by Mike Masnick
Wed, Nov 25th 2009 1:44am
Joseph Franklin has written about how a group of universities have agreed to some basic principles (pdf) about providing drugs to developing nations at reasonable costs (or even free) in the interest of better global healthcare. However, Franklin wonders how well this will work in practice, and why it should only apply to developing nations, and not domestically as well. It's an interesting question, made more complicated by the fact that many drugs have their research started at universities -- frequently backed by government money -- but are later taken over by pharmaceutical companies who have no interest in such principles. I tend to think that such "principles" are nice to speak about, but are rarely effective in actually creating change. I would think that a much stronger argument is showing the economic benefits in keeping people alive. If you could rid some developing nations of certain diseases, you'd be able to open up vast new markets for other industries. Hell, imagine if you could get companies in other industries (food, clothing, transportation, etc.) to pay for drugs for the poor in developing nations, knowing that keeping them healthy will help those nations build their economy so they can start purchasing the same food, clothing and transportation...
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Supreme Court Adds Yet Another Smackdown To Patent Court, Says It Misinterpreted Patent Law In Apple/Samsung Case
- Appeals Court Reminds Everyone: Patent Infringement Is Good For Competition
- China Files A Million Patents In A Year, As Government Plans To Increase Patentability Of Software
- Stupid Patent Of The Month: Movies From The Cloud
- Sony Wants To Patent A System For Scoring Journalists' 'Veracity'