Medicine, Money & Morality : A Contrary View

 


 

Medicine, Money  & Morality : A Contrary View


 

 

 





There are two vociferous demand these days :

 

·      a loud cry against the high prices of medicines and health essentials 

·      an appeal to make covid vaccines off-patent 

 

 

The former complains against lawlessness ; the latter demands a temporary lawlessness. 

The former is creating waves domestically and the latter internationally. 

Strangely, the both have a common unanswered question.

 

 

Yes, we all agree that one should not be greedy, one should not be insensitive and one should not be adamant in these times. And therefore, there is a strong case for the covid vaccines to go off-patent. However, there is also a counter argument. It says that before giving the waiver, one should also consider the implications for the next pandemic. 

 

Will during the next pandemic, investors put billions of dollars in inventing vaccine if they know that the vaccine they would fund could go off-patent within a year of invention ? So, by saving a little costs, we could be risking millions of lives in future pandemics or probably the entire mankind….! 

 

Last year, when most saw pandemic as a misery, a few saw a market within the misery. And these few could see the market only because they were equipped with the lens called “patent protection”. As a result, the world has got vaccine within less than twelve months. So is patent protection an evil or a boon ? By getting vaccine off-patent, are we not trying to kill the gander that laid the golden eggs ( golden eggs is saved lives ).

 

The second noise too has a similar story. Yes, we all know that high prices of medicines and support systems are not desirable. And that the black marketing of essentials must be detested. But is it also not true that because the prices reached high levels that the supply got augmented. High prices made it possible for the traders to source medicines even from expensive channels and by making huge advance payments. Had there been a price-control law, the supply would have remained restricted as there would have been no incentives for manufacturers to work overtime and for workers to work in these difficult times and for traders to take risks to increase the supply. Therefore, the high prices are not the evil or the cause of the problem ; they are the response mechanism that the system creates as its defense. When one gets fever, it not that fever which is the illness, it is the body’s response mechanism to fight the anti-body.

 

Now coming back to patents and copyright but with a slightly different perspective.

 

  

People often ask me why 1980s saw the worst of Hindi cinema and was dominated by fixed formula films. One section of  research points at the inability of makers to experiment. The other school of thought blames the taste of the audience. However, the real reason lies in the fact that 1980s was the time when video piracy and music piracy were at the peak. This meant hardly any reward for the copyright owner as people preferred watching pirated video cassettes at home than going to cinemahalls. The reward for experimenting and associated risk was missing, so makers preferred fixed formula films.

 

However in 90s, the arrival of multiplexes of 90s, the re-proliferation of the overseas market and the development of satellite rights market, provided a fair incentive for makers to experiment and thus we could see much better films.

 

Using the same principle, imagine if there were lax patent laws, what would have been the quality of medicines that we would have recd all these years and worse how many life-saving drugs would have ever seen the light of the day.

 

However,  the off-patent group would still argue, and rightly so, that while profit is good but how much of profit is good ?

 

So the million dollar question that needs an answer is  What should be a limit to profit ?. And if that is a million dollar question then there is a billion dollar question that precedes it ‘Who should decide the limits to profit ?’. And even before that, there is a trillion dollar question ‘How does one decide the limit ?’

 

I don’t have answers to these. But whoever attempts to should be prepared  to face both – the bouqets and the brickbats ; and the latter ones in larger numbers. And if you don’t believe me, just recollect that the patent laws and the high price of medicine are instruments to fight the pandemic, yet they have become the punching bags……Life’s like that.

 

 

 

 

-       Deepesh Salgia

Comments

  1. Very well laid out.

    This triggered two thoughts. One is not too relevant perhaps so i'll put it last.

    The more important point is the patent issue. Patents are always created on the shoulders of other patents or the work done before it. Now it is a flawed system to ignore all that work done before and let the patent holder reap all the benefits as if they created it from scratch. So here's an idea that in todays world, an algorithm can be created to solve. The analogy is that when one gets a patent search for prior art done by a lawyer, then they also give your concept a novelty score based on which you can decide if it is worth filing a patent or theres enough similar products already in the market. Similarly, one can algorithmically calculate the P.I.S. (Patented Idea Score) of the patent at the time it's granted.
    Say your patent gets 70 P.I.S., then it means that its 70% original and 30% based on other ideas that helped make it happen for you.
    Therefore 30% of the gross PROFIT should be either deducted in public interest, or put into a fund for the development of ideas....or a fund to help others in cases of items like vaccines and medicines.

    Second less relevant thought: The Hindi movie example may have yet another aspect to why in the 80s we saw copies and formula stuff, and i think its to do with two more possible reasons and both to do with the audience. One, not too many people were exposed to western content which meant that to the masses, everything was original and worth celebrating. they didnt care about originality, the movie's job was to provide entertainment and that id did. Secondly Indian masses love to follow gods, not concepts, whether its movies or politics. Our movie heroes got godly statuses and it was good enough if they showed their faces and did what they were stereotyped to do. This hasn't changed much actually, but some of the masses are slightly more exposed to outside content and then started expecting more. so some of the content providers started offering more. but i doubt even half of our population wants anything more than what was being spoon fed in the 80s. 

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the second issue ( of movies ), India is a complex country with many micro-markets within the larger market. So we will always have multiple kinds of audience. And therefore, even when markets mature, there will be certain micro-market where audience wants to see icon-based films.

      The first issue can have implementation challenges. However, with things like cryptocurrency getting developed and more acceptable, use and exploitation of IP can easily be moderated. And then royalty distribution will become much easier.

      Delete
  2. Wonderful points Deepesh.

    Populist thought in combination of the Jio model also says that the money can be made on volumes. Since the demand for vaccines is inelastic (i.e. it is assumed that 80pc of the global population will take it), the patent holders could consider licensing the patent to local manufacturers at a very low margin, thereby making enough and more money. If the cost of the vaccines remain high, we may only get sub optimal demand of around 30pc or so, with many taking it only because they need to travel internationally. A lower price point will encourage poorer countries to participate and so, reduce the chances of virus transmission.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wonderful points Deepesh.

    Populist thought in combination of the Jio model also says that the money can be made on volumes. Since the demand for vaccines is inelastic (i.e. it is assumed that 80pc of the global population will take it), the patent holders could consider licensing the patent to local manufacturers at a very low margin, thereby making enough and more money. If the cost of the vaccines remain high, we may only get sub optimal demand of around 30pc or so, with many taking it only because they need to travel internationally. A lower price point will encourage poorer countries to participate and so, reduce the chances of virus transmission.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Parikshit. Hope better sense prevails over people in power and people with patents.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cyrus Pallonji Mistry : A Salute to his Vision

Real Estate : The Past, The Present and The Future

Do Owner managed real estate companies have a high inherent risk ?