> "So, one has to ask, what's the point of pushing these countries to respect patent protection, and prevent them from seeking generic versions of expensive drugs from other nations?"

I think that drug companies are (justifiably) wary of generic versions of their drugs being mass-produced while these drugs are still under patent protection (and therefore still commanding high prices). Even if the generic is destined for a 3rd world country, once it's available it would be very easy for a lot of it to get diverted back to a developed nation and sold on the black market, at a significantly discounted price - hence significantly affecting the profits.

> "It's not as if you are going to lose potential sales. And if you don't like Brazil or India cutting you out of the African market with cheap generics, make your own!"

You're missing the point. It's the research and the development phase of drugmaking that are costly. Once the drug has been approved by the FDA, manufacturing the actual powder that goes into the pill is a very small fraction of the total cost. This is why generic companies have it so good.

Public pressure on drug companies for them to do something about 3rd world diseases is certainly justifiable, and indeed many companies are starting to have programs to distribute their products there, even though they have nothing to gain from it (apart from a minor reprieve in the unrelenting media attacks). The Roche announcement is a case in point, but most big companies are moving in the same direction. The crux is having the products distributed in a controlled and organized fashion, to make sure they get to the people they are supposed to help.

For readability, I'm going to abbreviate DCD's for "developing-country diseases", i.e., diseases entirely or nearly entirely occurring in countries which cannot possibly pay enough money to have treatments researched. AIDS, while more common there, is not really in that category - thus the newer treatments available, due to large numbers of cases in developed countries.

I think it's a bit digingenuous to tie in a lack of research of DCD's to the issues mentioned. By your own arguments, such research doesn't exist. So, there's no IP to fight over. There's no "point" in there at all, and it certainly doesn't relate in any way to Roche aiding the design of generics (although it shares the principle of a lack of IP being involved).

On the original topic, the reality is that spending money on new treatments for DCD's is not as effective as spending the same money on getting existing treatments, hospitals, and so forth into those countries. Most true DCD's were solved long ago in the developed countries - that's how they become DCD's in the first place.

Back on the topic of prices, and the general suggestion of price disparities - i.e., people in the developed world paying more for the same treatment than people in poorer circumstances. This has been implemented on a fairly wide scale already, to various degrees. The result is predictable: drug smuggling, and any number of other techniques for people in the developed world to get drugs at the reduced costs. The degree to which that is or will become a problem is debated, but I can't help noticing that it's generally the exact same people who complain about over-charging other countries who will turn around and complain about being over-charged themselves when a disparity is enacted.

I'm going to get pilloried for this, but here goes.

The interesting assumption here is that AIDS is epidemic in Africa, and is killing millions. Or even thousands. I read an interesting article in Rolling Stone a few years back -- in Rolling Stone, a magazine certainly invested in the idea that AIDS is a plague on all of us -- I read an article by Rian Malan in which he went searching for the truth about AIDS in Africa. You can find it online -- Google for it.

Turns out -- I'm going to give away the ending here -- there is no AIDS epidemic in Africa or anywhere else. Surprise!

So it seems to me Roche can freely pass on its AIDS drug knowledge to whatever countries they feel like without worrying about anything because the whole thing -- the AIDS pandemic, the panic, everything -- is a big show. Roche looks good, rich people in America continue to fret and fear a bogeyman, government funding keeps coming, everybody wins.

Except, you know, all the people who die from tuberculosis, malaria, and diarrheal diseases (probably over ten million a year, over half of them children) who could have used that AIDS money. This is why I started the Brown Ribbon Campaign years ago, as eye-opening satire. Not that anyone noticed.

...or have it done for you would seem to be the nature of the threat here.

I'm thinking that somebody in Roche is spooked enough by the thought of dozens of pharmacorps in developing regions making their drugs with abandon that the only palatable alternative is to step in and agree to do it for them.

That way they get the PR spin from "helping" AND get to keep a check on who's making what drug and how much.

You've got to hand it to Pharma Roche, constant gardener on his African patch. With his most recent initiative in generic benevolence, it is patently clear that Pharma Roche aids those who aids themselves. Some,however, have suggested that Roche's bountiful yields and subsequent profits have been been fertilised with the dead bodies of countless Africans. This can't possibly be true because Big Pharma Roche assures us that a deep and overriding concern for the health and welfare of his African farm hands has always been priority one.

A constant garden is a gift that just keeps on giving. Just ask Pharma Roche.