>Because it was synthesized using Chinese and Indian sourced "Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients" (APIs) [0], both of whom synthesize around 80% of all APIs required by European pharma manufacturers.
And the EU pharma companies package it, slap their logos on it and make mega profits selling domestically.
>EU member states simply does not do the same for electronics.
Why do you think that is? Surely with a war next door and China not guaranteed be a cooperator all the time, that would be a priority.
> And the EU pharma companies package it, slap their logos on it and make mega profits selling domestically
Yep.
> Why do you think that is?
Because European nations lacks the linkages needed to build a competitive electronics industry.
Much of the industry is heavily linked across the Pacific, with the US, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore transferring technology, capital, and personnel across borders to setup supply chains.
This is different with biopharma, given how closely connected European majors are with American subsidiaries. It also really doesn't hurt that much of American pharma has historically been consolidated in Greater Boston and the Delaware region which is just across the Atlantic, and European biopharma players have acted as the technology, capital, and personnel partner for developing these industries in India and China (though both do still prefer American players because of better budgets and more bleeding edge IP).
Additionally, where leadership are from matters as well. In the 1970s to 1990s, much of the electronics and software industry's mid-level and upper level leadership was West Coast based, Israel, or Asian in origin, which meant linkages were built much earlier, such as Morris Chang (Texas Instruments), Jason Chang (IllinoisTech), Vinod Dham (Intel), Dov Frohman (Intel), Kim Choong-Ki (Fairchild), Gurpreet Singh (Continental Electronics), etc. Heck, Intel began packaging semiconductors in Malaysia all the way back in 1973 - decades before they initiatited similar investments in Ireland.
The only European company that had a similar size and scope of American or Asian companies in the electronics industry was Philips NV before it broke up, but it was never at the size and scale of American Apple, IBM, or HP or Japanese Sony, Toshiba, or Sharp - let alone their Korean challengers in the 2000s like Samsung, SK Hynix, or Hyundai or their Chinese challengers in the 2010s like Huawei, TCL, Xiaomi, etc.
Most European countries lack the same bench of diaspora in leadership positions in large swathes of innovation industries. You'll easily find European leaders in services industries along with biopharma, but you'd never find a similar clustering in software, hardware, and even increasingly in biopharma to a certain extent.
Heck, most Indians who attend a Max Plank Institute for biopharma related work now return to India with a professorship or to lead an India- or America-located lab for a major like Novartis, GSK, etc.
And the EU pharma companies package it, slap their logos on it and make mega profits selling domestically.
>EU member states simply does not do the same for electronics.
Why do you think that is? Surely with a war next door and China not guaranteed be a cooperator all the time, that would be a priority.