Micro Chips Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Year Ended September 25, 2008

There is a growing threat from generic competition due to their global operations that can achieve lower-cost of supplies. Also the threat

Many other drugs also lose patent protection leading to the creation of substitutes that are cheaper.

Economic: Globalization of the pharmaceutical industry is an exciting opportunity to have research and development done at cheaper prices in other countries. However, this could be a double edged sword for companies because it is easy for other countries, such as India, to produce generic versions of the drug in bulk.

Pharmaceutical companies are provided with temporary monopoly rights on the production of new drugs which result in a higher cost on consumers. If competing companies were allowed to produce generic forms of those drugs, consumers will be able to afford those medications even in cases where those consumers have no insurance coverage. The company responsible for developing and inventing the original medication could be offered incentives to invent in the future by either obtaining tax breaks or NIH funding for future research. They could even be offered a percentage of the sales of the generic drugs. Economist Gary S. Becker advocates dropping many FDA requirements that, in his opinion, provide no additional safety measures but rather delay the development of new drugs.[12] Betamethasone, for example, has been part of the standard prenatal care in Europe since the late 1970’s while it got adopted in the U.S. after 1997. On many occasions, the FDA ignores all scientific evidence concerning certain drugs because the manufacturer did not follow their mandated bureaucratic standards.

They have also attacked patent listings in the Food and Drug Administration “Orange Book” and have alleged monopolization through fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office and sham litigation. Yet other cases have condemned distribution agreements as unlawful exclusive dealing. These government actions have led to substantial private class action litigation against the pharmaceutical industry. The FTC has also challenged numerous mergers and acquisitions in the industry over the last decade. One common feature in all of these cases is the need to define a relevant market. In nonmerger cases, the FTC and private plaintiffsgenerally allege narrow markets, limited to a single drug and its generic equivalent in some cases and to generic drugs excluding the bioequivalent “brand-name” drug in other cases. In its merger challenges, on the other hand, the FTC has alleged markets ranging from those based upon a particular chemical compound, to broader markets based upon various drugs’ manner of interaction or dosage form, to still broader markets of all drugs used to treat a disease or condition. In numerous pharmaceutical merger challenges, the government has included in the market not only currently marketed drugs but also other drugs under development, alleging “innovation markets.”

Consult www.phrma.org, The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. What steps is the branded industry taking to address the

The twenty-first century has seen pharmaceutical companies grow in unprecedented size and strength. Due to the unprecedented growth the larger pharmaceutical companies have gained leverage and power in the prescription drug industry, but they lack innovation to market and they seek ways to help the business continue to increase its profits. The pharmaceutical industry was once ethically sound and was a valuable player in the development of human health. However, overtime with the lack of innovation pharmaceutical companies are becoming an unethical market that exploits patients, doctors and anyone else it can to increase its profitability. With eyes only on profitability this can create a hazard for patients because there

Extremely risky drug discovery and development, lengthening development times which increase development cost, return on investments, and generic competitors.

Prescription drug prices are on the rise in the United States. Currently, the United States does not implement a price control on prescription drugs. Every day the supply and demand for prescription drugs fluctuates. Pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that are necessary for survival. Therefore, it is necessary for research and development to continue in the United States. Those suffering the effects of exorbitant prices must do so until a generic form of a prescription drug is produced. Once approved by the FDA, new drugs will make their appearance on the market and patients will no longer suffer financially. Until then, it is necessary for pharmaceutical companies to price their drugs based on the idea of supply and demand. This produces the profit used to fund research. Price controls discourage innovation. If a price control were set in place, of course the price of prescription drugs would decrease. However, the development of new drugs decreases with it. Today’s generation would benefit from lower prices, while future generations would suffer from the loss of drug innovation.

Evidently, both the EU and the U.S. enacted special provisions legislative, which extended the pharmaceuticals patents' life. As is the case with America, the Waxman-Hatch Act increased the copyright protection based on name-brand drugs with up to five years, but still it also puts

F. Scenario – You have a really intense blood pressure issue, and only one medication on the market works for you; however, it is only brand name, and you are allergic to the inactive ingredients in it. Now that generics are released and have different inactive ingredients, you can safely take the drug that works for you.

Even though the capital requirements are less demanding in generic pharmaceuticals, it is still a very expensive venture and extremely competitive, making it hard to penetrate as well. The biosimilar industry is undeveloped and competition is scarce, but it takes a lot of money and expertise to produce products that are as complex as these pharmaceuticals.

While this case is literally full of negative aspects, we will only focus on the main points for both arguments. Pharmaceutical companies want to be sure that the products they spend years and millions of dollars to create are not easily reproduced and sold at discount prices. The profits pharmaceuticals make of their patented products are supposed to refinance new research. So taking away their exclusive distribution rights and allowing other manufacturers to just copy the product and sell it at

* Competitive Pricing – Merck is sometimes forced to lower prices of products, either ones that have gone off patent to maintain market share in the product, as well as for products that are still on patent in order to compete with rival products for the same treatment that are marketed by competitors

Moreover, generic drugs manufacturers sometimes start production of patent-protected drug analogues even before a patent expires. Although research-oriented companies in many cases are able to protect their patents, they do suffer from lost revenues.