Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (36479)	8/24/2009 10:14:56 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Along with that you also have to show me the "books" of the pharmaceuticals that SHOW they are losing money selling those drugs to Canada. It does not behoove companies to show losses in any country. There is no point in amortizing research expenditures when reimbursements don't cover them. They most likely shift all costs to the countries in which they can recover them.

To: RMF who wrote (36479)	8/26/2009 2:36:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

You have to explain "compulsory licensing scheme". That's when country (or other political jurisdiction) X tells company Y, that they have to sell drug (or other item) Z in country X, or that they have to sell it below a particular price, otherwise X will pass a law saying that its legal for any one to produce Z in Y, as long as they pay a (government determined) license fee to Y. Technically actual compulsory licensing is when the law is passed and in forced, but threats (both direct explicit threats, or implied threats and hints, or even just the knowledge that if a country is "pushed too far", it has this power in reserve) can have the desired effect without actually passing such a law.