Re: The EC Petition and the EC Poll

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_Princeton.EDU>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:21:33 -0500

A request to continue such patent protection would indeed show that they are concerned with profits first
and with health second. To justify the present more extended period of protection, they would have to
demonstrate that carrying out research and development in an industrial environment is more efficient than
either universities or governments or independent research centers could do, that the extent of their profits
are no more than necessary to ensure the necessary restriction, that they could not reduce costs to levels
comparable to generic companies and still carry out the necessary research using the profits from the first six
months, and that their investments in near-identical proprietary drugs is beneficial to medicine and public
health generally. If they were confident such a argument would succeed, they might not be lobbying quite as
hard as they do--even to the extent of prohibiting the US government from asking for competitive bids.

All of the above is similarly applicable to journals, except that the extent of the capital needed in journals
production is very small compared to that needed for pharmaceutical research and development, and that
there are adequate arrangements for producing the product without involving the major companies at all,
should they prove uncooperative.

We librarians and publishers and researchers and public users might want to deal with the smaller problem
first, because the transition could be immediate. Immediate like March 1 07, if the universities had the
courage--there are enough archives already available to start. Immediate for Jan. 08, even considering the
delays from both legislation and bureaucracy.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
previously:
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library

dgoodman_at_princeton.edu


----- Original Message -----
From: Jan Velterop <openaccess_at_BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:37 am
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] The EC Petition and the EC Poll
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG

> Les,
>
> Does your last paragraph imply that you think that drug companies
> would be AGAINST health if they argue that it wouldn't be a good
> idea if they were required to make their drugs generic within six
> months after bringing them to market?
>
> Best,
>
> Jan
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Leslie Carr <lac_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 February, 2007 9:52:03 PM
> Subject: Re: The EC Petition and the EC Poll
>
>
> On 14 Feb 2007, at 09:28, Velterop, Jan, Springer UK wrote:
>
> > Asking if people are FOR or AGAINST open access is like asking if
> they> are FOR or AGAINST good health. It would be, rightly, seen as
> > astonishing if 14% were against.
> >
> > I guess that the question FOR or AGAINST the principle of open
> access,> if asked of publishers, would get you a similar outcome
> and quite
> > probably a better one (fewer than 14% against).
>
> You don't need to guess - publishers frequently respond to the issue
> of Open Access. Here's the latest answer addressed to Green OA, in
> point 9 of the "Brussels Declaration on STM Publishing", released
> yesterday (Feb 13th).
>
> "Open deposit of accepted manuscripts risks destabilising
> subscription revenues and undermining peer review." This is not a new
> response, and it still does not count as a better outcome! Although I
> am loath to use the health metaphor, it seems very like asking people
> if they are FOR or AGAINST good health and having the pharmaceutical
> industry answer "as long as it doesn't destabilise the drugs market".
> ---
> Les Carr
Received on Thu Feb 15 2007 - 22:55:49 GMT