Comments on: FTC Commish Vows To Fight ‘Pay-For-Delay’ Deals

By: Ed Silverman

Ed Silverman — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:40:57 +0000

Dear Nffcnnr,

I used the word excerpt because the entire op-ed isn’t here, although, yes, most of it is. But in the interest of being fair and accurate, I used that word.

And while I do sometimes comment on developments, I don’t always do so in every post. In this instance, I thought the FTC commissioner’s own words were interesting as presented, and decided that if others wish to comment, they can do so.

If you’re then wondering why I chose to post his op-ed, the reason is this - not everyone may read the Post or otherwise come across his essay. One role I play is to make available interesting items that people may miss or not know exists.

If you’d like to know what I think about this topic, write back and I’ll fill you in.

Hope this helps,

By: nffcnnr

nffcnnr — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:19:09 +0000

An “excerpt”?? You just reprinted practically the entire Op-Ed. Don’t you have anything to add to this issue? Where’s the “Comment & Conversation” part?? All you did was CTRL+C, CTRL+V.

By: Jack2

Jack2 — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:53:16 +0000

It seems to me that these agreements should be illegal (and I work for the pharm industry and I oppose compulsory liscenses in places like Thailand). Importantly, it doesn’t seem like they are illegal, so kudos to Cephalon for running the math and taking advantage, I don’t blame the company. But now the law needs to change (or change back). I could see how this practice may be legal in other industries, but in healthcare where the user (patient), provider (insurance), and decider (doc) are all different, such practices seem to undermine the concept behind generic drugs.

A disclaimer - I’m not a lawyer and have no legal training, let alone as a patent law. I don’t know too much about this issue beyond this post.