Unfortunately India have a unique attitude to patents, I've...

Unfortunately India have a unique attitude to patents, I've C&P'd the relevant text in this interview, ambiguous about BTA royalty.

Multinational Monitor:The Tamiflu Manufacturing Controversy MAR/APR 2006

Dr. Yusuf Hamied is the chair of Cipla, the Indian generic drug manufacturer

Hamied: We are definitely going to produce, and are producing already, zanamavir as an alternative. That is the inhaled product of Biota in Australia, which was licensed to GlaxoSmithKline.

MM: They are not complaining about your production?

Hamied: They cannot, because the product was patented in 1993. The patent for that does not count in India.

MM: Is it correct that GlaxoSmithKline said that even where they claim a patent, they will not try to enforce it?

Hamied: I have no idea.

It is not their patent. It is a patent of Biota in Australia. Glaxo pays them a royalty.

Like oseltamivir is not a patent of Roche, it is a patent of Gilead. Roche is paying Gilead a royalty, and I am also prepared to pay a royalty on valid patents, so what is the big deal?

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2006/032006/interview-hamied.html