[HN Gopher] Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake
___________________________________________________________________
Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake
Author : jbm
Score : 410 points
Date : 2025-10-19 20:39 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| paulpauper wrote:
| So would it be possible to buy the drug in Canada and ship to US?
| jasongill wrote:
| not legally, but anything is possible
| OutOfHere wrote:
| There is nothing illegal about it. People get medicines from
| abroad all the time that are not generic domestically. It's
| not a controlled substance. One might have to go through
| unofficial channels though. In fact, I know people
| domestically who already get it cheaply from elsewhere
| abroad.
| js2 wrote:
| > In most circumstances, it is illegal for individuals to
| import drugs or devices into the U.S. for personal use
| because these products purchased from other countries often
| have not been approved by the FDA for use and sale in the
| U.S.
|
| https://www.fda.gov/industry/import-basics/personal-
| importat...
| OutOfHere wrote:
| There are a million laws on the books that not only are
| not enforced, but aren't even self consistent with each
| other. It is enforcement that determines what one
| actually can or can't do. The enforcement exists for
| controlled substances, for resale, and for a supply of
| over 90 days. For personal non-commercial use of a non-
| controlled medicine for under 90 days, the law is not
| enforced, and for good reason. People would die if the
| law were to be enforced too strictly.
| tredre3 wrote:
| > There are a million laws on the books that not only are
| not enforced, but aren't even self consistent with each
| other. It is enforcement that determines what one
| actually can or can't do.
|
| Okay but your statement was that there's "nothing illegal
| about it". You now agree that it's illegal, you're just
| unlikely to get caught. And if you are, you'll just lose
| that purchase and not face any legal consequences.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| It's not about getting caught. It's done in the open with
| full awareness of everyone. It's not like anyone is
| hiding it.
|
| Afaik, people hide it only for some controlled
| substances.
|
| Next time you play a random music video on YouTube,
| please look at the number of federal copyright laws
| you're violating. Also, if you ever drive from one state
| to another, check if you have any plant food with you
| because crossing state lines with any plant material may
| be illegal. And I need not remind of marijuana which we
| know remains highly illegal at the federal level.
| kelnos wrote:
| You seem to be missing the point. You said, "there is
| nothing illegal about it".
|
| That's false: it is entirely illegal.
|
| Whether or not you can get away with it due to lax
| enforcement, or whether or not there are any real
| penalties for getting caught... that's a separate issue
| that has nothing to do with what you said.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| When the diversity of laws are not even logically self-
| consistent, with one law denying a right and the other
| permitting it, what defines what is legal and what isn't?
| Enforcement does.
|
| Additionally, some laws are not even written clearly, and
| in fact are intentionally written vaguely.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I think you may need to drive it across, not ship it, and the
| quantity limit is a 90 day supply. For people who live close
| enough to the border, it might be worth it.
| Hilift wrote:
| Possible, but considering that US Ozempic revenue is $10
| billion per year between only Medicaid and Medicare, that would
| attract customs attention. The US market was projected to
| increase to $58 billion by 2035.
| dlcarrier wrote:
| Smuggling aside, they generally won't make it through customs:
| https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1815?language=en_...
| pedalpete wrote:
| I thought I had a decent handle on patent law, but maybe I'm
| missing something here.
|
| Yes, the patent won't be valid for Canada, but you can't import a
| product into the US which would infringe on a US patent.
|
| So, though there may be a small amount that would slip through
| the cracks, it isn't as if anyone in the US can now manufacture
| Semaglutide and distribute it.
|
| Canada is such a small market, that many companies don't bother.
| Though, for the cost, it seems ridiculous a company as big as
| Novo didn't pay the $500...that may even have been in Canadian
| dollars. :)
| rootusrootus wrote:
| As Derek mentions, Canada is the second largest market. There
| may be a lot coming into the US already, legal or not.
| maximus_01 wrote:
| Not that small. High income and roughly the same population as
| California, which isn't too small for companies to bother
| selling into.
|
| Ozempic did about US$2bn of revenue in 2024 in Canada.
| killingtime74 wrote:
| Don't worry about the law think about the practical impact.
| It's now completely legal to ignore the patent in Canada so the
| price in Canada will plummet.
|
| Canadian pharmacies can legally sell it and Americans (and all
| other foreigners for that matter) traveling there can legally
| buy it.
|
| Unlike the criminal law, Novo nordisk would have to go after
| every single person individually and make the case that they
| are infringing the American patent. This is all without the
| help of the police or customs, as a private civil matter.
|
| Obviously this would be uneconomic for Novo Nordisk. You can't
| search anyone as you don't have any warrants, as it's not a
| crime and then even if you could, you need to prove that the
| drugs they have on them were purchased in Canada.
|
| Foreigners who currently pay a huge amount of money would only
| have to make one trip to Canada in however long period it takes
| for the drugs to expire. I know I would certainly make a day
| trip if I was using this drug.
|
| Intellectual property law firms offer services to renew and
| watch registrations like this worldwide and it would have been
| very simple to have a contract with one of them.
| tavavex wrote:
| > Canadian pharmacies can legally sell it and Americans (and
| all other foreigners for that matter) traveling there can
| legally buy it.
|
| Well, about that... Aren't all variants of medications like
| these prescription-only? And in Canada you can't fill a
| foreign prescription without having a local doctor sign off
| on it, as far as I know.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you can 't fill a foreign prescription without having a
| local doctor sign off on it_
|
| This is how medical tourism typically works.
| sbrother wrote:
| Is that process that can happen online? Or does it
| require the patient being physically present in Canada?
| barbazoo wrote:
| Can be done virtually but you might have to use a VPN or
| even lie about your place of residence.
| petesergeant wrote:
| Plenty of countries where having a doctor in the pharmacy
| is common practice. Buy some retail space in YYZ and you're
| set...
| Marsymars wrote:
| Depends on province. From my best reading, pharmacists in
| Alberta with prescribing authority can directly prescribe
| all schedule 1 drugs themselves.
| labcomputer wrote:
| > Unlike the criminal law, Novo nordisk would have to go
| after every single person individually and make the case that
| they are infringing the American patent. This is all without
| the help of the police or customs, as a private civil matter.
|
| I don't think that's quite right. One of the things that CBP
| does is inspect incoming shipments, and confiscate IP-
| infringing things.
|
| Think about the recent Apple Watch SpO2 sensor patent
| shenanigans: The threat was to have CBP confiscate any
| infringing devices at the port of entry. I also remember that
| multimeters infringing on Fluke's ~~design patent~~ trademark
| have been blocked at the port of entry:
|
| https://hackaday.com/2014/03/19/multimeters-without-a-
| countr...
| barbazoo wrote:
| How practical is that for something the size of a couple
| pill bottles? Is that something customs would actually
| catch at all? They seem to have other priorities these days
| it seems.
| wpm wrote:
| Even worse, the bottles are minuscule. Each dose is
| dissolved in like half a mL of bacteriostatic
| water/saline. You could fit a years supply in 25mL, or 5
| tsp.
| digianarchist wrote:
| $450 CAD I believe.
|
| US consumers would have to travel to Canada for injections
| which isn't practical unless you live on a border town.
|
| It's unlikely to meet the bar for personal importation as you
| say.
|
| That probably won't stop people from trying. There's already a
| huge market for illegal compounds and GPL-1 drugs are available
| alongside the usual testosterone and other steroids.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| If you have a prescription from a provider in Canada, the
| limit for personal use is 90 days. As long as it is a legal
| drug in the US -- which I don't think necessarily includes
| that it's patented here, just that it's approved by the FDA.
|
| > There's already a huge market for illegal compounds and
| GPL-1 drugs are available alongside the usual testosterone
| and other steroids.
|
| The peptide and oils markets are both big, but largely
| separate -- the peptides folks don't seem to want to be
| associated with oils. Within peptides, GLP1s definitely
| dominate, though the other options are pretty popular. In my
| experience it seems like GLP1s are kind of a "gateway
| peptide" -- a lot of folks start with a GLP1 on the gray
| market, and then start to branch out and try the other
| options available.
| digianarchist wrote:
| You're probably right. I scanned the FDA website and wasn't
| sure how easy it would be to meet the requirements for
| personal medicine importation [0].
|
| As a Canadian national in the US I wouldn't even attempt
| doing this in the current political climate.
|
| [0] https://www.fda.gov/industry/import-basics/personal-
| importat...
| dawnerd wrote:
| Flights to Canada can be pretty cheap too. Less than the
| cost of one month so if you flew out every 90 days you'd
| still come out ahead. Practically not enough people will do
| this of course. Would be great for people in the border
| towns though.
| eek2121 wrote:
| I don't know about that, Canada is a beautiful country.
| If I were on the meds, I wouldn't hesitate to fly out for
| a day trip every 90 days.
|
| Also, let's be real, anyone in the northeast could be
| there in a few hours driving. New York City is about 7
| hours away from Ottawa, for example.
| doubled112 wrote:
| Detroit and Windsor are a single bridge crossing away
| from each other. Sarnia and Port Huron too.
|
| I've ended up at the border crossing from Niagara Falls
| to Buffalo by accident before. I was glad when they let
| me make a U-turn.
| digianarchist wrote:
| There's a tunnel between Detroit and Windsor. Faster than
| the bridge sometimes because no trucks.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| We don't have laws anymore. Just pay off POTUS so he can
| declare cheap "fat shots" and let Kushner or Barron own the
| importer, and you're good.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Canada's one of the bigger markets for this product. That
| aside, think of the percentage of Americans that live driving
| distance of a Canadian border - it's easy to envision from
| meaningful lost sales just from normal Americans who go to
| Canada to shop on the weekend.
| Marsymars wrote:
| > So, though there may be a small amount that would slip
| through the cracks
|
| Probably depends on enforcement, price delta, and various other
| variables.
|
| e.g. something like a quarter of smartphones sold in Brazil are
| smuggled in, more than a small amount slipping through the
| cracks.
| aardvarkr wrote:
| Medical tourism is a huge industry. A 3 month supply costs more
| than $3k in the USA. A flight to Canada costs $300 and takes a
| few hours of your time. I'd definitely do it if I was taking
| the drug.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Yes, the patent won 't be valid for Canada, but you can't
| import a product into the US which would infringe on a US
| patent._
|
| Technically true, but in practice you can often get it across
| the border in personal-dose-level quantities without getting
| caught.
| jzebedee wrote:
| > Prof. Michael Hoffman from Toronto put me on to the Canadian
| Patent Database, where you can find that Novo did file a patent
| there for semaglutide. . .but the last time they paid the annual
| maintenance fee on it was 2018!
|
| > You can even find a letter where their lawyers send a refund
| request for the 2017 maintenance fee ($250) because Novo
| apparently wanted some more time to see if they wanted to pay it.
|
| > On the same date in 2019, the office sent a letter saying that
| "The fee payable to maintain the rights accorded by the above
| patent was not received by the prescribed due date. . ."
|
| > By that time it was $450 with the late fee added, but that was
| apparently too much for Novo. They had a one year grace period to
| make it up, and apparently never did, so their patent lapsed in
| Canada. And as the Canadian authorities remind them, "Once a
| patent has lapsed it cannot be revived".
|
| Impressive failure for "the second-largest semaglutide market in
| the world."
| eulgro wrote:
| To be honest, given the efficiency of the drug and the huge
| benefit it could be to society, I feel like if I had been the
| employee in charge of filing patents I would've more than ready
| to lose my job in exchange for low cost general availability in
| the US via (illegal maybe, whatever) cross-border market. It's
| a nice loop hole and a great thing that once the delay expired
| they can't file ever again.
|
| One's got to find ways to feel like the good guy when working
| for Big Pharma . That's probably not what happened but it's
| nice imagining it.
| Vinnl wrote:
| Maybe they'd even do it in exchange for just low-cost general
| availability in Canada!
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| I always wonder-in this case of such an epic company fuck up,
| does anyone ever get fired? Or is responsibility so diffuse
| that nobody is ultimately responsible?
|
| Pharma companies are really nothing more than holders of time-
| limited, expensive, exclusive IP. The number one priority
| should be to maintain those protections as long as possible.
| How could any patent be allowed to lapse, even if there was
| limited commercial value, let alone, a blockbuster drug making
| billions?
| ionwake wrote:
| after working in many companies for decades I can guarantee
| that the person responsible is some middle manager, who will
| just blame one of her/his workers who had that piece of work
| "deprioritised" to instead focus on the styling of a
| spreadsheet. The paper trail will point to the manager, who
| will just claim it was allocated to a problem character.
|
| The cartharsis comes in knowing that them firing the innocent
| just keeps them repeating the mistake.
| userbinator wrote:
| _Or is responsibility so diffuse that nobody is ultimately
| responsible?_
|
| That's exactly how things like this happen. No one has
| responsibility, thinking it's someone else's problem, so no
| one bothers to do the needful.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _thinking it 's someone else's problem, so no one bothers
| to do the needful_
|
| Or it's in someone's political interest to let the fuckup
| play out.
| bawolff wrote:
| Typically when people get fired for something like this they
| are just the scapegoat.
|
| A failure like this isn't just one dude forgetting, its a
| system failure where policies and checks failed. If it is
| solely up to one person that is a failure in and of itself.
| nextos wrote:
| Some people, including legal experts, claim it could have
| been intentional:
| https://www.legal.io/articles/5691258/Novo-Nordisk-Lets-
| Cana....
|
| I was surprised Science didn't discuss this option.
| However, reader comments in Science do comment on this
| possibility.
|
| The idea is that letting the patent lapse would avoid
| getting regulated by the Patented Medicine Prices Review
| Board.
|
| I know several people working at NN, and it's quite chaotic
| and political, so I wouldn't rule out an internal
| oversight.
| bawolff wrote:
| Given how much of a blockbuster drug it is, wouldn't it
| be worth it for generics to rerun the trials in this
| specific case?
| wasabi991011 wrote:
| Just FYI, this isn't "by Science", it's by Derek Lowe,
| this is his blog, which is hosted on
| Science>Commentary>Blogs. In its description, Lowe says
| it is "editorially independent".
| jhbadger wrote:
| Yeah, Lowe doesn't work for Science -- he is a
| pharmaceutical chemist who has worked for various
| companies -- his "In the Pipeline" blog is interesting
| because while academic scientists often blog, industrial
| ones rarely do (perhaps for legal/IP reasons).
| consp wrote:
| You just described how the general public should view
| opinion pieces but acts like the previous comment and
| assumes it is "news". (To add: this is very human to do)
| philipallstar wrote:
| Then they'd be better off removing this section if
| "editorially independent" means "we will take things that
| even in their headline may not be true at all".
| jbrnh wrote:
| It's a blog. It references an interview. The post is also
| four month old. "In the Pipeline" is generally a
| fantastic resource on the pharma industry and chemistry
| news.
| philipallstar wrote:
| > It's a blog.
|
| Not really. It doesn't look like a blog, and it's not a
| person/org's specific blog post. It's just called "blog"
| in a breadcrumb somewhere, which most people won't read.
| It's actual a guest editorial, but still - doesn't really
| look like one.
| devilbunny wrote:
| > it's not a person/org's specific blog post
|
| Yeah, it really is, even if what's linked to is one post
| rather than the entire blog.
|
| His stuff pops up here often enough. He really does blog
| at _Science_. Has for years and years.
|
| If you have a background in chemistry, it's fairly
| accessible (i.e., he very rarely talks about anything in
| a depth that an undergrad chem major would have trouble
| understanding - which, given that most chemists start
| branching off very quickly in grad school, is roughly the
| appropriate depth for writing intended for a general
| chemistry audience, since it's the last common knowledge
| level).
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| > Derek Lowe's commentary on drug discovery and the
| pharma industry. An editorially independent blog, all
| content is Derek's own, and he does not in any way speak
| for his employer.
|
| The top of the sidebar describes what "In the Pipeline"
| is.
| nl wrote:
| I'm having trouble understanding the argument outlined in
| the legal.io link:
|
| > Nordisk has rejected any suggestion that the loss of
| its Canadian semaglutide patent was a simple mistake. In
| a statement cited by Fortune, the company stressed that
| its intellectual property strategy is "carefully
| considered at a global level," indicating intentionality
| rather than a blunder.
|
| > Legal analysts believe the decision was deliberate.
| Steven Shape, IP Chair at Omnus Law, noted that the
| annual $250-$450 fee was negligible compared to the
| looming expiration of both data exclusivity and patent
| protection in January 2026. Shape argued the lapse was
| likely "a clear decision by Novo," not an error.
|
| > That interpretation is bolstered by the company's
| simultaneous filing of a Certificate of Supplementary
| Protection (CSP) in Canada, suggesting Novo valued
| extended market exclusivity beyond the patent's life. But
| because the underlying patent lapsed early, the CSP
| cannot take effect.
|
| If the interpretation is bolstered by the company's
| filing for CSP, but they were ineligible for CSP because
| they let the patent expire doesn't that imply it was an
| error?
|
| I'd never heard of CSPs before, but https://en.wikipedia.
| org/wiki/Supplementary_protection_certi... has some
| details. They seem to be a patent extension in all but
| name.
| simonh wrote:
| It depends what the "simultaneous filing of the CSP" was
| simultaneous with. If it was simultaneous with letting
| the patent expire that makes no sense. If it was
| simultaneous with the original filing of the patent that
| does make sense.
| bawolff wrote:
| Based on the gov website it sounds like it has to be
| filed within 120 days of filing the patent, so i guess
| its the latter.
|
| It might not be as nonsensical as the alternative, but I
| still dont understand how the CSP filing makes it any
| less likely letting the patent lapse was a mistake.
| simonh wrote:
| I think it's interpreted as meaning that the company is
| generally committed to patent protection, and so if they
| let it lapse in this case despite several warning letters
| that it's more likely it was a conscious decision for
| commercial reasons. Which is what they claim. I don't
| think it's a particularly strong argument.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| > If it is solely up to one person that is a failure in and
| of itself.
|
| I would agree. The so-called bus factor has been common
| knowledge in the industries in question for literal decades
| now.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor
|
| > An early instance of this sort of query was when Michael
| McLay publicly asked, in 1994, what would happen to the
| Python language if Guido van Rossum were to be hit by a
| bus.
|
| http://legacy.python.org/search/hypermail/python-1994q2/104
| 0...
| nextos wrote:
| The process for the patent to lapse in Canada is quite
| long, and you get warning letters once deadlines are
| close.
|
| There is also a possibility of a paying a late fee and,
| finally, there is also a reinstatement process.
|
| NN could have missed all these, but they would have to be
| a really dysfunctional organization. Definitely not a low
| bus-factor situation.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| I wasn't casting aspersions on NN, but jumping off from
| the allusion that was made by the user who I replied to.
|
| I don't know what kind of sequence of events could lead
| to this outcome at NN, but perhaps they were hoist by
| their own petard. I'm reminded of the "money on the
| ground" joke involving two economists, which is semi-
| famous in these parts.
|
| To wit:
|
| > Economist 1: Look, there's $20 on the ground!
|
| > Economist 2: No there isn't. If there were, someone
| would have picked it up already.
|
| https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/19/money-on-the-
| ground/
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28029044
|
| Perhaps the folks at NN are so busy picking up (billions
| of) dollars that they neglect the dimes on the ground
| that it would cost to comply with these seemingly
| trivial, even menial functional requirements of keeping
| their money printer running.
|
| I'm honestly as befuddled by this brouhaha as anyone.
| This is a monumental failure of multiple entire business
| units to perform the core competencies of their jobs.
| That said, I could honestly believe that the number of
| people whose job it is (or perhaps _was_ ) to worry about
| the patent expiry at all, let alone be aware of the
| repeated communiques from the Canadian patent office, is
| quite low. I would further believe that the
| accountability dodging has only just begun behind closed
| doors, if the internal game of megacorporate musical
| chairs hasn't already concluded well before this news
| broke and reached the shores of HN.
| Marsymars wrote:
| Even at large corps, it's fairly common to outsource IP
| work to law firms that specialize in IP - and if you're
| Danish, it might make sense to outsource to a Danish law
| firm that has its own worldwide IP contacts (rather than
| getting your own worldwide branch offices to handle local
| IP laws everywhere). One of said contacts might then pawn
| off the work onto a junior, who then has their assistant
| handle all communiques from CIPO. Said assistant could
| then entirely drop the ball.
|
| I've zero idea about anything specific to Novo Nordisk,
| but have enough exposure to IP in Canada to envision the
| above happening in other cases.
| xmcqdpt2 wrote:
| That may be true if IP is not your core business but it
| is basically the core business of pharmaceutical
| companies. I don't speak from experience but it would
| seem surprising to me that any major pharma would
| outsource IP protection in a major market to contractors
| they can't sue for billions if they mess up.
|
| It seems much more likely to me that they did it on
| purpose, as they claim to have.
| philipallstar wrote:
| > Perhaps the folks at NN are so busy picking up
| (billions of) dollars that they neglect the dimes on the
| ground that it would cost to comply with these seemingly
| trivial, even menial functional requirements of keeping
| their money printer running.
|
| This isn't what that joke means.
| foofoo12 wrote:
| > Or is responsibility so diffuse that nobody is ultimately
| responsible
|
| It doesn't take a very large company for this to happen. I've
| seen it in a sub 50 person company. There is a task to be
| done but no one can do it because everyone involved is
| waiting for someone else to do something. It's like a Mexican
| standoff.
| mcny wrote:
| It could be something as simple as answering the phone. Or
| checking if the default image for a product on an ecommerce
| website exists. If you answer the phone or write a quick
| script to check if the default image exists, now you sort
| of become the person who is "expected" to do this task.
|
| Boggles my mind.
| foofoo12 wrote:
| Spot on. Often it's also thankless tasks whilst being
| foundation for the company to run. Someone has to answer
| the phone.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Is this the patent equivalent of letting your website's cert
| expire?
| crummy wrote:
| More like letting the domain expire, and someone else
| snapping it up before you can renew.
| nijuashi wrote:
| Saying pharma companies are just holders of 'expensive, time-
| limited IP' is not only wrong, it's offensive to those of us
| who actually do the science. We spend years designing,
| testing, and validating drugs, not scheming to hike prices.
| We're not all Shkrelis out here.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| I was a bench scientist (proteomics) in pharma for over a
| decade. There is plenty of sweat and blood going into the
| pipeline, but a company is ultimately defined by the
| strength of its (patent) portfolio. Which is why a patent
| cliff drives their valuations.
| cperciva wrote:
| I may be wrong, but aren't most drugs sold by large pharma
| companies actually developed elsewhere and then acquired?
| workerthread wrote:
| Novo Nordisk does the vast majority of their RD in-house.
| I can't speak to other companies.
| adolph wrote:
| I've read a little about Novo Nordisk's history and it is
| a pretty interesting story about aligning financial
| success with human flourishing. The pharmaco is a
| subsidiary of a anti-diabetes foundation started from
| proceeds from getting permission to produce insulin.
|
| _The foundation has an objective of providing support
| for scientific, humanitarian and social purposes. . . .
| In 2024, the foundation distributed a total of DKK 10.1
| billion (approx. $1.39 billion) and paid out DKK 6.9
| billion ($1.08 billion) in grants._ [0]
|
| 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novo_Nordisk_Foundation
| BDPW wrote:
| Having seen AstraZeneca inside, this is not the case.
| There's quite a lot of development going on. It is all
| non-fundamental though, the focus is heavily on late
| stage. No identification of disease mechanisms and such.
| j7ake wrote:
| A drug is almost never acquired that can then be put
| directly to patients and sold.
|
| Large pharma makes strategic bets on several drugs, some
| initiated in house, others acquired, but they all just go
| through further optimization and testing before it is
| approved.
|
| Huge RnD is required even if drug is "simply acquired"
| vintermann wrote:
| But _are_ you the pharma companies? It 's not mandatory to
| identify that strongly with your employer.
| hibikir wrote:
| In your typical large company, there's always enough nebulous
| process as to minimize personal accountability for any
| decision that is made. There might be a decision maker in
| practice, but there will be enough wide meetings and
| committees so that the groups as a whole can make bad
| decision, or a very immoral decisions, with minimal risk of
| consequences for anyone involved. Raising tough questions in
| those rooms is a good way to not make friends, and end up
| isolated in an unimportant position after the next semi-anual
| reorg.
|
| Even in companies with a strong CEO who is, in fact, lording
| over everyone, mechanisms will be built to make sure said
| CEO's bad decisions were group decisions, and that most of
| the people around him agreed.
| benrawk wrote:
| I mean the CEO got fired...
| chvid wrote:
| They are getting fired now - as Novo is in major crisis mode
| and going through its largest layoffs ever.
| m463 wrote:
| to me, I am reminded of countless DNS renewal mistakes that
| are publicized.
| Eupolemos wrote:
| Uh, Novo is having an absolutely massive firing round; the
| CEO got axed first and Denmark now has a glut of qualified
| unemployed which we're all doing our best to hire ASAP :D (we
| just had the lowest unemployment rate in our history)
|
| (Novo hired _way_ too many people because 'infinite money')
| gpt5 wrote:
| Canadian manufacturers (Sandoz and Apotex) are preparing to
| launch their own generic versions in early 2026.
|
| I bet many Americans would travel to Canada to buy it there
| (despite the legality concerns). The medications lasts 2 years
| in a refrigerator.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| If you're going to go for a two year supply, it's probably
| better to just risk shipping it. You're not going to come
| home with that much without it getting confiscated, and
| you're way more likely to be searched individually than a
| typical package is.
| themafia wrote:
| You should be able to travel with a 90 day supply without
| issue.
| daniel_iversen wrote:
| Not an American but there's only very limited
| circumstances you can travel across the border home to
| the USA with foreign prescription drugs, right? And this
| scenario wouldn't cover it. Unless you just meant they
| won't get caught or maybe not fined or confiscated in
| practice? :)
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45638316
| valicord wrote:
| That's mainly for visitors. If you're a US resident, you
| can't just buy medicines abroad, unless of course we are
| talking about the "they won't get caught" scenario.
| Muromec wrote:
| Sounds like an opportunity for non-residents.
| chronos00 wrote:
| US residents can buy medicines abroad the FDA link says
| personal importation is allowed as long as the medicines
| are FDA approved and are not being imported for
| commercial purposes. Now in the context of the original
| post maybe generic versions of Ozempic won't technically
| be FDA approved yet if the company that produces it has
| to wait for the US patent to expire.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| The FDA approved version may be significantly cheaper to
| compete with the generic brands.
|
| I also wonder if only the "active ingredients" need to be
| FDA approved, and the packaging is irrelevant?
| vl wrote:
| Of course you can buy medicine abroad and legally bring
| 90 day doses.
|
| More over, you can order and ship medicine, including
| ozempic and zepbound, using American prescription from
| Canadian online pharmacies. For some drugs it's quite
| cheaper than paying American prices.
| axus wrote:
| The major legal question for generic Ozempic imports will
| be, did Novo Nordisk buy Trump coins or donate to the
| White House ballroom?
| c2h5oh wrote:
| With de minimis for US-bound packages suspended I suspect
| way more packages are inspected than used to be.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _With de minimis for US-bound packages suspended I
| suspect way more packages are inspected than used to be_
|
| But a smaller fraction.
|
| If you're paranoid, route it via the UAE. All my European
| and Indian shippers are doing that for tariff-free
| pricing. (Personal stuff. I'll pay a customs duty if I
| get it, of course.)
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| You can import from UAE without paying any duties or
| fees?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| At least for wine, furniture, cheese, olive oil, art,
| kitchen equipment and medicine, at least from Italy and
| Germany and India and Taiwan, in the last six months,
| allegedly.
| delfinom wrote:
| I mean that entire region has bought the president, even
| got themselves a military base being built on American
| land now too.
|
| So why not.
| seszett wrote:
| > _got themselves a military base being built on American
| land now too_
|
| As a European I'm as critical of the US government as can
| be and their president has definitely been bought, but
| there are already several countries that have some
| training facilities and military personnel in the US.
|
| Calling it a foreign military base is really
| unnecessarily hyperbolic. And given the amount of
| military bases that the US have on foreign land, the
| outrage also seems a bit misplaced.
| adastra22 wrote:
| I suspect he was repeating a soundbite and doesn't know
| the actual (entirely reasonable) situation.
| adastra22 wrote:
| For those downvoting: we sell fighter jets to many
| countries, including the UAE. They send pilots here to
| train on flying these jets. Those pilots need a place to
| stay.
|
| For their own security protocols, among other reasons,
| many partner nations prefer to have a small area set up,
| think of it like a consulate, where their people stay
| within their own jurisdiction, rather than a hotel. The
| UAE is setting up such a place for its pilots.
|
| That is all.
|
| This isn't a force-projection military base on US soil.
| bparsons wrote:
| Higher enforcement demands probably lead to more stuff
| slipping through.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Um, what are the legality concerns? Is it illegal to bring
| medicine for your own use over the border? If not that, then
| what?
|
| (Honest question. I don't know.)
| ano-ther wrote:
| https://www.fda.gov/industry/import-basics/personal-
| importat...
| dataflow wrote:
| This sounds like something the current SCOTUS should be
| more than happy to shoot down, no? If you're bringing
| medication _for yourself_ from abroad that you obtained
| legally, why should the FDA 's concerns for _your own_
| safety trump (no pun intended) your freedom?
| jacobgorm wrote:
| Just don't do it in a speed boat.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| More government attacks on the freedom of law-abiding
| speed boat owners
| stevehawk wrote:
| the shelf life is probably longer than that if you buy it in
| dehydrated form and don't hydrate it (but i have no idea)
| ReptileMan wrote:
| So cocaine from the south, ozempic from the north, fetanyl
| from the west and the meth is homegrown. So USA just need
| some powder from europe to close the circle.
| OptionOfT wrote:
| That would be MDMA.
| fragmede wrote:
| Wait, but where does Elon's ketamine come from?
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Mars
| pqtyw wrote:
| Doesn't he have his own legal lab?
| gus_massa wrote:
| I guess you get more shelf life, but it's an injectable
| drug.
|
| You probably have to disolve it in very clean water in a
| very clean container. Do you have to match the salinity and
| pH with the proprties of the blood? How much time must you
| stir it to ensure it's completely disolved? Do you have to
| add something to increase/reduce viscosity? Some alcohol in
| case there are a few bacterias or improve solubility? How
| long does the small homemade batch last in the fridge?
|
| IIUC there is another version in pills, they may have a
| longer shelf life, or not. But ask a medical doctor before
| taking a ramdom medicine.
| stevehawk wrote:
| Bacteriostatic water is widely available and you hydrate
| it in the container it comes in. Its pretty easy. I
| promise you you probably know someone on a glp-1 that is
| already doing this.
| gus_massa wrote:
| I found it in a mainstream site here. 30ml for $300, with
| free shipping for next Wednesday. It has classified as a
| "nutricional supplement" for bodybuilders. I didn't
| purchase it, but I guess now I'm in yet another list.
| greycol wrote:
| While I'm all for saving costs, I would be shocked if
| mixing your own _inject-able_ medicine either weekly (with
| the chance of making a mistake in dosage or sterility) or
| too such a high degree of sterility that you can
| confidentally store several doses is not worth the $200
| return flight every two years. Maybe I 'm overestimating
| the risks but it still seems like a small saving for it.
|
| Realistically the cost of semiglutide in generic form means
| you could fly return every 90 days (personal import
| restriction for perscription meds) and still save $1000
| every 3 months (3x$500 monthly - return flight - generic
| cost).
| choilive wrote:
| Its remarkably straightforward. Not fool-proof, but easy.
| Bacteriostatic water, single use needles/syringes, and
| self healing injection port vials makes it simple to
| maintain sterility throughout the process.
|
| Multiple doses can be mixed and stored in the fridge for
| 4-6 weeks.
| kimos wrote:
| While I agree and this all seems reasonable, I think you
| give the average person far too much credit.
| stevehawk wrote:
| it's extremely common. everyone i know that's on a glp-1
| does it this way. that way you can buy it in bulk for a
| discount. i buy mine roughly 35 weeks worth of doses at a
| time.
| qgin wrote:
| How do they have confidence that the vials they're
| getting are sterile / pure / free of endotoxins / etc?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| This is commonly done for injectable fertility
| treatments, though in my experience they are hydrated
| just before use.
| phantom784 wrote:
| If you live near the border, of if you regularly travel
| to Canada anyways, then the travel cost isn't an issue.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I bet many Americans would travel to Canada to buy it there_
|
| Why travel? There are thousands of ads on TV, radio, and the
| internet each day for Canadian pharmacies that promise to
| ship whatever you need to the U.S.
| loeg wrote:
| I think the biggest legality concern is having your shipment
| seized at the border. Maybe a risk but it's not exactly a
| scheduled drug.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I totally believe this happened.
|
| If anyone has worked in a big, hidebound corporation, they are
| familiar with the "That's not my job" quandary.
| general1465 wrote:
| This is impressive feat of bean counting. To save few thousand
| dollars, they lost market of few billion dollars. Good job.
| duxup wrote:
| That letter from lawyers probably cost more than 250 ...
| abirch wrote:
| The sad thing is they probably were billed 500 dollars for
| the lawyers to "read" it.
| duxup wrote:
| I have an acquaintance working big law. They said the
| billing was "more offensive thank you could possibly
| imagine" ... but they took the money of course.
| decimalenough wrote:
| Remember that back in the dim antiquity of 2017, semaglutide
| was an experimental drug for type 2 diabetes. The sales
| explosion only happened a few years later when it started being
| prescribed for weight loss.
| foxglacier wrote:
| Don't be so quick to assume it was a failure not intentional.
| One of the comments in the article suggests it could have been
| to avoid PMPRB which is price control for patented drugs.
| PerryUlysses wrote:
| The company said it was intentional, probably because of the
| reason you mentioned: "In a statement to Fortune, Novo
| Nordisk said there was no mistake regarding its patent
| maintenance fee in Canada."
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I still don't get that though: is that worth losing
| exclusivity over?
|
| I guess they think some other production patent will let them
| maintain exclusivity without it being a patent on the drug
| itself?
| bstsb wrote:
| looking at the filing, they had their patent deadline extended
| due to COVID-19 eighteen times!
|
| https://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/26...
| choffman wrote:
| There's about to be a lot of skinny people in Canada bordering
| states. :)
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| AIUI, because they let the patent expire, the drug was not
| subject to price regulation by the government. So they could
| charge whatever.
|
| And during most of that time, they were still protected by 'data
| exclusivity' which means that any generic producer could not get
| approved without doing their own clinical trials, until 8 years
| had passed.
|
| So they gave up some period of exclusivity in return for being
| able to charge a higher price when they still had a monopoly.
| Emphere wrote:
| Thanks, can you point to where you found this info?
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| Sorry, pieced together from different sources.
|
| I am not an expert.
|
| Here's one about the price control on patented drugs:
| https://www.torys.com/our-latest-
| thinking/publications/2024/...
| malshe wrote:
| See the comments on that article where a few people have
| pointed this out.
| chronos00 wrote:
| Seems like a plausible explanation, the government should
| reform the price regulation laws to avoid this endrun around
| price controls.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| The price in Canada is ~$175 USD month for name brand Ozempic
| where I am with no coupons, or other discounts. I see prices in
| the US around $800+/month.
|
| That is significantly _cheaper_ than the US, and cheaper than
| other GLP-1 class drugs up here, arguably reasonable. Is the
| supposition that they would have been forced to charge even
| less? If so, why are their competitors who kept their patents
| not charging more?
|
| Counterpoint: Mounjaro/Tirzepatide _did_ keep their patent
| protection. They are able to, and do, charge significantly
| more.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Everyone I know taking these is buying generic compounded
| formulas. Insurance mostly doesn't cover it so the go for the
| cheaper options.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| That doesn't figure into the pricing strategy or giving
| away patent protection in Canada in 2018 as far as I can
| tell?
|
| Compounding isn't allowed in Canada, currently, so I assume
| you are talking about the US? Compounding Ozempic in the US
| wasn't a thing in 2018 when this patent was released in
| Canada, so not sure what one has to do with the other.
|
| What are you getting at in reference to the argument that
| the patent was released intentionally in order to charge a
| higher price?
| Marsymars wrote:
| > Compounding isn't allowed in Canada, currently
|
| How does this work? Why/when would compounding not be
| allowed?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| If health Canada determines there is a shortage,
| compounding is allowed. Health Canada has determined that
| there is no longer a shortage.
| wasabi991011 wrote:
| > Compounding isn't allowed in Canada
|
| I'm not sure why you think that, compounding is allowed,
| I live right be a compounding pharmacy. And confirmed
| it's legal through google.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I should be more specific. Compounding Ozempic isn't
| allowed since it is not considered to be a shortage
| anymore by Health Canada.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yes I'm in the USA. I just mentioned that because nobody
| I know is paying $800/mo. They are buying compounded
| injections online.
| fragmede wrote:
| roughly how much _are_ they paying, then?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Probably half that, or less.
| malfist wrote:
| Compounding isn't some shady enterprise. Its a standard
| medical use case. I have to use metronidozol cream on my
| face, but I'm allergic to some preservatives, so a
| compounding pharmacy makes a version of metronidozol
| cream without my allergens.
|
| It's also relatively common for toddlers who need special
| doses, or for people who can't swallow pills and need
| liquid formulations.
|
| Compounding is normal.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| yes, the US govt is being shockingly lax in its IP
| enforcement here. i suspect it would be much harder to
| acquire if ozempic/wegovy were produced by an American
| company
| kristianp wrote:
| Does the government/medical insurance subsidise that price
| though?
| beached_whale wrote:
| No, with drug patents the price is the average of a basket
| of similar countries, including the US. There is bulk
| buying for some medications by governments, but it depends.
|
| Most people are using private drug insurance in Canada.
| loeg wrote:
| The US price for name brand is around $500/mo. More than
| $175, but not $800.
| metaltyphoon wrote:
| Only now at Costco. It used to be much higher
| loeg wrote:
| No. Directly from Novo, prior to the Costco announcement.
|
| The only thing that changes with Costco is you can get
| the auto-injector version for that price, instead of
| vials.
| metaltyphoon wrote:
| I always thought they had auto-injectors
| llm_nerd wrote:
| >And during most of that time
|
| Most of _what_ time? The patent just expired a few months ago.
| Generics are now ramping up _because_ the patent expired, not
| because of some hypothetical eight year clinical trials. And
| for that matter, generics of existing ingredients and dosages
| do not have to repeat clinical trials anyways, which is one of
| the big reasons generics are a lot less expensive.
|
| This hypothesis seems retconned and completely at odds with the
| actual facts. Not least that there has been absolutely nothing
| exceptional about the pricing of their product in Canada, which
| has always been one of the cheaper pricings worldwide.
| aardvarkr wrote:
| This article is saying that the patent elapsed in 2018
| because thy didn't pay the $250 to renew the patent. Instead
| they relied on "data exclusivity" which means their trial
| data is exclusively theirs and anyone who wants to sell in
| Canada must first run safety trials of their own at a huge
| expense. It's just as good as a patent but has a shorter
| window of exclusivity.
| numpad0 wrote:
| > Instead they relied on "data exclusivity" which means
| their trial data is exclusively theirs and anyone who wants
| to sell in Canada must first run safety trials of their own
| at a huge expense.
|
| Sounds like potentially a good thing?
| abcd_f wrote:
| > AIUI
|
| ?
| pyth0 wrote:
| As I understand it?
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| As I Understand It
| TMWNN wrote:
| Quoting myself <https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1md4wde/
| the_most_va...>:
|
| >Novo Nordisk did not file for a renewal because of a mistake, or
| someone going on vacation, or anything like that.
|
| >Novo Nordisk decided that the additional years of patent
| protection were not worth it compared to the advantage of the
| drug no longer being under the jurisdiction of the PMPRB <https:/
| /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patented_Medicine_Prices_Revie...>.
| Whether that decision was financially correct in light of GLP-1's
| subsequent application to weight loss, I do not know. However,
| again, it was not a silly mistake on Novo Nordisk's part.
| mmooss wrote:
| An interesting citation! But you are not an authority on the
| issue (?) and so not much of a cite. What is yourself's claim
| based on?
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| I had never considered it-what makes a drug prescription vs OTC?
| Every substance has safety concerns(dose makes the poison), so
| with a lot of the financial gone, will the GLPs ever not require
| a prescription?
| dlcarrier wrote:
| In the US, prescription and OTC are theoretically completely
| unrelated, but in practice patent holders want their drugs to
| be prescription, where end users aren't involved in the process
| of selecting or paying for the drug, whereas generic
| manufacturers want the drugs to be OTC, where end users are
| choosing the product in a competitive market.
|
| See, for example, Prilosec (Omeprazole) switching from
| prescription to OTC.
| apike wrote:
| The FDA (or equivalent in the relevant country) regulates
| whether an approved drug requires a prescription based on the
| safety profile. To be approved for OTC, there is a much higher
| bar in terms of ease of misuse, side effects, and so on.
| petesergeant wrote:
| They don't require one in the UAE (in practice, anyway), which
| has a well-regulated med scene.
| vitorgrs wrote:
| In Brazil it will expire in July 2026. It's pretty relevant as
| it's kinda already announced they will put the generics on the
| public health care (SUS) for free... Which is big deal as an
| Ozempic shot costs almost the same as the minimum wage.
|
| This year they already did an analysis to include Ozempic, but it
| was denied, probably because of the cost difference...
|
| But they were trying on justice to extend the patent...
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| being free means taxpayers will pay. and being on the public
| system means it will be prescribed only for health risk, just
| like plastic surgery already is. you don't see people getting
| nose jobs just because.
| aardvarkr wrote:
| Generics are so cheap and easy to make that they can
| reasonably justify that it will save the government money by
| making the population healthier. Just think about how much
| less heart disease and cancer and every other obesity-
| affected disease costs the taxpayer.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| totally agree. was pointing out things left out from the
| previous comment which was kinda of impling gov would be
| paying all uses of the sliming drugs, even if on generics
| price. ... because those drugs make profit not because of
| it's health benefits.
| UltraSane wrote:
| Why wouldn't it be prescribed to morbidly obese people?
| vitorgrs wrote:
| First, it seems obvious to me that they'll prescribe it to
| everyone who, supposedly, undergoes bariatric surgery through
| the SUS. Generic Ozempic is certainly cheaper than bariatric
| surgery.
|
| That said, I believe it will go even further.
|
| To get medication through the SUS, you only need a
| prescription from a doctor. Any doctor. So even if the SUS
| itself don't prescribe, you can just find a doctor who will
| do it...
|
| But, likely SUS will prescribe anyway. Rio mayor:
|
| "Rio will be a city where there will be no more chubby
| people; everyone will be taking Ozempic at family clinics."
| "Said the mayor, adding that he has already taken the
| medication. He claimed to have lost 30kg with the
| medication."
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| crazy politicians will be crazy politicians.
|
| sadly rio is exporting them.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| SUS doesn't have a good track record when it comes to offering
| modern drugs and treatments. It takes years if not decades for
| medications to be covered, even when generics are available.
| Patients often had to go to court with documents from their
| doctor in order to make things happen. I've lost count of how
| many patients I've helped get their treatments... And now the
| supreme court has closed the door on them.
|
| Still, after dapagliflozin I'm ready to believe it. There's
| also the fact semaglutide will straight up win votes for
| politicians that provide it.
|
| I expect it to mirror the evolution of dapagliflozin in SUS: it
| will be offered unconditionally at first, then as they start to
| feel the weight of the costs involved they'll start imposing
| conditions and forcing patients to go through endless
| bureaucracy to get their medication. Age requirements,
| comorbity requirements, obnoxious paperwork that "justifies"
| the need for such a drug. Oh I'll gladly fill out those
| forms...
| vitorgrs wrote:
| Depends the price of the generics, of course. But I wouldn't
| doubt if the governament itself would manufacture it. Fiocruz
| (federal gov lab) already manufacture several drugs.
|
| Also, Rio mayor already said he will just give to everyone
| basically lol
|
| You also need to remind that on a public health care system,
| having less obese people means you'll spend less on health
| care.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| "same as the minimum wage"
|
| ... an hour's wage? a week? a month? annual?
| tredre3 wrote:
| From context it was clear to me that they meant the entire
| income.
|
| Minimum wage in brazil is 280/month. I don't know how much of
| it would be taken by taxes, but even if it's 0 then ozempic
| in Brazil still costs almost 70% of that amount each month.
| rapfaria wrote:
| It's not so straightforward, though. In the U.S., wages are
| usually discussed in terms of hourly pay or annual salary,
| whereas in Brazil, they're typically expressed as monthly
| earnings.
| vitorgrs wrote:
| Yeah, sorry, it's just here we just talk about monthly wages.
| A month!
| lproven wrote:
| Doesn't matter.
|
| $(recurring dose of drug) ~= $(recurring income)
|
| However much you need per unit time period, compared to how
| much you make _in that time period._
|
| The definition is independent of time.
| glp1guide wrote:
| Not only that, there is a legitimate raft of companies lining up
| to make generics.
|
| There's one wrinkle though, legally importing prescription drugs
| from Canada isn't really allowed in the US/UK AFAIK. HIMS is
| probably feverishly figuring out how to do that right now.
|
| Shameless plug:
|
| https://glp1guide.substack.com/p/another-glp1-generic-launch...
|
| Also somewhat separately, injectable GLP1s are about to be
| upstaged by oral variants -- orfoglipron for Eli Lilly and the
| Wegovy Pill for Novo.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> Also somewhat separately, injectable GLP1s are about to be
| upstaged by oral variants -- orfoglipron for Eli Lilly and the
| Wegovy Pill for Novo._
|
| I believe that this gets a new patent, and will probably be a
| _huge_ seller.
| glp1guide wrote:
| Absolutely -- certainly in their biggest markets they'll be
| able to protect those patents.
|
| Both companies have thus far been unable to really stop
| compounding pharmacies and/or gray market suppliers from
| replicating though, _and_ price negotiation with the
| government is definitely going to happen (Trump recently
| announced wanting $150 GLP1s, Novo 's lawsuit against
| medicare price negotiation failed)... I do not have much
| faith in their ability to protect their pricing power for
| very long, which unfortunate for them is probably what's best
| for humanity and is very well known at this point.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I suspect a _lot_ of the anti-vaxx movement is subconsciously
| motivated by fear of needles.
|
| So yeah, I expect the pill form to be a huge seller!
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| This was made abundantly clear to me in 2020. It's a mass
| hysteria fueled by trypanophobia in a vast population of
| people who aren't very interested in self-analysis and
| understanding how their own behavior and thought patterns
| are driven by the amygdala.
| vl wrote:
| Nonsense.
|
| You can use US prescription at online Canadian pharmacy and
| legally ship to US. This is how a lot of people save on drugs.
| alister wrote:
| > _Interviewer at Endpoints: You plan to potentially launch a
| generic GLP-1 in Canada and Brazil in 2026._
|
| Looking at the original interview on Endpoints, Sandoz CEO
| Richard Saynor says this about Brazil:
|
| _In Brazil, the biggest prescribers are dentists. Everyone says,
| "Why dentists?" They do aesthetic work, and then you have your
| Botox, and then you want a bikini body. It's behaving like an OTC
| consumer brand. Imagine selling this, rather than $300, at $50.
| Anybody over the age of 40 in Brazil will probably want to be on
| that._
|
| But he doesn't explain how they got around the patents. Another
| comment on HN says they expire in July 2026, but can anyone
| explain why the patents expire so soon in Brazil?
| abirch wrote:
| 1. In the USA people use compounding companies to get around
| patents.
|
| 2. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-
| pharmaceuticals/...
| giarc wrote:
| I think that loophole has closed. If I recall correctly,
| compounding pharmacies were only allowed to do that as the US
| gov put the drug on a special list due to shortages. I
| believe they have removed it from this list (or will do
| shortly) and that pipeline will stop.
| vitorgrs wrote:
| In Brazil, medicines lose patent protection 20 years after the
| original filing date. The filing date was in 2006, so the
| patent expires in 2026.
|
| But note that the patent was only granted in 2019, it took 13
| years. They went to court last year, but the justice (as far as
| I know) has continued to follow the precedent that the original
| filing date applies.
|
| So they went to the federal government to try to change the
| law, but the government has refused so far.
|
| The INPI (Brazilian Patent Office) used to take a VERY long
| time to register/grant patents. It's faster now (about 4 years
| on average), but it's still slow.
|
| But I'm seeing here that in the US it was 2017. So not that
| different from 2019 anyway.
|
| PS: Brazil also have several local labs focused on generics,
| and besides this, there's also state-owned lab, Fiocruz, who
| makes vaccines and medicines as well, several of them, to
| distribute though SUS.
|
| In Brazil by the constitution, everyone has the right of
| health, so if the public health care (SUS) don't distribute,
| you can sue the governament and get the medicine. So there's a
| big incentive for the governament to make patents expire as
| soon as possible to have generics and include on SUS.
|
| e.g Fiocruz manufacture PrEP, and started now PrEP injection
| (Cabotegravir).
| pogue wrote:
| It sounds like people will be flocking to Canada to fill their
| ozempic prescriptions. However, the WP just posted this article
| about how ordering rx meds from Canada has become unaffordable
| due to tariffs.
|
| _Many seniors get cheaper medicine from Canada. That might
| become harder_
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/10/18/deminimis...
|
| No paywall: https://archive.ph/nT0Jl
| tavavex wrote:
| The whole story seems utterly insane to me. The fact that Novo
| Nordisk went back to ask for a _refund_ of $250 they paid for the
| patent in 2017 shows that there was active intent behind this,
| this wasn 't just some internal disconnect between payment
| systems that prevented the money from being sent to the
| government. Who at NN thought that saving, what, ~$1000 total was
| justified for this? I thought companies of this scale didn't even
| think on the scale of thousands of dollars anymore.
|
| Oh well, at least we in Canada get more generic drug variants.
| Thanks!
| tempestn wrote:
| Insane to the point that it doesn't seem believable. Even if
| the patent was worthless it wouldn't have been worth their time
| to pursue that refund just for the $250.
|
| Another comment here mentioned that patents in Canada come with
| strings on pricing. So it's possible there was an actual trade-
| off that was considered here.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Apparently they can get around the government price controls by
| getting off the patent. I guess they figured it was better to
| keep prices high so americans didnt border hop but lose the
| exclusivity sooner
| dmix wrote:
| This is great news for Canadian public/private healthcare
| insurance. Not only do the drugs cost less but people get
| healthier and use less services
| enslavedrobot wrote:
| Fun fact: Novo Nordisk's first success was selling insulin, which
| was discovered in Canada and licensed by the Scientists who's
| discovered it for free to the danish company in exchange for a
| promise to use the revenues "for good purposes".
|
| Hopefully this patent SNAFU makes up for 1% of that monumental
| screw job.
| nl wrote:
| Insulin is cheap everywhere in the world except the US, and
| it's been around since the 1920s.
|
| The price has nothing to do with Novo Nordisk's distribution of
| it last century.
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8597930/
| simongray wrote:
| > in exchange for a promise to use the revenues "for good
| purposes".
|
| They still do an enormous amount of charity, though activities
| of the foundation are probably highly localised to Denmark:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novo_Nordisk_Foundation
| BurningFrog wrote:
| There are many different kinds of insulin now, and almost
| nobody uses the original version, because it's tricky to get
| timing and dosage right.
|
| All with their own patent situation, of course.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Insulin is so easy to make clickbait and ragebait with due to
| people not knowing, or willfully ignoring, that "insulin" is
| not one specific medicine.
|
| Kind of crazy considering how many people have diabetes.
| danielovichdk wrote:
| Eat healthy. Do sports. Sleep well. Repeat.
| metabagel wrote:
| Also, meditate, fast intermittently, get therapy, and develop
| healthy ways of handling stress and dissatisfaction.
|
| Everyone's path is a little different. What is only a little
| difficult for some might be downright impossible for others (or
| feel that way).
| philipallstar wrote:
| No, those things aren't nearly as important. Handling stress
| and therapy can also be replaced by some physical activity as
| well.
|
| General advice that would work for 95% of people shouldn't be
| criticised because it doesn't address the other 5%. If people
| did it then there'd be far more money in the system to pay
| for usefully targetted specialist treatment for those people.
| devjab wrote:
| Since we are pulling numbers out of our asses can you tell
| me what good advice that 95% of the people aren't capable
| of following is? It's great that our national health
| institutes advices us, but can you explain how the advice
| isn't completely useless in this particular context? To me
| it comes off as arrogant and rude.
| philipallstar wrote:
| I didn't say 95% of people aren't capable of following
| some advice. That would be bad advice. I'm saying this is
| good advice, because 95% of people can follow it.
| metabagel wrote:
| If we are talking about overweight people, then I think
| your 95% figure is backwards. Maybe 5% can stick to that
| regimen without addressing what's going on between their
| ears. Likely, your perspective is skewed by the crowd you
| hang out with or from seeing other people at the gym.
| That's not a representative cross-section of the
| population, particularly with respect to people who are
| overweight.
|
| The emotional/psychological side is important, because the
| person must make long term changes in their lifestyle.
|
| People tend to over-eat for a reason, and typically it is a
| reaction to stress or some emotional/psychological need
| which isn't being met.
| metabagel wrote:
| Intermittent fasting can help with appetite suppression
| and blood sugar spikes. Our bodies didn't evolve to snack
| all day long. More likely, we gorged and fasted depending
| on what was available.
|
| There's a book called "The Carbohydrate Addict's Diet"
| which promotes intermittent fasting to lose weight, and I
| think it's on the right track, although the book
| recommends taking in calories only during a one hour
| period each day, which for me was too extreme.
|
| I do think it's beneficial to fast for at least 6 hours
| once a day, if possible. It's good for your blood sugar
| as well as your gut. It can give you more energy and help
| you feel more like exercising.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| Does it mean that Sandoz can start production of a generic in
| Canada and sell it e.g. in Europe?
| progbits wrote:
| The protection (racket) is about selling, not manufacture.
| Otherwise everyone would just manufacture in china and sell
| anywhere they like.
| bluecalm wrote:
| What's shocking here is that it costs several hundred dollars per
| year to have a big country enforcing a monopoly for you. I mean
| at least taking % of the revenue would make sense (and preferably
| for others to buy out underutilized patents).
|
| As it is it's just corporate welfare - enforcing lucrative market
| monopoly for an equivalent of a steak dinner for two.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-20 23:02 UTC)