Why We Protect Inventions

The Indian Supreme Court has rejected the idea of patent protection for Novartis’ drug Glivec, saying that an active ingredient in Glivec was well-known prior to the development of the drug.  Those worthies also rejected Novartis’ argument that the innovation that deserved patent protection was their transformation of that active ingredient into a “beta crystal” form, which made it a viable treatment for cancer.

Never mind, said the Court, India doesn’t feel like patenting this and making it harder for an Indian company to profit from the foreign Novartis’ work.

Novartis isn’t alone in this strait.

India’s patent office last year ordered Germany’s Bayer AG to issue a license allowing an Indian generics company to copy its patented cancer drug Nexavar and market it at one-thirtieth the cost.

And

In November, India’s government approved caps on a third of the country’s drugs, up from 18% under a previous regime—a level of price control not seen since the 1970s.

Novartis had this on the wisdom of further investment in India:

If innovation is rewarded, there is clear business case to move forward.  If it isn’t rewarded and protected, there isn’t.

And

We’ll continue to build our business, but we will certainly be cautious in investments in R&D and innovation in India.  And until the climate for intellectual property and the ecosystem is fully in place, I don’t think any investment in R&D will take place here.

Well, NSS.  It’s time for the Indian government to figure this out, too.

The Party of Stupid

New York Branch.

As the quid pro quo for agreeing to Governor Andrew Cuomo’s demand for his higher minimum wage, the New York Senate Republicans browbeat him into accepting a tax credit for businesses who hire at that new minimum wage.

Leaving aside the anti-hiring outcomes of minimum wage increases, as a result of this foot-shooting everyone in New York now gets to pay a piece of that higher wage, not just the businesses and their customers.

Brilliant, guys.

More Government Arrogance

This time on the immigration front, and it brings to mind the dark-of-night ram-through of Obamacare.  And that’s working out well, isn’t it?

Recall that Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D, VT) about upcoming immigration reform legislation and urging a “make haste slowly” process with open hearings and an opportunity for all Senators, and through them all Americans, to see and debate the matter.

Leahy wrote back saying he’d give hearings some thought, and maybe hold one.  After all,

The Judiciary Committee is capable of swift and thorough action.

And

I…remain mindful of the urgent need for us to actually get to the work of debating and considering amendments without unnecessary delay….

Yeah.  Just like Obamacare.  No need for petty Republican argument.  We already know the answer.

A copy of Leahy’s letter to Rubio can be seen here.

Why are Progressives always so afraid of open debate?