←back to thread

152 points toomuchtodo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.289s | source
Show context
akira2501 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.40216891[source]
It is illegal to use the previous propellant, so they can’t be manufactured anymore.
replies(1): >>40216938 #
chroma ◴[] 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 #
mitthrowaway2 ◴[] No.40217064[source]
Well, patents are only supposed to be granted if an idea is non-obvious to someone skilled in the field. Replacing an illegal propellant with a legal one should be obvious to anyone in the field, so this patent deserves to be challenged.
replies(1): >>40218285 #
1. redeeman ◴[] No.40218285[source]
and while we're at it, maybe punish the ones who granted it? perhaps even make the people who did it, and anyone who knew of it, and didnt try combat it PERSONALLY liable for it?