3 ms·

At least if they'd kept their findings secret, researchers could independently be researching the same thing. Now independent researchers won't want to touch l

At least if they'd kept their findings secret, researchers could independently be researching the same thing. Now independent researchers won't want to touch lugdunin because they'll need to license the patent, however they won't know whether licensing the patent is worthwhile until they do their research. This will prevent further research, not encourage it.

doesnotexist 10y ago
Are you sure about that? I would think that the patent wouldn't apply to non-commercial investigations or research. That is you would be free to synthesize or extract this chemical in a laboratory environment. However, if you wished to manufacture the drug for commercial purposes then you would need to license the patent.
- pyre 10y ago
  Well, potential researchers will also have to weigh the possibility that they spend all of the time and effort to research other possibilities for it only to find out that after all of the licensing fees, etc they won't even be able to break even on the fruits of their research. It carries too high of a risk for financially-minded people (looking for a return on investment) to throw money at it.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >It carries too high of a risk for financially-minded people (looking for a return on investment) to throw money at it. As opposed to the risk of searching for some completely new thing that may not exist?
- Benjamin_Dobell 10y ago
  You're right that it won't apply for non-commercial investigations. But how are you funding the investigation? It's typically funded by the proceeds generated from the research. Research is always hit and miss as to profitability, more miss than hit. Factor in potentially unknown licensing arrangements, even if you do have a "hit", and suddenly your research doesn't look like such a good idea.
  - mbreese 10y ago
    > It's typically funded by the proceeds generated from the research. That's only true in the case of commercial R&D. For non-commercial (academic) research, the funding is normally through a grant mechanism (not company supported). Academic research is almost never concerned with the licensing/patent issues aside from "can I run my experiment". It is common for academic labs to use drugs that are still "in the pipeline" for experiments.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  " I would think that the patent wouldn't apply to non-commercial investigations or research. " The exception, at least in US law, is super-super slim
taneq 10y ago
Worse, other commercial researches will be wasting their time with busywork to find a non-patented analog which they can claim for themselves, instead of working on new things.
- nanofortnight 10y ago
  That's not actually a bad thing. The first signs of resistance occur on average 1~2 years after introduction of a novel abx; the search for variants helps to extend the usable life of a new family of antibiotics.
- refurb 10y ago
  Why is finding a non-patented analog a bad thing? A lot of our medical discoveries are incremental advancements brought about work on analogs. Maybe a company will find a new mechanism of action when they look at analogs? Maybe a less toxic version? Maybe the lead compound fails but the backups work?
refurb 10y ago
As someone who used to work in drug development, I disagree. Patents don't prevent compounds from being explored in research. If this is anything like other discoveries, companies will start looking at lugdunin very closely. What is it's mechanism of action? Can the structure be optimized? What else could it be used for? Other antibiotics have been patented and that didn't stop companies from doing the research and tweaking the structure to make it even better.
- gilleain 10y ago
  > What is its mechanism of action? From this image of the structure (http://cen.acs.org/content/dam/cen/94/31/09431-notw4-Lugdunin.jpg http://cen.acs.org/content/dam/cen/94/31/09431-notw4-Lugduni...) it looks very much like some kind of small pore. That's a total guess, of course, but a cyclic peptide with alternating chirality looks reasonable, although a little small at only 7 residues.

doesnotexist 10y ago

Are you sure about that? I would think that the patent wouldn't apply to non-commercial investigations or research. That is you would be free to synthesize or extract this chemical in a laboratory environment. However, if you wished to manufacture the drug for commercial purposes then you would need to license the patent.

pyre 10y ago
Well, potential researchers will also have to weigh the possibility that they spend all of the time and effort to research other possibilities for it only to find out that after all of the licensing fees, etc they won't even be able to break even on the fruits of their research. It carries too high of a risk for financially-minded people (looking for a return on investment) to throw money at it.
- hueving 10y ago
  >It carries too high of a risk for financially-minded people (looking for a return on investment) to throw money at it. As opposed to the risk of searching for some completely new thing that may not exist?
Benjamin_Dobell 10y ago
You're right that it won't apply for non-commercial investigations. But how are you funding the investigation? It's typically funded by the proceeds generated from the research. Research is always hit and miss as to profitability, more miss than hit. Factor in potentially unknown licensing arrangements, even if you do have a "hit", and suddenly your research doesn't look like such a good idea.
- mbreese 10y ago
  > It's typically funded by the proceeds generated from the research. That's only true in the case of commercial R&D. For non-commercial (academic) research, the funding is normally through a grant mechanism (not company supported). Academic research is almost never concerned with the licensing/patent issues aside from "can I run my experiment". It is common for academic labs to use drugs that are still "in the pipeline" for experiments.
DannyBee 10y ago
" I would think that the patent wouldn't apply to non-commercial investigations or research. " The exception, at least in US law, is super-super slim

taneq 10y ago

Worse, other commercial researches will be wasting their time with busywork to find a non-patented analog which they can claim for themselves, instead of working on new things.

nanofortnight 10y ago
That's not actually a bad thing. The first signs of resistance occur on average 1~2 years after introduction of a novel abx; the search for variants helps to extend the usable life of a new family of antibiotics.
refurb 10y ago
Why is finding a non-patented analog a bad thing? A lot of our medical discoveries are incremental advancements brought about work on analogs. Maybe a company will find a new mechanism of action when they look at analogs? Maybe a less toxic version? Maybe the lead compound fails but the backups work?

refurb 10y ago

As someone who used to work in drug development, I disagree. Patents don't prevent compounds from being explored in research. If this is anything like other discoveries, companies will start looking at lugdunin very closely. What is it's mechanism of action? Can the structure be optimized? What else could it be used for? Other antibiotics have been patented and that didn't stop companies from doing the research and tweaking the structure to make it even better.

gilleain 10y ago
> What is its mechanism of action? From this image of the structure (http://cen.acs.org/content/dam/cen/94/31/09431-notw4-Lugdunin.jpg http://cen.acs.org/content/dam/cen/94/31/09431-notw4-Lugduni...) it looks very much like some kind of small pore. That's a total guess, of course, but a cyclic peptide with alternating chirality looks reasonable, although a little small at only 7 residues.