←back to thread

FTC challenges 'junk' patents held by 10 drugmakers, incl Novo Nordisk's Ozempic

(www.cnbc.com)
152 points toomuchtodo | 5 comments | 30 Apr 24 21:06 UTC | HN request time: 1.208s | source
Show context
akira2501 ◴[30 Apr 24 21:33 UTC] No.40216636[source]▶
Good.

They patented inhalers for a second time. It's the exact same drug. The only thing that changed was the propellant. It went from R-12 to R-134a. Everyone who had to switch out R-12 from refrigeration to drug manufacturing switched to R-134a. There was absolutely _nothing_ novel about it.

It was _criminal_ to allow them the second patent for just the propellant change. It took generic $5 inhalers off the market and replaced them with $95 inhalers. It was was one of the most corrupt swindles I've ever personally seen.

replies(4): >>40216858 #>>40216885 #>>40217053 #>>40241727 #
RheingoldRiver ◴[30 Apr 24 21:52 UTC] No.40216858[source]▶
> It took generic $5 inhalers off the market and replaced them with $95 inhalers.

OOTL, what is stopping companies from making generics of the older version & patients just not using the new version?

replies(4): >>40216891 #>>40216937 #>>40216991 #>>40217174 #
chemeng ◴[30 Apr 24 21:55 UTC] No.40216891[source]▶
It is illegal to use the previous propellant, so they can’t be manufactured anymore.
replies(1): >>40216938 #
chroma ◴[30 Apr 24 22:00 UTC] No.40216938[source]▶
Where can I read more about this? If that’s true, it seems like a problem of over-regulation, not drug companies being exploitative.
replies(7): >>40216969 #>>40216978 #>>40216994 #>>40217022 #>>40217064 #>>40217065 #>>40217119 #
striking ◴[30 Apr 24 22:03 UTC] No.40216978[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichlorodifluoromethane

> In compliance with the Montreal Protocol, its manufacture was banned in developed countries (non-article 5 countries) in 1996, and in developing countries (Article 5 countries) in 2010 out of concerns about its damaging effect on the ozone layer.

Seems a reasonable regulation to me.

replies(1): >>40217286 #
prepend ◴[30 Apr 24 22:37 UTC] No.40217286[source]▶
Not reasonable if it prevents the minuscule amounts required for inhalers.

A more nuanced regulation would limit the production volume if there are still valid use cases.

replies(2): >>40217514 #>>40218665 #
striking ◴[30 Apr 24 22:59 UTC] No.40217514[source]▶
The sentence immediately after the quoted section provides additional nuance, reading as follows:

> Its only allowed usage is as a fire retardant in submarines and aircraft.

There is no reason to continue the use of R-12 in inhalers when R-134a is a drop-in replacement, though you're welcome to do your own research if you still disagree with the legislation.

replies(1): >>40217739 #
1. multimoon ◴[30 Apr 24 23:31 UTC] No.40217739[source]▶
> There is no reason to continue the use of R-12 in inhalers when R-134a is a drop-in replacement, though you're welcome to do your own research if you still disagree with the legislation.

I disagree with that statement. As mentioned above if it causes the drug companies to be able to re-patent the same drug again at 20x the price, then it’s not a drop-in replacement.

If this is a propellant used in life-saving medicine and this regulation increased the price then it’s a bad regulation, period. If there’s already an exception to be used as a fire retardant then medical applications can be included in there as well. The immeasurable output from an inhaler isn’t going to damage the ozone layer.

Over time you can migrate the production to the newer chemical and still achieve the same effect without hiking the price, since the drug companies won’t charge 20x the price if the cheaper generic still exists.

Politicians unfortunately do this all the time where they create a regulation without going through an analysis of tangentially related cause and effect.

replies(1): >>40217791 #
2. jncfhnb ◴[30 Apr 24 23:37 UTC] No.40217791[source]▶
The problem is the patent, not the regulation
replies(1): >>40217824 #
3. multimoon ◴[30 Apr 24 23:41 UTC] No.40217824[source]▶
You’re correct that the patent should’ve never been awarded, but the regulation still caused a problem today - something that could’ve been avoided if a cause-effect analysis was done. This is a problem statement that is applicable to most regulation today.

This is why blanket bans are almost always bad.

replies(1): >>40217902 #
4. jncfhnb ◴[30 Apr 24 23:53 UTC] No.40217902{3}[source]▶
That logic cuts both ways as a tool to prevent important regulation that harms a small interest for the public benefit.
replies(1): >>40223832 #
5. multimoon ◴[01 May 24 14:34 UTC] No.40223832{4}[source]▶
That’s why you an analyze cause and effect. You should target the highest driving factor and ban that, not blanket ban and catch things in the crossfire that don’t make a statistical difference to what you’re trying to improve - that way you don’t cause ill effects elsewhere.