[lotsofpulp]

>* About 10 years after a drug has been approved, they will seek approval for a replacement version which is very similar, but different enough to qualify for a different patent.

Why are other companies not jumping on this opportunity before 10 years?

>Then, when the patent for the first drug expires (year 17), there's "no market" for it, because nobody is currently prescribed that drug, so no manufacturers will bother producing any generic versions of it.

So the cost of educating consumers (marketing) is not offset by the difference in cost of selling the generic and the cost of selling the new patented version?

[jfengel]

Why are other companies not jumping on this opportunity before 10 years?

They do, when they can. But often they can't. A patent covers not just the molecule, but the treatment. Often, they would need to license the original patent even if they have the more advanced molecule, and they can't get the license.

So the cost of educating consumers (marketing) is not offset by the difference in cost of selling the generic and the cost of selling the new patented version?

Patients aren't really equipped to make this decision. It's made by doctors and by insurance companies. They are often reluctant to prescribe/pay for the "almost as good and a lot cheaper" drug, for fear of exposing themselves to risk. Generics manufacturers don't usually have the influence to convince them otherwise.

There's also the regulators. If the drug manufacturer can convince the regulator that the old drug is dangerous, they can simply forbid it.

[lotsofpulp]

> A patent covers not just the molecule, but the treatment.

That sounds crazy. How can someone patent the process of healing? What else could patenting the “treatment” mean? Are there any examples of this?

> Patients aren't really equipped to make this decision. It's made by doctors and by insurance companies. They are often reluctant to prescribe/pay for the "almost as good and a lot cheaper" drug, for fear of exposing themselves to risk.

Why would they have risk, if the government has already declared it legal to sell? Insurance companies and government are known to prefer cheaper, generic medicine, and a common complaint is insurance companies and government requiring prior authorization for brand name medications.

> There's also the regulators. If the drug manufacturer can convince the regulator that the old drug is dangerous, they can simply forbid it.

This would be pretty big corruption. Are there examples?