Comments on: Canadian Supreme Court puts Viagra in the public domain because Pfizer wouldn't disclose enough of its workings

By: KarlieMildraed

KarlieMildraed — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:32:00 +0000

It took me longer than four hours to read all this.

By: heph

heph — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 05:14:00 +0000

The correct answer is: Negative 5 years or so. Viagra has indeed some already documented side effects and uses outside of giving you a boner and its highly recommended that you dont take it of you had any pre-existing heart problems.

By: F Lengyel

F Lengyel — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:24:00 +0000

These comments are swell!

By: Trent Baker

Trent Baker — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:35:00 +0000

Of course there are risks associated with viagra, any first year biology major, such as myself, can tell you that messing about with your blood pressure can have consequences. Which I believe is what active ingredient in Viagra is doing.

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:00:00 +0000

Worldwide, the country-by-country patents on Viagra are starting to expire and Pfizer is scrambling. Brazilian patents expired in 2010. US patents were supposed to expire this year, but Pfizer won a court case when Teva jumped the gun and tried to bring a generic into the US. The result of the case is Pfizer’s US patent may be extended through 2019.

By: elix

elix — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 06:27:00 +0000

Softwood lumber disputes indeed…

By: scatterfingers

scatterfingers — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 22:38:00 +0000

EXTRA EXTRA – Price of artificial wood falls dramatically in Canada…

By: scatterfingers

scatterfingers — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 22:36:00 +0000

As wood I.

By: rrh

rrh — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:53:00 +0000

Free as in Willy.

By: PathosBill

PathosBill — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:34:00 +0000

Punapism?

By: Boris Bartlog

Boris Bartlog — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:20:00 +0000

That’s great news. Not so much because of what small effect it might have on the availability of Viagra in Canada, but because it should serve as a nice warning to all those who deliberately write shitty obfuscated patents. I’ve read a fair number of patents in the area of chemistry, and the difference between those of eighty or a hundred years ago and those filed forty years ago or less is dramatic. Modern patents aren’t quite gibberish, but they sure aren’t written with any intention of helping the reader implement the idea in question.

By: Frank W

Frank W — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:13:00 +0000

A judge who remembers what the original excuse for patent law was again. Indeed, strange things come to pass.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:01:00 +0000

No doubt, they’ll take a firm legal stand against it.

By: dbergen

dbergen — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 20:51:00 +0000

Correct.

By: DevinC

DevinC — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 20:02:00 +0000

When I read this I was so excited by my Supreme Court’s commitment to intellectual freedom that I ripped my shirt off and started running around the cafe I’m in screaming YEAAAH VIAGRAAA!!!1! (Yes, I screamed “!!!1!”; it’s a skill I have.) People are now all looking at the middle-aged man jumping on tables yelling about erectile dysfunction medication but they’re all just jelling on me.

And now this team of bright young men in blue uniforms say they want to introduce me to another nice drug called “thorazine”.

By: DevinC

DevinC — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 20:00:00 +0000

@DevinC: Please actually read the article linked to before you post. Yours truly, your brain (the big one, not the little one.)

By: DevinC

DevinC — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:54:00 +0000

They can do that, but it’s too little too late. Someone is just going to make a generic.

By: Jacob Ewing

Jacob Ewing — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:16:00 +0000

WHat!!?!?! A company is being stopped from abusing the patent system!? Next week we’ll see flying pigs and and the four horsemen.

By: Jacob Ewing

Jacob Ewing — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:11:00 +0000

Unlike countries, which generally behave like temperamental brats, corporations tend to behave like cold psychopaths. I’m sure Pfizer would realize that *ahem* “pulling out” of Canada would cost them money and gain them nothing, and decide like a good little psycho to stay keep pushing drugs.

By: Stuart Reichler

Stuart Reichler — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:28:00 +0000

Pfizer can pull out if they want, but it won’t do them any good now.

By: Matt L

Matt L — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:26:00 +0000

Well, the SCC is the highest court in Canada, so there’s nowhere for them to appeal to. And they could pull Viagra in Canada if they wanted to, but that wouldn’t stop companies from producing generic versions of the drug and selling it in Canada.

The patent was due to expire in 2014 anyways. I suspect Pfizer is more worried about the precedent this might set for future patent applications and their ability to game the system than they are about losing 1.5 years worth of a monopoly in a country that probably only represents a very small portion of their market internationally.

By: Marios P.

Marios P. — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:18:00 +0000

i wonder how will Pfizer fight that ruling. I do not think they will accept it like that perhaps pulling viagra of canada?

By: Red Pill Junkie

Red Pill Junkie — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:06:00 +0000

Ole ‘One Eye’ salutes you, Canada!!

http://dontloseyourdayjob.com/wp-content/uploads/Big-Boss-Salute-440×249.jpg

By: Jardine

Jardine — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:03:00 +0000

How long until we start seeing studies and news stories that Viagra has some statistically small, but still unacceptable level of danger to it? A small risk of heart attacks or something. Then it’ll be pulled off the market (along with the generic version) and Pfizer will just happen to release a new, slightly different drug that is similar to Viagra, but different enough to get a new patent and not have the same unacceptable risk of whatever side effect Viagra now has.

By: Robert Cruickshank

Robert Cruickshank — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:02:00 +0000

No doubt there are some lawyers feeling very cocky this morning.

By: Felton / Moderator

Felton / Moderator — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:02:00 +0000

If puns last for more than four hours, consult your physician.

By: nox

nox — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:54:00 +0000

The court ruling is very interesting. Pfizer patented several compounds in the same filing, but neglected to mention which one actually worked.

This obfuscated the actual invention and would’ve prevented an expert from reproducing the results without trial and experimentation, thus breaking the requirement for disclosure.

Justice served thanks to a competing wealthy pharma company that thinks all the costs and effort required in this legal battle are worth getting a generic version to the market a couple years early.

By: Jeremy Pickett

Jeremy Pickett — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:52:00 +0000

these are some pretty soft phallus puns. honestly, i feel shafted.

By: derek prowse

derek prowse — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:48:00 +0000

Dont fuck with our boners. er, lemme rephrase…

By: Snig

Snig — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:44:00 +0000

“Supreme court hardens stance as Pfizer veils its secret and plays hard to get”
or
“Pfizer insists it’s sitting on a precious secret, Court makes it cheap and easily had”