For a company that hides its copyrighted material behind a cash wall, the New York Time shows an astonishing indifference to intellectual property rights

India invalidates Novartis drug patent and the Times cheers because it will help po’folk. Well don’t the disadvantaged need the New York Times too?

NEW DELHI — India’s Supreme Court rejected a Swiss drug maker’s patent application for a major cancer drug Monday in a landmark ruling that allows cheap copies of important medicines to continue being distributed in much of the world.

The ruling allows Indian makers of generic drugs to continue making copycat versions of the Novartis drug Gleevec — also spelled Glivec in other markets, like Europe — which can have a seemingly miraculous effect on some forms of leukemia.

But the ruling’s effect will be felt well beyond the limited number of patients in India who need Gleevec because it will help maintain India’s role as the world’s most important provider of cheap medicines, which is critical in the global fight against HIV/AIDS and other diseases.

 

The ruling Monday is bound to be seen with some concern by the United States and the international pharmaceutical industry and may be yet another blow to India’s standing among major multinational companies, many of whom view protection of their intellectual property as vital to their business interests.

Filthy businessmen, placing profits before people. I blame Bush.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “For a company that hides its copyrighted material behind a cash wall, the New York Time shows an astonishing indifference to intellectual property rights

  1. libertarian advocate

    All intellectual popery rights are equal, but some intellectual property rights are more equal than others.
    – Punch Sulzberger “borrowing” from George Orwell.

  2. libertarian advocate

    Can you fix that first “property”? iPad error monkey at work again.

  3. edgewater

    you can’t beat the nytimes for hypocrisy… they tirelessly fought for public ownership of the broadcast spectrum until they they didn’t … and then sold their WQXR frequency for $60 million. like congress, there are two sets of rules … one for congress and the nytimes, and one for the rest of us.