GSK Anti-competition

The Dread Pirate said:
It's not so much them making profit I'm all for that but paying others not to eat into their profit's that disgusts me.
Click to expand...

Presumably they're paying them more money than they'd make from entering the market. I'm not a fan of anti competition generally speaking, but basic economics, if I can make more money long term, with various discount factors considered, from entering a market, than you're offering to pay me. I'm entering that market.

kd
 
King Damager said:
Presumably they're paying them more money than they'd make from entering the market. I'm not a fan of anti competition generally speaking, but basic economics, if I can make more money long term, with various discount factors considered, from entering a market, than you're offering to pay me. I'm entering that market.

kd
Click to expand...

This is how it all came to light apparently a one of the other companies found out they could be making a hell of a lot more by competing but because of the agreement they were unable to compete as such they brought this agreement to the OFT's attention.
 
My usual, unusual take on it:

The problem is not the profit motive but the restrictions the governments puts on competition. If it wasn't for the helping hand the big pharma get from the regulator bodies in the government. The uk would be flooded with generic alternatives like we have in south africa. The quality of the generic medicine are just as good as the branded ones. The big pharma pay off government to make restrictions on other manufactures from entering the market. The government gives pharma monopoly on specific medicine through various mechanism, like patents, artificial quality restriction and other production based requirements.
 
groen said:
My usual, unusual take on it:

The problem is not the profit motive but the restrictions the governments puts on competition. If it wasn't for the helping hand the big pharma get from the regulator bodies in the government. The uk would be flooded with generic alternatives like we have in south africa. The quality of the generic medicine are just as good as the branded ones. The big pharma pay off government to make restrictions on other manufactures from entering the market. The government gives pharma monopoly on specific medicine through various mechanism, like patents, artificial quality restriction and other production based requirements.
Click to expand...

So, if you developed something that cost you years of time and money to invent (and it could be anything from a vacuum cleaner to the cure for cancer) then I can assume that you wouldn't patent it? You wouldn't seek to recoup your losses and give yourself the possibility to develop another such breakthrough? Because that is exactly what would happen if 'big pharmas' investments aren't protected. It literally costs billions of pounds to develop a medicine and if, as soon as it is on the market, it can be knocked out by anyone with a tablet press without any money returning to the originator then there will be no more medicines. I am constantly stunned by people's inability see that the reason that generic drugs are so much cheaper than those of 'big pharma' is because the generic companies didn't put any effort into researching them. They just rode in on someone else's work and undercut them.
 
checjb said:
So, if you developed something that cost you years of time and money to invent (and it could be anything from a vacuum cleaner to the cure for cancer) then I can assume that you wouldn't patent it? You wouldn't seek to recoup your losses and give yourself the possibility to develop another such breakthrough? Because that is exactly what would happen if 'big pharmas' investments aren't protected. It literally costs billions of pounds to develop a medicine and if, as soon as it is on the market, it can be knocked out by anyone with a tablet press without any money returning to the originator then there will be no more medicines. I am constantly stunned by people's inability see that the reason that generic drugs are so much cheaper than those of 'big pharma' is because the generic companies didn't put any effort into researching them. They just rode in on someone else's work and undercut them.
Click to expand...

The patent on this particular drug expired at the end of 2004 and GSK have been paying the other pharma companies not to manufacture it or cheaper alternatives themselves after the fact as such they've made us all pay more for the drug when we wouldn't have had to if the other pharma companies weren't prevented from doing so by this shady agreement.
 
Dude, check your facts. From the article that you quoted: "The case relates to deals struck a decade ago. The patents protecting paroxetine - known as Paxil in the United States - have now expired and the supply agreements under investigation were terminated in 2004."
 
Xordium said:
Considering there is a vocal group on these forums think people with depression just need to buck their ideas up I doubt they'll be too bothered in this case.
Click to expand...

It's not much of a surprise when it seems like most people think depression is just a feeling that comes and goes like the weather.

"I'm feeling depressed today because it's raining"
 
checjb said:
Profiteering? If GSK don't make money on their R&D efforts to produce new drugs do you genuinely think that they (a commercial business) will continue to try? :confused:
Click to expand...

And its not like they dont spend loads of money on R&D.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr131n.htm

Oh they dont.

Advertising drugs they shouldnt need to advertise, because they should just be better. But we dont know because the whole Pharma industry is screwed and screwing everyone. This is just a tiny sideline of what they are doing.
 
Skeeter said:
OcUK "how dare a company try to make profit" thread shocker.
Click to expand...

No, its 'how dare a company try to make profit by potentially contravening competition law' thread shocker - the OFT's probe is to decide if a law has been broken. If it has not, then no action will be taken and there is no problem.
 
I hardly think this is the worst issue with drugs companies

publication bias is probably a bigger problem and one that isn't being taken seriously enough at the moment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom