was published on June 30, 2010.

http://wlflegalpulse.com/2010/06/30/one-federal-agencys-crusade-against-patent-litigation-settlements/

Blog Source Report 3

In the article ‘Pfizer cuts hundreds of jobs in Britain and Ireland’ the details of eight factories that are to be closed and 6,000 jobs that are too be lost are explored. Pfizer is a company that produces two of the world’s most popular drugs, Viagra and Lipitor. In the coming year the intellectual property patents on the drug Lipitor are going to expire letting cheaper generic copies of the drug to be produced. IN anticipation of this competition and the resulting loss of income, they are closing several factories. This article shows that patents preserve manufacturing jobs for the companies that produce the drugs. Because of the competitions that generic company’s give the large companies, the large companies have began to merge creating larger and larger entities that have a bigger stake in the market. Which means, that the competition which is supposed to diversify the market leads to a greater consolidation of market share when the companies merge.
This article was written by Andrew Clark who is based in New York for the Daily Standard. It appeared in the paper on May 18, 2010.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/18/pfizer-axes-jobs-uk-ireland

Blog Source Report 2

In the article ‘Violations are cited in Generics’ the author investigates generic drug companies that are producing pills that don’t meet FDA guidelines for presciptions or are falsifying tests and trials. This is important because more and more people are turning to generic drugs in leiux of expensive prescriptions. People go to generics because they are supposed to have the exact same medicine in them that their brand name counterparts have. Some generics are producing drugs that don’t meet the same standards in an effort to further cut prices. This article focuses on one company in particular who continues to have problems but cites others who have had violations. This is important because the argument for generics is hampered if they don’t produce the same quality product that the big-company-produced brand name drugs are.
This article was written by Natasha Singer who works for the NY Times. She writes on subjects of pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. This article was published on March 12, 2010 in the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/business/13generic.html?_r=1&ref=generic_drugs_pharmaceuticals

Blog Source Report 1

In the opinion piece ‘Patents System Has Had it’s Day’ the author Philip Soos criticizes the current system of intellectual property patents that allows Prescription drug companies to have a temporary monopoly by being the sole distributer of drugs until the patent wears out. He argues his case on two grounds. One point is ethical, Soos feels that the high prices of drugs which exclude money people, particularly in under-developed nations who can’t afford the medications, are irresponsible because they don’t allow people to obtain the way to heal themselves. Soos feel that drug companies should exist to make a profit, but that they should also exist to heal everyone. The second point that the author makes is based on national economics. According to the article Americans purchase $300 billion in drugs. This article proposes that research and development be done by the government and drug companies involvement would be limited to production which could be done at a cost of $150 billion, which is half of the current system.
Soos uses the generic drug market to show that drugs can be produced in a more cost affective way that would enable a much larger portion of the world to medicate them selves as they see fit. BY getting rid of the patents, which he proposes, Soos believes that all companies would become ‘generic’ drug companies which would be good for the world. Philip Soos is a researcher in intellectual property rights based in Melbourne, Australia. This article was published in the Guardian UK on March 23, 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/23/pharmaceutical-industry-patent-system

More Potential Topics

1. Should drug it be (il)legal for drug companies to pay other drug companies not to produce generic versions of drugs to maintain a monopoly of the market. One side feels it should be illegal because it drives up prices for consumers who need the medicine and it looks like corporate collusion. The drug companies say it should be legal because the money that they make from this goes towards research of new more effective drugs.
2. This is an interesting debate because medicine, its cost, and its availability is an important issue to any one who wants to live a long healthy life.
3. This should be interesting for a CSU student because a typical student does not have a lot of income and would benefit greatly from more generic medicine released in a timelier manner. In fact with all the controversy about the Obama Health Care plan this is an issue that concerns all of Colorado and America.
4. The major stakeholders in this debate are the drug companies, the insurance companies, and citizens who don’t have good insurance.
5. I think it will be hard to find unbiased information on this issue because money and health are two of the most divisive tools in the world.
6. My initial stance is that this collusion should be illegal because it sounds like they are creating a monopoly.
7. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/opinion/06tue1.html?hp

1. Should bee-keeping be allowed in metropolitan areas, particularly NYC. People for this believe that keeping bees helps pollinate the city, it produces a local supply of healthy honey, and could help people prevent allergies. People who are against this don’t want a large population of venomous insects where they live, and where their kids live.
2. This is interesting because it is a weird topic; it surprises me that it is even an issue.
3. I don’t know if this would interest a CSU student because the issue takes place in a large city, unless that student is a major in Anthropology. I don’t believe that a Colorado resident would particularly care, however any American citizen who resides in a large city because it could effect their supply of honey as well as their proximity to bees.
4. The major stakeholders in this issue are people who wish to raise bees and people who live with those people who wish to raise bees.
5. I think it would be hard to find information on this issue because it is a local issue that doesn’t even concern everyone that lives in a city.
6. My initial stance is pro-beekeeping.
7. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/opinion/07Raffles.html?ref=opinion