5 ms·

You basically described my life. In a best case scenario I cure cancer, and some rich people get richer charging patients their life savings for the right to st

You basically described my life. In a best case scenario I cure cancer, and some rich people get richer charging patients their life savings for the right to stay alive. The only way out of this trap is to destroy the patents. They add nothing other than concentrating wealth and power. The research will always be done anyway; there will always be people like me.

bpicolo 11y ago
And yet research costs money. No way around that sadly.
- astazangasta 11y ago
  If you are implying that patents are the only way to fund research you are wrong. They are in fact one of the least efficient ways. The NIH funds more research with a paltry $30 billion than all of pharma does taking $300 billion in patent royalties each year.
  - crazypyro 11y ago
    Do you have a link to a source for this? Not that I doubt you, but that just seems really, really hard to judge without full information and there could be obvious biases...
  - refurb 11y ago
    Uh... that's not true. Total pharma spending on R&D is double that of the NIH. Also, the NIH budget is mostly focused on basic science and much of the work has nothing to do with bringing a new drug to market. Unless you have a great idea on how to replace $60B+ in annual drug development costs, the current system will stay as it is.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - astazangasta 11y ago
      I do! First that is worldwide R&D. In the US it is only $26 billion a year, so we could easily cover it by doubling the NIH budget. Since in exchange we get new drugs at generic prices it more than pays for itself just in money saved on Medicare payouts. Even paying out $60 billion would be cheaper. If that is too socialist for you we can merely replace patents with a prize system, where we award people a large sum for developing a drug. This is what pharma largely does anyway (wait for startups then buy them out once they've done the hard stuff) so not much would change. For $1 billion a piece we can get ten drugs a year at huge savings. I got more ideas, but this suffices to demonstrate how easy this is if you think about it. Patents really are the worst way.
      - refurb 11y ago
        Thanks for the thoughtful reply, you've obviously researched this. I think there are two challenges with your approaches. 1. The expertise needed to bring a drug to market doesn't currently exist within NIH funded entities. They are trying to create it, but have been having a hell of a time. Discovering new science and bringing a drug to market are two very different things. 2. The prize system has it's own challenges. First off, the prizes would have to be huge. Lipitor sales were over $100B during the 10+ years it was on the market. A $2B prize won't mean much. 3. The biggest challenge with the prize system is how do you judge whether or not someone deserves the prize? For example, if we offer a prize for a new antibiotic for multi-drug resistant bacteria, how do you judge whether or not the new drug met the goals? Evaluating a new drug is not black and white at all. What if it kills the bacteria, but is really toxic? What if it works, but not for everyone? Do they still get the prize?
datashovel 11y ago
I agree in principal. Though I have never explored data extensively I would say in general it's probably true. Though patents were created to protect the average inventor, they end up protecting (net value) the large corporation. It's hard for the typical "hard-core capitalist / free-market guy" to understand, but I consistently argue that regardless of where the money flows as long as passionate people are able to sustain a comfortable living studying what they love, there will always be amazing breakthroughs in all fields, regardless of "market forces".
- biomcgary 11y ago
  Why would some one who is free-market be in favor of patents? Patents involve government intervention at a very low level (e.g., evaluating technical details to determine patentability) and are prone to regulatory capture, which is not remotely free-market. I do see how a "hard-core capitalist" would love patents though.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Correct. Patents are antithetical to a free market, as Rothbard wrote in Chapter 10 of Man, Economy, State. I don't know of a more definitive hardcore laissez-faire capitalist than that.
  - datashovel 11y ago
    Sorry, I was formulating 2 separate thoughts in a single comment. Not obvious now that I've re-read it.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > It's hard for the typical "hard-core capitalist / free-market guy" to understand, but I consistently argue that regardless of where the money flows as long as passionate people are able to sustain a comfortable living studying what they love, there will always be amazing breakthroughs in all fields, regardless of "market forces". You have ample evidence of what is accomplished without market forces: The Internet, Web, email, Linux, Firefox, Newton, Einstein, almost all science, every political and social idea and movement, everything done by almost any soldier (who give their lives without the pull of market forces), parent, friend, mentor, etc. (EDIT: I forgot NASA and most other explorers!) The idea that people only act due to market forces and selfishness is obviously absurd, a simplistic ideology used by some to rationalize their own greed.
mfisher87 11y ago
The counter-argument is that without concentrated wealth and power, no one would be able to afford the cost of that research. I disagree with that argument, but how would one counter-argue it?
- deciplex 11y ago
  Large groups of people pool their resources to pay for expensive shit all the time. Just take the US military, as one example.

bpicolo 11y ago

And yet research costs money. No way around that sadly.

astazangasta 11y ago
If you are implying that patents are the only way to fund research you are wrong. They are in fact one of the least efficient ways. The NIH funds more research with a paltry $30 billion than all of pharma does taking $300 billion in patent royalties each year.
- crazypyro 11y ago
  Do you have a link to a source for this? Not that I doubt you, but that just seems really, really hard to judge without full information and there could be obvious biases...
- refurb 11y ago
  Uh... that's not true. Total pharma spending on R&D is double that of the NIH. Also, the NIH budget is mostly focused on basic science and much of the work has nothing to do with bringing a new drug to market. Unless you have a great idea on how to replace $60B+ in annual drug development costs, the current system will stay as it is.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    I do! First that is worldwide R&D. In the US it is only $26 billion a year, so we could easily cover it by doubling the NIH budget. Since in exchange we get new drugs at generic prices it more than pays for itself just in money saved on Medicare payouts. Even paying out $60 billion would be cheaper. If that is too socialist for you we can merely replace patents with a prize system, where we award people a large sum for developing a drug. This is what pharma largely does anyway (wait for startups then buy them out once they've done the hard stuff) so not much would change. For $1 billion a piece we can get ten drugs a year at huge savings. I got more ideas, but this suffices to demonstrate how easy this is if you think about it. Patents really are the worst way.
    - refurb 11y ago
      Thanks for the thoughtful reply, you've obviously researched this. I think there are two challenges with your approaches. 1. The expertise needed to bring a drug to market doesn't currently exist within NIH funded entities. They are trying to create it, but have been having a hell of a time. Discovering new science and bringing a drug to market are two very different things. 2. The prize system has it's own challenges. First off, the prizes would have to be huge. Lipitor sales were over $100B during the 10+ years it was on the market. A $2B prize won't mean much. 3. The biggest challenge with the prize system is how do you judge whether or not someone deserves the prize? For example, if we offer a prize for a new antibiotic for multi-drug resistant bacteria, how do you judge whether or not the new drug met the goals? Evaluating a new drug is not black and white at all. What if it kills the bacteria, but is really toxic? What if it works, but not for everyone? Do they still get the prize?

datashovel 11y ago

I agree in principal. Though I have never explored data extensively I would say in general it's probably true. Though patents were created to protect the average inventor, they end up protecting (net value) the large corporation. It's hard for the typical "hard-core capitalist / free-market guy" to understand, but I consistently argue that regardless of where the money flows as long as passionate people are able to sustain a comfortable living studying what they love, there will always be amazing breakthroughs in all fields, regardless of "market forces".

biomcgary 11y ago
Why would some one who is free-market be in favor of patents? Patents involve government intervention at a very low level (e.g., evaluating technical details to determine patentability) and are prone to regulatory capture, which is not remotely free-market. I do see how a "hard-core capitalist" would love patents though.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Correct. Patents are antithetical to a free market, as Rothbard wrote in Chapter 10 of Man, Economy, State. I don't know of a more definitive hardcore laissez-faire capitalist than that.
- datashovel 11y ago
  Sorry, I was formulating 2 separate thoughts in a single comment. Not obvious now that I've re-read it.
hackuser 11y ago
> It's hard for the typical "hard-core capitalist / free-market guy" to understand, but I consistently argue that regardless of where the money flows as long as passionate people are able to sustain a comfortable living studying what they love, there will always be amazing breakthroughs in all fields, regardless of "market forces". You have ample evidence of what is accomplished without market forces: The Internet, Web, email, Linux, Firefox, Newton, Einstein, almost all science, every political and social idea and movement, everything done by almost any soldier (who give their lives without the pull of market forces), parent, friend, mentor, etc. (EDIT: I forgot NASA and most other explorers!) The idea that people only act due to market forces and selfishness is obviously absurd, a simplistic ideology used by some to rationalize their own greed.

mfisher87 11y ago

The counter-argument is that without concentrated wealth and power, no one would be able to afford the cost of that research. I disagree with that argument, but how would one counter-argue it?

deciplex 11y ago
Large groups of people pool their resources to pay for expensive shit all the time. Just take the US military, as one example.