> This starts to get murky from an ethical point of view because we are talking about a cancer medication, and I doubt that software IP would fall under the compulsory licensing. But, cancer drugs are expensive to develop. Bayer should absolutely be afforded some IP protection to recoup the costs of developing the drug. Otherwise, they'll just stop; or more likely, just increase the prices elsewhere around the world.
If they wanted to make money in the Indian market and be afforded IP protection, they could've priced the drug reasonably. Surely a smaller profit is better than no profit?
If they wanted to make money in the Indian market and be afforded IP protection, they could've priced the drug reasonably. Surely a smaller profit is better than no profit?