Exerpt msg 49 post:
I really don't disagree with you concerning the problems inherent in
demanding cheap AIDs drugs, one way or another, we need to pay for the
research and development. But, putting my rational advisor hat on, I'd
argue that a successful drug company should do no real breakthrough
developments. Rather, is should focus on developing patentable small
variations in the chemical compound already used. Look for small
advantages, and then market the heck out of them. The development
risks
are minimal, as are the market risks. Indeed, from what I've read,
this is
the model drug companies are going to. Its not that they wouldn't
market a
cure; its that, when ideas are pitched, the low risk higher gain ideas
will
get the money first.
I have seen figures that say 60% of "new drugs" are existing drugs whose patent is
about to expire and become public domain. The companies tinker with the formula in a
small way and market a new drug, again covered under patent rights. I am not familiar
with the ins and out of the current argument so perhaps I should not comment rather
than be exposed for an uninformed layman, but doesn't this type of action have the
consequence of supressing new discoveries that could lay in other areas than drug
development?
ks
http//:www.chequamegon.blogspot.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
