Ok so I'm not a lawyer. But hey, I'll give it a try. So apparently the SCOTUS decided that you can't sue generic drugs makers anymore, or something like that. Read about it here. So at first look, just read all the headlines. Supreme court screws consumers, yadda, yadda, yadda. But here's the thing when you break it down legally. This is a case about the over reach of the federal government. It has a really crappy outcome, which I think is the point they are trying to make. They can only decide on the basis of the law, they don't make the laws, they only rule on them. So crappy laws, means, well, crappy outcomes.
Here you have a lady suing a generic drug company for an unsafe drug, under New Hampshire law. The problem of course is that this drug company is manufacturing a generic drug. When you do that you have to follow the exact procedures, process, etc, etc. approved by the FDA. So since you can't really change what you are building or how you disclose info about it, as enforced by the FDA, its not really your fault if something bad happens. If in fact if you changed something, even to make it better, you would be violating federal law. So how could you be held liable for something that the FDA was controlling and forcing you under law to not change? Its a bit of conundrum. Take responsibility, innovate, and comply with state law, or do as you are told and comply with federal law.
So if the SCOTUS went the other way, they'd basically destroy the generic drug industry, because they'd all have to do independent testing and such to be able to survive which would increase the costs and liability and probably they'd just say screw it. Now on the other hand we have this situation where no one is really accountable. Of course, I have a few thoughts on that. First of all, she was suing the wrong person, she should have sued the company that held the original patent. Then I think she'd have a case, or she could have sued the FDA. So basically her lawyers suck.
But it brings out an interesting thing. The real problem is that generic drugs are a bad idea, or at least how the law is structured now. The idea there of course was: we will limit your patent holding time in order to bring costs down. But what happened was liability moved from the original manufacturer to the gov't. It seems we'd actually be better off with a paired down FDA and no generics. The problem right now is innovation stops. If someone comes out with a cancer stopping drug X that has some success financially it will become generic and then that becomes the drug we all use to stop cancer. It might not be the most effective drug at stopping cancer, and might have some side effects. But because a market has been established in the generic sense it propagates. It would be much better if instead the original drug company could just continue to own the patent. I realize prices go up. But that drives others to solve the same problem in another way, probably better way. That competition then brings the prices down, and produces a better solution. I understand there is a significant time to market here at play. But overall, I think it makes sense. The market is always right. Its just another case of screwed up regulation getting in the way and messing stuff up.
So even though this decision sucks for the consumer, I think the SCOTUS got it right. It's not their fault the laws suck. They don't write the law. Honestly, the more the SCOTUS makes all these weird decisions, the more the pattern become clear. When there are a bunch of retarded laws and regulation, you are going to get retarded decisions from the court. Not their fault.... stop voting for idiots.
