An article in the New York Times (March 18,2012) describes a decision by the Indian government to make Bayer compulsorily share its patent for a kidney cancer drug with the Indian firm, Natco Pharma, in return for 6% royalty. Bayer’s defense was that another Indian firm, Ciple, alady made a generic version – but Bayer was simultaneously suing Cipla.  Should the argument by the indian government to require consideration of consumer willingness go pay, rather than cost recovery by the inventor, appropriate ? Could compulsory licensing while accepting patent laws, an appropriate soverign choice, disrupt the global supply chain pricing for pharma companies ?