[pmyteh]

Depending on how transformative the effects are (and the price drop possible upon genericisation) then there could be a compulsory licensing trade to do here.

The drug companies are presumably pricing optimally for profit (but not for maximum public benefit, for which the optimum price is ~0). You could calculate the net present value of the drug companies' total profits attributable to the patent, add on 10% as a bonus, and pay them off. If the welfare gains of having cheap drugs are genuinely greater than the value of the patent to the holder, this would be win/win.

[joshuacc]

Citation needed for the idea that zero is the optimal price for public benefit. Among other issues, I expect medication compliance would be higher when the patient has to pay for the medication.

[eru]

I think we probably have data on that (at least in general). That is assuming people react to out-of-pocket payments, and not to how much their insurance or the NHS etc is paying.

[int_19h]

That is exactly what I have in mind. "Eminent domain" doesn't mean just taking things with no recompense, but I don't think the company should be entitled to profit maximization at the expense of literally billions of people worldwide.

[eru]

Eminent domain would be on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. No country has 'billions of people'.

[int_19h]

It adds up to the same thing in aggregate.

But also, if you change it to "millions of people", the point is no less valid.

[loeg]

India and China each have billions of people.

[eru]

India and China both have about 1.4 billion each.

To say 'billions', I'd assume you'd want at least 2?