Exactly, I wonder what it's really going to be. I read in Financial Times that he said that the price of $750 was a normal market price and that the previous price was like giving it away for free. So based on that I don't really expect the price to get close to the old price.
I don't even understand how a company can be given exclusive rights to a 62 year old drug. It shows that company rights to drugs are really, underneath it all, just corporate rent-seeking.
Yes, it seems to beat the purpose of having rights, which if I am correctly is to protect companies and stimulate innovation by giving them the room and time to invest in R&D and then make a return on their investment. That's not what this is about anymore. Now the argument is to collect money for future investments, but it can't be right that people can't afford their medication now just so that in the future other people possibly can (assuming the new developed medication is at an affordable price of course).
Exactly, I wonder what it's really going to be. I read in Financial Times that he said that the price of $750 was a normal market price and that the previous price was like giving it away for free. So based on that I don't really expect the price to get close to the old price.
I don't even understand how a company can be given exclusive rights to a 62 year old drug. It shows that company rights to drugs are really, underneath it all, just corporate rent-seeking.
Yes, it seems to beat the purpose of having rights, which if I am correctly is to protect companies and stimulate innovation by giving them the room and time to invest in R&D and then make a return on their investment. That's not what this is about anymore. Now the argument is to collect money for future investments, but it can't be right that people can't afford their medication now just so that in the future other people possibly can (assuming the new developed medication is at an affordable price of course).