[Ip-health] who is Robert Shapiro?

[James Love]

While the IHT does not bother with disclosure statements, it might have
added that while Shapiro was once an under secretary of commerce for
economic affairs in the Clinton administration, more recently he was a
consultant to PhRMA.  Jamie

-------
http://www.phrma.org/publications/publications/profile02/2003%20CHAPTER%202=
.pdf

As a result of the significant pharmaceutical industry
investment in R&D in the United States, the
=93research-based U.S. pharmaceutical industry is one
of the crown jewels of the American economy and
plays a critical role in the health and prosperity of the
American people,=9424 according to a report prepared for
PhRMA by Dr. Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise
Institute, and Dr. Robert Shapiro, Sonecon, LLC. The
pharmaceutical industry is and has been a =93major
source of innovation in the development not only of
new drugs, but also of new manufacturing processes
and scientific knowledge.=9425

24. Kevin A. Hassett and Robert Shapiro, The
Importance of the Pharmaceutical Industry in
the U.S. Economy, Prepared for Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America
(Washington, DC: PhRMA, 23 October 2002).



Mike Palmedo wrote:

> http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=3D528859.html
>
> Patents are part of the solution, not the problem
> Robert J. Shapiro IHT
> Monday, July 12, 2004
>
> Livesaving drugs
>
> WASHINGTON Without recent innovations in various forms of medical
> treatment and equipment, some of us would be dead today, and many of the
> rest of us could look forward to shorter lives.
>
> But there are many ill people in the world who cannot afford the
> life-saving drugs they need and the companies that produce those drugs
> are increasingly taking the blame.
>
> There is a growing chorus of anti-patent advocates in the United States
> claiming the answer lies in getting rid of patents and making every
> innovation available to any producer, so that private companies would
> compete to market generic versions of every new drug or device.
>
> Would we be better off without the patent system?
>
> Central controls have hardly been a happy experience for countries that
> try them, and there is little reason to expect the result would be
> different if patents were eliminated. Scientific genius may well proceed
> at its own pace and on its own path, but no private company will devote
> money to develop the ideas for new drugs or devices if others can
> appropriate the results.
>
> The anti-patent reformers think they can solve the problem by having
> taxpayers pick up the bill for research and development. That would mean
> a dramatic expansion in direct public funding to develop new treatments.
> Then, if a new drug or device worked, the formula or plans would be
> placed in the public domain so anyone could produce it.
>
> Another approach by anti-patent advocates would have the government
> award prize money to the best new innovations, and put them in the
> public domain. Or the government would pledge that the drug firm that
> came up with a new glaucoma treatment, for example, would win a fat
> contract to supply hospitals, with the formula again going into the
> public domain.
>
> But the returns provided by having a monopoly that comes with a patent
> not only justifies early investments. They also concentrate the business
> mind in ways that drive effective innovation.
>
> The key to the economics of patents is that rewards for large
> investments are great only if a firm succeeds in producing something of
> large value to others. This is what a publicly supported system cannot
> provide. Who would decide what research will lead to valuable
> pharmaceutical or technological developments, a civil servant or, worse,
> members of Congress?
>
> Replacing current private-sector spending with government funds would
> also be a very expensive experiment for U.S. taxpayers. All told,
> America spends about $250 billion a year on research and development and
> private companies looking for patent rights account for three-fourths of
> that. Furthermore, the private benefits captured by patent holders are
> often exaggerated.
>
> First, while U.S. patents are technically granted for 20 years, the
> clock usually begins when the patent process starts, not many years
> later, when the patent is finally granted.
>
> More important, the patent process puts the details of every
> breakthrough on the public record, so that anyone today can download any
> American patent from the Web site of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
> Office. Such full disclosure through the patent system is more than
> simply the basis for thriving markets in generic products that arise
> when a patent expires. The moment a patent is granted, competitors can
> study the application and learn much of what they need to develop a
> slightly-different product that does the same thing. Pfizer's active
> patent for Viagra didn't stop Eli Lilly from introducing Cialis.
>
> Still, there are real problems with the current system. Patent rights
> provide little incentive for the development of anything with a very
> limited market, including drugs for rare conditions.
>
> While live-saving drugs are out of reach for some poor people in
> developing nations, the culprit is not patent and price: It is the
> abject poverty and the reluctance of rich nations to pick up the bill.
>
> The United States, the G-7 and the United Nations all need to do more to
> get people in developing nations the drugs and medical devices they need
> to cure rampant and deadly disease. But we should not consider trying to
> accomplish that by upending the system that produced the drugs and
> devices in the first place.
>
> Robert J. Shapiro was under secretary of commerce for economic affairs
> in the Clinton administration.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>
>


--
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:james.love@cptech.org
tel. +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040