Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 245 posts

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#181

Post by philipallstar »

metabagel wrote: post #171
danielovichdk wrote: post #169

Eat healthy. Do sports. Sleep well. Repeat.

Also, meditate, fast intermittently, get therapy, and develop healthy ways of handling stress and dissatisfaction. Everyone’s path is a little different. What is only a little difficult for some might be downright impossible for others (or feel that way).

No, those things aren't nearly as important. Handling stress and therapy can also be replaced by some physical activity as well.

General advice that would work for 95% of people shouldn't be criticised because it doesn't address the other 5%. If people did it then there'd be far more money in the system to pay for usefully targetted specialist treatment for those people.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#182

Post by PerryUlysses »

foxglacier wrote: post #158
jzebedee wrote: post #4

> Prof. Michael Hoffman from Toronto put me on to the Canadian Patent Database, where you can find that Novo did file a patent there for semaglutide. . .but the last time they paid the annual maintenance fee on it was 2018! > You can even find a letter where their lawyers send a refund request for the 2017 maintenance fee ($250) because Novo apparently wanted some more time to see if they wanted to pay it. > On the s…

Don't be so quick to assume it was a failure not intentional. One of the comments in the article suggests it could have been to avoid PMPRB which is price control for patented drugs.

The company said it was intentional, probably because of the reason you mentioned: “In a statement to Fortune, Novo Nordisk said there was no mistake regarding its patent maintenance fee in Canada.”

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#183

Post by bluecalm »

What's shocking here is that it costs several hundred dollars per year to have a big country enforcing a monopoly for you. I mean at least taking % of the revenue would make sense (and preferably for others to buy out underutilized patents).

As it is it's just corporate welfare - enforcing lucrative market monopoly for an equivalent of a steak dinner for two.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#184

Post by philipallstar »

wasabi991011 wrote: post #109
nextos wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people, including legal experts, claim it could have been intentional: https://www.legal.io/articles/5691258/Novo-Nordisk-Lets-Cana... . I was surprised Science didn't discuss this option. However, reader comments in Science do comment on this possibility. The idea is that letting the patent lapse would avoid getting regulated by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. I know several people working at NN, and…

Just FYI, this isn't "by Science", it's by Derek Lowe, this is his blog, which is hosted on Science>Commentary>Blogs. In its description, Lowe says it is "editorially independent".

Then they'd be better off removing this section if "editorially independent" means "we will take things that even in their headline may not be true at all".

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#185

Post by philipallstar »

aspenmayer wrote: post #95
nextos wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process for the patent to lapse in Canada is quite long, and you get warning letters once deadlines are close. There is also a possibility of a paying a late fee and, finally, there is also a reinstatement process. NN could have missed all these, but they would have to be a really dysfunctional organization. Definitely not a low bus-factor situation.

I wasn’t casting aspersions on NN, but jumping off from the allusion that was made by the user who I replied to. I don’t know what kind of sequence of events could lead to this outcome at NN, but perhaps they were hoist by their own petard. I’m reminded of the “money on the ground” joke involving two economists, which is semi-famous in these parts. To wit: > Economist 1: Look, there’s $20 on the ground! > Economist 2…

> Perhaps the folks at NN are so busy picking up (billions of) dollars that they neglect the dimes on the ground that it would cost to comply with these seemingly trivial, even menial functional requirements of keeping their money printer running.

This isn't what that joke means.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#186

Post by jbrnh »

philipallstar wrote: post #184
wasabi991011 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just FYI, this isn't "by Science", it's by Derek Lowe, this is his blog, which is hosted on Science>Commentary>Blogs. In its description, Lowe says it is "editorially independent".

Then they'd be better off removing this section if "editorially independent" means "we will take things that even in their headline may not be true at all".

It's a blog. It references an interview. The post is also four month old. "In the Pipeline" is generally a fantastic resource on the pharma industry and chemistry news.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#187

Post by simongray »

enslavedrobot wrote: post #142

Fun fact: Novo Nordisk's first success was selling insulin, which was discovered in Canada and licensed by the Scientists who's discovered it for free to the danish company in exchange for a promise to use the revenues "for good purposes". Hopefully this patent SNAFU makes up for 1% of that monumental screw job.

> in exchange for a promise to use the revenues "for good purposes".

They still do an enormous amount of charity, though activities of the foundation are probably highly localised to Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novo_Nordisk_Foundation

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#188

Post by devjab »

philipallstar wrote: post #181
metabagel wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, meditate, fast intermittently, get therapy, and develop healthy ways of handling stress and dissatisfaction. Everyone’s path is a little different. What is only a little difficult for some might be downright impossible for others (or feel that way).

No, those things aren't nearly as important. Handling stress and therapy can also be replaced by some physical activity as well. General advice that would work for 95% of people shouldn't be criticised because it doesn't address the other 5%. If people did it then there'd be far more money in the system to pay for usefully targetted specialist treatment for those people.

Since we are pulling numbers out of our asses can you tell me what good advice that 95% of the people aren't capable of following is? It's great that our national health institutes advices us, but can you explain how the advice isn't completely useless in this particular context? To me it comes off as arrogant and rude.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#189

Post by phantom784 »

greycol wrote: post #71
stevehawk wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the shelf life is probably longer than that if you buy it in dehydrated form and don't hydrate it (but i have no idea)

While I'm all for saving costs, I would be shocked if mixing your own inject-able medicine either weekly (with the chance of making a mistake in dosage or sterility) or too such a high degree of sterility that you can confidentally store several doses is not worth the $200 return flight every two years. Maybe I'm overestimating the risks but it still seems like a small saving for it. Realistically the cost of semiglu…

If you live near the border, of if you regularly travel to Canada anyways, then the travel cost isn't an issue.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#190

Post by OutOfHere »

tredre3 wrote: post #145
OutOfHere wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a million laws on the books that not only are not enforced, but aren't even self consistent with each other. It is enforcement that determines what one actually can or can't do. The enforcement exists for controlled substances, for resale, and for a supply of over 90 days. For personal non-commercial use of a non-controlled medicine for under 90 days, the law is not enforced, and for good reason. People wou…

> There are a million laws on the books that not only are not enforced, but aren't even self consistent with each other. It is enforcement that determines what one actually can or can't do. Okay but your statement was that there's "nothing illegal about it". You now agree that it's illegal, you're just unlikely to get caught. And if you are, you'll just lose that purchase and not face any legal consequences.

It's not about getting caught. It's done in the open with full awareness of everyone. It's not like anyone is hiding it.

Afaik, people hide it only for some controlled substances.

Next time you play a random music video on YouTube, please look at the number of federal copyright laws you're violating. Also, if you ever drive from one state to another, check if you have any plant food with you because crossing state lines with any plant material may be illegal. And I need not remind of marijuana which we know remains highly illegal at the federal level.

Post reply on HN