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

221–230 of 245 posts

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#221

Post by lotsofpulp »

BurningFrog wrote: post #195
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.

There are many different kinds of insulin now, and almost nobody uses the original version, because it's tricky to get timing and dosage right. All with their own patent situation, of course.

Insulin is so easy to make clickbait and ragebait with due to people not knowing, or willfully ignoring, that “insulin” is not one specific medicine.

Kind of crazy considering how many people have diabetes.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#222

Post by adolph »

workerthread wrote: post #167
cperciva wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be wrong, but aren't most drugs sold by large pharma companies actually developed elsewhere and then acquired?

Novo Nordisk does the vast majority of their RD in-house. I can’t speak to other companies.

I've read a little about Novo Nordisk's history and it is a pretty interesting story about aligning financial success with human flourishing. The pharmaco is a subsidiary of a anti-diabetes foundation started from proceeds from getting permission to produce insulin.

The foundation has an objective of providing support for scientific, humanitarian and social purposes. . . . In 2024, the foundation distributed a total of DKK 10.1 billion (approx. $1.39 billion) and paid out DKK 6.9 billion ($1.08 billion) in grants. [0]

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novo_Nordisk_Foundation

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#223

Post by OutOfHere »

kelnos wrote: post #220
OutOfHere wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When the diversity of laws are not even logically self-consistent, with one law denying a right and the other permitting it, what defines what is legal and what isn't? Enforcement does.

Additionally, some laws are not even written clearly, and in fact are intentionally written vaguely.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#224

Post by ThePowerOfFuet »

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

#225

Post by metaltyphoon »

loeg wrote: post #217
metaltyphoon wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I always thought they had auto-injectors

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#226

Post by [deleted] »

kristianp wrote: post #129
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…

Does the government/medical insurance subsidise that price though?

[deleted]

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#227

Post by malfist »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #104
SoftTalker wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That doesn't figure into the pricing strategy or giving away patent protection in Canada in 2018 as far as I can tell? Compounding isn't allowed in Canada, currently, so I assume you are talking about the US? Compounding Ozempic in the US wasn't a thing in 2018 when this patent was released in Canada, so not sure what one has to do with the other. What are you getting at in reference to the argument that the patent w…

Compounding isn't some shady enterprise. Its a standard medical use case. I have to use metronidozol cream on my face, but I'm allergic to some preservatives, so a compounding pharmacy makes a version of metronidozol cream without my allergens.

It's also relatively common for toddlers who need special doses, or for people who can't swallow pills and need liquid formulations.

Compounding is normal.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#228

Post by kridsdale3 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #197
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also somewhat separately, injectable GLP1s are about to be upstaged by oral variants — orfoglipron for Eli Lilly and the Wegovy Pill for Novo. I believe that this gets a new patent, and will probably be a huge seller.

I suspect a lot of the anti-vaxx movement is subconsciously motivated by fear of needles. So yeah, I expect the pill form to be a huge seller!

This was made abundantly clear to me in 2020. It's a mass hysteria fueled by trypanophobia in a vast population of people who aren't very interested in self-analysis and understanding how their own behavior and thought patterns are driven by the amygdala.

One bit of evidence for this: SARMS are huge in the bodybuilding as "gateway steroids". They don't work, they have bad side effects, but hey, they're oral.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#229

Post by matheusmoreira »

UltraSane wrote: post #130
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.

Why wouldn't it be prescribed to morbidly obese people?

It is prescribed to the morbidly obese. It's just that patients almost always opt for cheaper options when I inform them of the costs of the treatment. Even if our public health care system starts offering semaglutide, it is extremely likely that it will impose requirements and require "justification" for the use of the medicine. You know, the usual soulless kafkaesque bureaucracy. It can frustrate people so much they give up. I've seen it.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#230

Post by bawolff »

simonh wrote: post #211
bawolff wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah yes, the ole', it can't be a mistake because companies don't make mistakes therefor it must have been intentional.

I know you're not the one making the argument but it really is rediculously silly to argue that it must be an intentional action to not do something because in the past the company wanted to do the thing. While duh, a mistake by definition is something you dont want to do.

Post reply on HN