From inventors to predators: Have brand firms crossed the line by marketing authorized generics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Authorized generics" (AGs) is the code name for the practice whereby the innovator companies create or licence their own generic version of the drug by sticking a generic label on the product instead of a brand label. This practice may have the effect of keeping generic drug manufacturers out of the market, resulting in increased drug prices to the consumers. The crux of this debate is handling the intersection of the patent rights and consumer rights (competition regulation). I take the approach that a patent right can be limited in favour of consumer protection so long as that limitation will not substantially affect the incentive to innovate. I consider the issue of AGs in the framework of three anti-competitive acts: collusion, predatory pricing, and unfair competition/abuse of dominance. I conclude that AGs are anti-competitive and their entry times can be limited while maintaining the necessary incentives for innovators to innovate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".