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

211–220 of 245 posts

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#211

Post by simonh »

bawolff wrote: post #170
simonh wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends what the “simultaneous filing of the CSP” was simultaneous with. If it was simultaneous with letting the patent expire that makes no sense. If it was simultaneous with the original filing of the patent that does make sense.

Based on the gov website it sounds like it has to be filed within 120 days of filing the patent, so i guess its the latter. It might not be as nonsensical as the alternative, but I still dont understand how the CSP filing makes it any less likely letting the patent lapse was a mistake.

I think it's interpreted as meaning that the company is generally committed to patent protection, and so if they let it lapse in this case despite several warning letters that it's more likely it was a conscious decision for commercial reasons. Which is what they claim. I don't think it's a particularly strong argument.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#212

Post by 1oooqooq »

aardvarkr wrote: post #123
1oooqooq wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

being free means taxpayers will pay. and being on the public system means it will be prescribed only for health risk, just like plastic surgery already is. you don't see people getting nose jobs just because.

Generics are so cheap and easy to make that they can reasonably justify that it will save the government money by making the population healthier. Just think about how much less heart disease and cancer and every other obesity-affected disease costs the taxpayer.

totally agree. was pointing out things left out from the previous comment which was kinda of impling gov would be paying all uses of the sliming drugs, even if on generics price. ... because those drugs make profit not because of it's health benefits.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#213

Post by pyth0 »

abcd_f wrote: post #210
rahimnathwani wrote: post #20

AIUI, because they let the patent expire, the drug was not subject to price regulation by the government. So they could charge whatever. And during most of that time, they were still protected by 'data exclusivity' which means that any generic producer could not get approved without doing their own clinical trials, until 8 years had passed. So they gave up some period of exclusivity in return for being able to charge…

> AIUI ?

As I understand it?

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#214

Post by 1oooqooq »

vitorgrs wrote: post #165
1oooqooq wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

being free means taxpayers will pay. and being on the public system means it will be prescribed only for health risk, just like plastic surgery already is. you don't see people getting nose jobs just because.

First, it seems obvious to me that they'll prescribe it to everyone who, supposedly, undergoes bariatric surgery through the SUS. Generic Ozempic is certainly cheaper than bariatric surgery. That said, I believe it will go even further. To get medication through the SUS, you only need a prescription from a doctor. Any doctor. So even if the SUS itself don't prescribe, you can just find a doctor who will do it... But,…

crazy politicians will be crazy politicians.

sadly rio is exporting them.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#215

Post by SoftTalker »

fragmede wrote: post #148
SoftTalker wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I’m in the USA. I just mentioned that because nobody I know is paying $800/mo. They are buying compounded injections online.

roughly how much are they paying, then?

Probably half that, or less.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#216

Post by whimsicalism »

SoftTalker wrote: post #100
dghlsakjg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price in Canada is ~$175 USD month for name brand Ozempic where I am with no coupons, or other discounts. I see prices in the US around $800+/month. That is significantly cheaper than the US, and cheaper than other GLP-1 class drugs up here, arguably reasonable. Is the supposition that they would have been forced to charge even less? If so, why are their competitors who kept their patents not charging more? Count…

Everyone I know taking these is buying generic compounded formulas. Insurance mostly doesn’t cover it so the go for the cheaper options.

yes, the US govt is being shockingly lax in its IP enforcement here. i suspect it would be much harder to acquire if ozempic/wegovy were produced by an American company

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#217

Post by loeg »

metaltyphoon wrote: post #199
loeg wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US price for name brand is around $500/mo. More than $175, but not $800.

Only now at Costco. It used to be much higher

No. Directly from Novo, prior to the Costco announcement.

The only thing that changes with Costco is you can get the auto-injector version for that price, instead of vials.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#219

Post by kelnos »

pedalpete wrote: post #3

I thought I had a decent handle on patent law, but maybe I'm missing something here. Yes, the patent won't be valid for Canada, but you can't import a product into the US which would infringe on a US patent. So, though there may be a small amount that would slip through the cracks, it isn't as if anyone in the US can now manufacture Semaglutide and distribute it. Canada is such a small market, that many companies don…

> Yes, the patent won't be valid for Canada, but you can't import a product into the US which would infringe on a US patent.

Technically true, but in practice you can often get it across the border in personal-dose-level quantities without getting caught.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#220

Post by kelnos »

OutOfHere wrote: post #190
tredre3 wrote: post #145

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. 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 li…

You seem to be missing the point. You said, "there is nothing illegal about it".

That's false: it is entirely illegal.

Whether or not you can get away with it due to lax enforcement, or whether or not there are any real penalties for getting caught... that's a separate issue that has nothing to do with what you said.

Post reply on HN