I am ambivalent about "free trade" in drugs. Would drug manufacturers continue to research for new drugs if they couldn't patent them? If the answer is "no," then the patent system serves a useful purpose. If the answer is "yes," then the cost to human life must be considered. But if no one would have AZT if it weren't for patents, then, clearly, patents are a good thing.
It is also clear to me that whoever has the patent for AZT, they aren't going to have any worthwhile return selling it for $17 a dose in Africa, because almost no one there has that kind of money. So it's no skin off their nose, really, if they don't charge $17 a dose in Africa. They COULD sell it at cost and not lose anything.
Whatever the company decides to do, I don't believe that trade sanctions against an entire nation is the proper avenue for enforcing patents against infringement by some of the nations' citizens. I do acknowledge that patent infringement is a serious problem, and I do acknowledge that trade sanctions "work" ~ I think it's overkill. I, as a consumer of goods made in, say, Thailand, should not have to suffer because someone in Thailand violated a software patent. It's just one more example of the excessive growth of government, and the use of government power to promote the interests of large corporations, and it seems to me that everyone just takes it for granted. Well, I don't. |
