There have been several books and magazine articles over the past few years about the reality vs. the claims of pharmaceutical companies about their pricing policies for drugs. The tweaking of patent products to increase their patent monopoly is relatively new and I believe laws should restrain this practice so that only truely new products can be given patent protection, and that for a limited time. One study I've seen quoted a number of places compares the amount of money pharmaceutical companies spend on marketing drugs to the amount spent on research on truly new drugs and have consistently found that research money is substantially LESS than marketing money. Unfortunately, advertising and marketing budgets have been steadily increasing. I''d like to see comparable proof that research money has been increasing at anything close to the advertising and marketing. Note that those doing research on Imatinib had to look long and hard to find a drug company that would undertake the drug research, and that there was also considerable pressure needed to get the company to bring the product to market (because CML is a relatively rare cancer). In addition, the company got additional government incentives to market it through a government "Orphan Drug" incentive program. Unfortunately drug companies, like many companies, are more interested in the "sure thing" than in taking real risk, and then want to squeeze the consumer dry on whatever drugs turn out to be effective, even if many consumers are unable to afford the drug as a result. If drug companies truly want to function in a free trade market place, they should take their risks on new drugs as a priority to maintain their standing for producing superior products. The way things are now, this policy is honored more in the rhetoric of the advertiser than in the reality of the company policy. Richard