Hey, there! Log in / Register
Genzyme wants rival drug maker to stop gellin'
By adamg on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 9:30am
Cambridge-based Genzyme yesterday sued Bedford-based Anika Therapeutics in an attempt to stop it from selling an osteoarthritis treatment Genzyme says infringes on its patents.
Anika currently sells an injectable gel, called Monovisc, in Canada, Europe and Turkey that lubricates the joints of osteoarthritis patients, reducing pain and increasing mobility. The company is nearing FDA approval for US sales.
In its suit, filed in US District Court in Boston, Genzyme says the compound is just too similar to its Synvisc, for which it holds two U.S. patents. It wants a judge to block Anika from the US market.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
as much as i want to support local businesses
I hate the idea of, "Hey there stop helping people it might stop us from making as much money as possible!"
Yep
There seems to be a lot of variation across the helping professions in terms of how the business side and the helping side are balanced out. It's pretty normal in (otherwise high-quality, ethical) nonprofit human services agencies to frown at the idea of referring someone to *gasp* a competing agency when that's where the service is that will best help the person. Drug companies are way at the other end where it's acceptable to sue other companies to ensure big huge profits. They're regulated much more like a business than like a helping organization, sadly.
Ok, then?
It's a Catch-22. Why would I want to spend 10-15 years developing something to help people if the guy next door can rip it off immediately and undercut all of my profit? If I could pay my bills with goodwill, I would. The patent system makes me tell you and everyone else what I did that worked, but then gives me a 20 year window in which to turn that into a profit before you can jump on it too.
The patent system forces me to make my invention public while protecting it for 20 years from getting claim-jumped. That gives all of my competitors an advantage to improve what I did into something different which still fits with your idea of fair play. If you can make something better, or at the very least *different*, then it can't be stopped from helping people and undercutting my invention at the same time. Genzyme is claiming that it's not different enough.
Because you're in the wrong field for that?
I dunno, a lot of us in the helping professions spend our whole careers researching and developing and perfecting methods and techniques that help people with their illnesses. Some folks name their products and write books about them, but most don't. We might publish articles about them, and most do at least some teaching of grad students and fellow professionals on how to use the techniques we've developed. Most of us don't do any sort of patenting or enforcement of who can use our techniques, because we figure, well, the more people helped, the better. And we're not worried about people making huge profits off of our ideas, because none of us are making huge profits off of any of this.
Nonsense
As "noble" a profession as medical research is, there's just as much politics, funding fights, and patenting among its professionals as pharmaceuticals and in many cases even more so. You also end up operating on a budget hundredths less...and accomplishing hundredths less because of it. Medical research accomplishes much of what it does on the back of data released publicly by pharma companies or in collaboration with an R&D team at a pharma company.
These pharma companies also don't just spring up out of nowhere. Nearly every start-up is the idea of an academic transferred out of the university and into the private sector. It either thrives and gets bought up or falls apart and disappears.
Your idyllic view of research isn't realistic or practical.
Try investing a few billion dollars in research...
...then tell us how you feel about patents. Not to mention all the times you invest a ton of money and come up with nothing.
eeka, I'm not trying to belittle the contributions of people in your profession. Please realize that some research requires huge capital investments, and people wouldn't make those investments if there weren't a possible reward at the other end. Take away that incentive, and research comes to a screeching halt.
If you have other ways this type of research could happen, please tell us. Meanwhile, this is the system we have.
Good.....one more fabulous
Good.....one more fabulous drug to market to Americans at grossly inflated prices, while the rest the world gets their usual cut-rate. Chump Americans pick up the slack. Take away the average Americans insurance and a good chunk of many popular drugs would/are out of reach for the average so-called middle class. Only po' folks getting freebies and the wealthy could get a lot of these drugs without insurance.
My GF's insurance policy no longer covers a drug called Protopic that she needs every 3 years or so for eczema outbreaks because it's one of only two things that really work. No generics are available. With insurance a 30 gram (1 oz) tube cost 20-25 bucks, without 250 bucks. Infreakinsane.