4 ms·

I think that's a misleading question. I don't think anyone is arguing that all innovation would go away if the patent system was removed. However, it seems poss

by epmatsw 11y ago

I think that's a misleading question. I don't think anyone is arguing that all innovation would go away if the patent system was removed. However, it seems possible that innovations that require high initial investment and low ongoing costs (medications, gene patents, etc.) would be produced at a lower rate if the incentives the current system provides were removed.

icanhackit 11y ago
it seems possible that innovations that require high initial investment and low ongoing costs (medications, gene patents, etc.) would be produced at a lower rate Good point, I don't necessarily disagree. But is a lot of the R&D to get around existing patents, rather than build a new thing entirely? In the software world I think we can safely say yes. Regarding medical research I'm not qualified to say. I'd love to hear from anyone with some insight.
- epmatsw 11y ago
  That's an interesting counterpoint. I honestly don't know the answer either.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  "A way to work around a patent" means "a different way to do something". Much of the time, that's no gain, but sometimes they find a better way to do something. So figuring out ways to work around patents is not just a complete waste.
nickbauman 11y ago
Big investments (today it's things like the Internet, Space Exploration; long ago it was the Roman naval assault bridge, the Library of Alexandria) always require state-led investment for sustainability. Copying protection have almost nothing to do with them.
- caskance 11y ago
  The protection IS a state investment. It's just contributing the threat of resources rather than actual resources, which is even more efficient.
dogma1138 11y ago
I'm actually wondering how much of the R&D effort stems from actual reverse engineering of the medicine and how much is simply done by reading the patent. Chemistry is quite complicated if you break down the pill into it's basic components it won't tell you much. Even if you manage to isolate the active molecule you still will have to figure out the chemical process to make it and in a safe manner. Chemical patents tend to be quite long because it's quite a complicated manner, and all of them have a full description of how the compound was identified, how it's made, and how it's delivered. Now many drugs are also not as complicated as some people might think, the majority of the work that drug companies do it pretty much see what works for what, however for the complicated stuff that they actually R&D from the ground up the patents might be an actual liability when it comes to reverse engineering when they cannot use the law to enforce it. As for the money, as long as rich people get sick drug companies will continue to do research, allot of the money for the research also comes from government grants and not from investments drug companies would rather produce drugs for illnesses that affect as many people as possible and drugs that combat the symptoms and not the cause where ever possible if we want to be completely cynical about it because that's what would yield them the most amount of money. If government and private grants weren't available all we'll get in a cynical world would be common cold and cold sore medicine that doesn't really combat either viruses just prevents us from coughing and treats the sores. And that is almost the world we are living in because drug companies and investors won't be dumping resources into some obscure syndrome that affects 800 people in the US, for that we have the sick billionaires son and the sick nephew of a senator's best friend to thank for.
scotty79 11y ago
Tell that to ebola victims of last few decades. All this time all these wonderful incentives being in place and no progress on the cure. Americans get one good scare and presto, ebola vaccine in a less than a year. I wasn't that hard was it? Maybe those wonderful incentives are heavily misaligned with what desirable for humanity. Unless you thing that over-medicating Americans with vaguely effective but well advertised psycho drugs is preferable to preventing people from dying from ebola...

by epmatsw 11y ago

icanhackit 11y ago

it seems possible that innovations that require high initial investment and low ongoing costs (medications, gene patents, etc.) would be produced at a lower rate Good point, I don't necessarily disagree. But is a lot of the R&D to get around existing patents, rather than build a new thing entirely? In the software world I think we can safely say yes. Regarding medical research I'm not qualified to say. I'd love to hear from anyone with some insight.

epmatsw 11y ago
That's an interesting counterpoint. I honestly don't know the answer either.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
"A way to work around a patent" means "a different way to do something". Much of the time, that's no gain, but sometimes they find a better way to do something. So figuring out ways to work around patents is not just a complete waste.

nickbauman 11y ago

Big investments (today it's things like the Internet, Space Exploration; long ago it was the Roman naval assault bridge, the Library of Alexandria) always require state-led investment for sustainability. Copying protection have almost nothing to do with them.

caskance 11y ago
The protection IS a state investment. It's just contributing the threat of resources rather than actual resources, which is even more efficient.

dogma1138 11y ago

I'm actually wondering how much of the R&D effort stems from actual reverse engineering of the medicine and how much is simply done by reading the patent. Chemistry is quite complicated if you break down the pill into it's basic components it won't tell you much. Even if you manage to isolate the active molecule you still will have to figure out the chemical process to make it and in a safe manner. Chemical patents tend to be quite long because it's quite a complicated manner, and all of them have a full description of how the compound was identified, how it's made, and how it's delivered. Now many drugs are also not as complicated as some people might think, the majority of the work that drug companies do it pretty much see what works for what, however for the complicated stuff that they actually R&D from the ground up the patents might be an actual liability when it comes to reverse engineering when they cannot use the law to enforce it. As for the money, as long as rich people get sick drug companies will continue to do research, allot of the money for the research also comes from government grants and not from investments drug companies would rather produce drugs for illnesses that affect as many people as possible and drugs that combat the symptoms and not the cause where ever possible if we want to be completely cynical about it because that's what would yield them the most amount of money. If government and private grants weren't available all we'll get in a cynical world would be common cold and cold sore medicine that doesn't really combat either viruses just prevents us from coughing and treats the sores. And that is almost the world we are living in because drug companies and investors won't be dumping resources into some obscure syndrome that affects 800 people in the US, for that we have the sick billionaires son and the sick nephew of a senator's best friend to thank for.

scotty79 11y ago

Tell that to ebola victims of last few decades. All this time all these wonderful incentives being in place and no progress on the cure. Americans get one good scare and presto, ebola vaccine in a less than a year. I wasn't that hard was it? Maybe those wonderful incentives are heavily misaligned with what desirable for humanity. Unless you thing that over-medicating Americans with vaguely effective but well advertised psycho drugs is preferable to preventing people from dying from ebola...