hot document: Primary sources exposed and explained.

Will the Real U.S. Please Stand Up?

hot document
entries
123456
from: Timothy Noah

Posted Friday, June 16, 2006, at 5:10 PM ET

The Federal Trade Commission and the Justice department are having a little spat. It all began when the FTC ruled that a legal settlement between Schering-Plough and two manufacturers of generic drugs violated antitrust law. Under the settlement, the two generic companies agreed to delay marketing generic versions of Schering's K-Dur20 potassium supplement. In exchange, the generic companies received cash from Schering. The FTC says that Schering bought off its potential competitors, and that the result will be higher drug prices for consumers.

The Justice Department doesn't deny that, exactly. Rather, it says that the peculiarities of patent law make it impossible in this instance to overturn the settlement. It may smell a little fishy, the Justice Department is saying, but there isn't anything we can do about it except hope that a more clear-cut case of abuse presents itself, allowing the government to draw a bright line between legal and illegal cooperation between brand-name and generic pharmaceutical companies.

It's fairly unusual for two government agencies, both purporting to represent the United States, to take opposite sides in a formal judicial proceeding. According to tradition, the Justice Department (through the office of Solicitor General) is "the United States." But what does that make the FTC? Lichtenstein? Should the Supreme Court take this case, it will have to decide, among other things, which one of these government bodies speaks for the good old US of A.

To read the footnotes below and on the next five pages, move your mouse over the portions highlighted in yellow. If you would like to read the FTC's cert petition, click here. If you would like to read the Solicitor General's response, click here.

If you have a document you'd like to suggest for this column, please e-mail me at . Please indicate whether you'd like to be mentioned by name.

Sales exceed $200 million per year, giving Schering a 69 percent market share.
Schering maintains that the $60 million was to license the sale of certain Upsher drugs overseas. But this option has never been exercised. Schering says the ESI payment covers $5 million in legal fees and a $10 million contingency it deemed unlikely.
hot document
entries
123456
from: Timothy Noah

Posted Friday, June 16, 2006, at 5:10 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
PLUS » Ruth Marcus: Berlin vs. Baghdad Q&A