Re: Ciprofloxacin Patent
There has been much recent press coverage about ciprofloxacin. Bayer still holds a patent on the chemical, which is used to treat Antrax infections.
Recently, Canadian Health Minister Alan Rock requested that a large quantity of ciprofloxacin be produced by a Toronto generic drug manufacturer.
Bayer got mad. ``We've got a patent,'' they said.
There has been much rhetoric in both Canada and the United States surrounding suggestions to ``override'' the patent. In fact, US Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson is ready to ask Congress to do just that.
Many people use a supposed ``emergency'' as the reason why the patent should be overridden; others claim Bayer is charging too much for the drug.
These are valid arguments, of course, but are not unique to this situation. All patents -- drug or otherwise -- serve to increase the final consumer price of patented products and to decrease (to one, usually) the number of companies supplying the product.
This is not a very robust solution if one desires cheap products to be reliably available. Of course, this is only receiving attention now due to Antrax fears. For years, pharmaceutical companies in Africa have been attempting to supply cheap AIDS drugs only to be thwarted by threats of lawsuits or action under TRIPS (an international agreement mandating US-like patent systems).
AIDS infection rates in Africa make North American concerns over Antrax infection childishly laughable, yet we do not hear calls for ``special exemptions'' of ``overriding'' of patents on AIDS drugs.
An ``emergency'' or ``war-time'' situation is not an excuse to abandon principles, and the calls to abandon patent rules for ciprofloxacin reveal the underlying unjustness of those patent rules.