[Ip-health] Thai saga

[Ken Shadlen]

But if the difference between the amount per unit that goes to the
originator firm whether the royalty rate is .5% or 5% is so tiny as to be
nearly insignificant from the government's perspective, which is what I'm
reading here in Jamie's post, then wouldn't it also be insignificant to
PhRMA? I see the point about not wasting energy wrangling about 6 cents vs.
58 cents, but I can't see how this would reduce the backlash. To the
contrary, I think Jamie has presented a pretty good argument as to why a CL
with 5% -- even higher -- would still leave PhRMA far from satisfied in the
context of a reduction of ~$775/unit.

I write this without being in Washington or having close daily contact with
Washington. Are there people in Congress (or USTR) that would be more
sympathetic to the Thai government were they paying .58/unit rather than
.06/unit?

Ken



On 3/4/08 11:37, "James Love" <james.love@keionline.org> wrote:

> There is no doubt that there is plenty of bullying, lying, angling for
> industry jobs after leaving the government, and other mean spirited
> stuff going on here.
>
> Even so, Thailand has benefited at least somewhat from interventions
> from some sympathetic members of the US Congress and government (and the
> European Parliament and EC), and this has and I hope will continue to
> moderate somewhat the full brunt of the fury that PhRMA would like to
> see unleashed.   To this end, the .5 percent royalty rate was unhelpful,
> bad PR, and almost completely unnecessary in terms of the policy.
>
> To make things more concrete, the price of Plavix dropped from 77 to 1
> baht once competition was introduced.  A royalty of .5 percent of 1 baht
> was .005 baht per pill, or 1.825 baht per year, equal to about 6 US
> cents at current exchange rates.   A 5 percent royalty, 10 times as
> high, would have been a royalty of 18.25 baht per year or 58 US cents,
> per year.
>
> The price of Plavix before the CL was $888 per year.  After the CL, it
> was $11.53 per year.  Arguing about 6 cents versus 58 cents is losing
> sight of the big picture, I think.
>
>   Jamie
>
> On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 11:10 +1100, Peter Drahos wrote:
>> I do not believe that upping the royalty rate
>> will reduce the pressure on countries like
>> Thailand. During the Uruguay Trade Round, the US
>> made a lot of promises about backing off on its
>> trade unilateralism if developing countries
>> signed up to the WTO, TRIPS and its jolly nice
>> dispute resolution mechanism. The FTA IP jihad
>> followed soon after. I also think there may be
>> cases where .5% will be appropriate. Hard to see
>> how a country like Laos can afford much more.
>> Of course, this Thai saga has in part been about
>> sending a message to other countries in the
>> region about what to expect if they exercise
>> their lawful rights =A1=A9 Al Capone and the boys are
>> gonna pay you a visit and now there=A1=AFs a minimum rate you can=A1=AFt=
 go below.
>> Chomsky somewhere has a nice line about
>> domination in the world today =A1=A9 =A1=B0the rule of law
>> for the weak, the rule of force for the strong=A1=B1
>>
>> Peter Drahos
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ip-health mailing list
>> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
>> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>>
> --
> _____________________________
> James Love, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
> http://www.keionline.org, mailto:james.love@keionline.org
> voice +1.202.332.2670, fax +1.202.332.2673, US mobile +1.202.361.3040, Ge=
neva
> mobile +41.76.413.6584
>
> When everyone thinks the same, no one thinks.  Bill Walton remix of Walte=
r
> Lippmann
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communicat=
ions disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclai=
mer.htm