Governments can take your land through Eminent Domain if it is shown to benefit society as a whole.
Also is the government "taking" the drug, or just not extending monopoly patent rights for it? Also even patents (in the US) have a provision that they be reasonable licensed in exchange for gaining the temporary monopoly.
Governments can take your land through Eminent Domain if it is shown to benefit society as a whole.
By the United States Constitution, in the United States such a taking must be with compensation (reasonable, market-based compensation). And the same is true in most democratic countries with an independent judiciary. (This is notably not true in China, which is why seizing land from peasants is a favorite way for corrupt local officials to enrich themselves.)
Correct, I called out the provision that patents must be licensed at a reasonable rate in the attempt to draw the parallel with the reasonable market rate compensation for eminent domain, but left that portion out by accident. Thank you for calling it out.
And governments have to pay compensation at market price for your land.
Look, I don't think Bayer will complain at all if India (the country) pays for the drug used by patients in India, like the health systems in UK and Canada. Bayer's complaint is that India doesn't compensate the company.
Also is the government "taking" the drug, or just not extending monopoly patent rights for it? Also even patents (in the US) have a provision that they be reasonable licensed in exchange for gaining the temporary monopoly.