16 ms·

> Let's put aside the fact that patenting a fucking molecule is even a thing Assuming you don't find fault with the mere concept of patents, I am legitimately

by delecti 10y ago

> Let's put aside the fact that patenting a fucking molecule is even a thing Assuming you don't find fault with the mere concept of patents, I am legitimately curious why patenting a molecule shouldn't also be possible.

PieterH 10y ago
Because it's a discovery rather than an invention. Though the mere concept of patents is already a fraud, as is clear when you start to look closely the arguments. See http://hintjens.com/blog:31 http://hintjens.com/blog:31.
- delecti 10y ago
  I would argue that any invention is a discovery of sorts. The inventor of the electric coffee maker didn't fundamentally alter the universe to cause it to be possible for a device to brew coffee. And even if you don't buy that argument (it's admittedly tenuous) the fact that it's a discovery wouldn't convince me that the discoverer shouldn't still get exclusivity rights, given the amount of research involved in discovering new molecules and shepherding them through the approval process. Could you possibly find something a little less conspiracy theory looking? Also something a little less manifesto.
  - hobs 10y ago
    > Could you possibly find something a little less conspiracy theory looking? Also something a little less manifesto. Clearly his own blog.
    - delecti 10y ago
      Oh, so it is. Good catch.
  - PieterH 10y ago
    It's my own blog. I spent two years fighting software parents in Europe as president of the largest NGO involved (FFII), and it was pretty clear that we were fighting a well organised and funded lobbying machine. After some years of analysis my conclusion was that software was not in fact a special case, and that all patents were a problem. Sorry to not have made it clear that I was linking to my own work.
  - PieterH 10y ago
    The question is whether that reward benefits society or not. Do we get innovation without it? Are there studies that show patents preceding innovation rather than following it?
- redler 10y ago
  What if it's an engineered molecule?
- pinaceae 10y ago
  you're absolutely wrong. if you think finding out which molecule fights cancer cells vs kills you outright and how to produce it in controlled fashion is trivial, you're a moron. if you think creating genetically enginnered bacteria to produce insulin is trivial, you're an utter moron. lest you like injecting harvested insulin from pigs or dead humans. HN likes to pride itself on techie knowledge, but the cluelessness around actual hard tech is staggering. modern medicine is up there with rocket science, worthy of nobel prizes. they just CURED hep C for FUCKS SAKE. but yeah, no reward for that, but sharing catpics - here, have billions.
  - fisherjeff 10y ago
    Nobody's questioning whether these things are non-trivial or high-value. There are very legitimate questions to be asked, though, especially regarding patentability and profitability. There are many other fields with very high barriers to entry and which require very large R&D budgets, but which - unlike the prescription drug market - nonetheless manage to attract competitiors: The semiconductor industry, for example, comes to mind.
    - pinaceae 10y ago
      hardware is full of patents. your point? pharma is full of competitors. exactly because it rewards risk. the whole point of the system. and the patent cliff hits and generics and biosimilars take over.
- refurb 10y ago
  Most of the patent drugs never existed until somebody first synthesized them. How is that not an invention?
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Great write-up. More as a reference work to draw on. There's simply too many angles and information in it. Do you mind if I present a condensed, high-impact version of it should I run into those that can influence the patent system? I'll credit you as the original source with mine being a re-hash or revision.
  - PieterH 10y ago
    Go for it.
- etendue 10y ago
  This is an absolutely incorrect assertion: drug discovery is but one part of the drug development process. You're ignoring (among other things) the work in medicinal chemistry, retrosynthesis, and scale up/chemical engineering that go into creating a drug. The compound at the end of the development process rarely looks like the one identified in initial screening, and the work done to manufacture it and bring it to market unquestionably count as inventive.
logfromblammo 10y ago
You don't patent the molecule. You patent the method of synthesis or extraction, and you patent the method for treating a human disease or ailment. If you discovered a novel use for acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), you could patent that. You are not re-patenting aspirin. It can still be used as an analgesic. If you discovered a novel process to produce ethanol, you could patent that. You are not re-patenting alcohol. People could still use the traditional fermentation and distillation process. You could even patent a process step to remove the remaining water from azeotropic distilled alcohol. Obviously, such patents are more monetizable if the molecule in question is expensive to produce by the public domain processes, has no other commonly known uses, or is a controlled substance.
- hmahncke 10y ago
  There are composition of matter patents that allow you to patent a novel molecule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_matter
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    That's perfectly in line with patenting inventions, but not discoveries, and implementations, but not ideas. So in order for me to accept a patent on a molecule, it would have to be found nowhere else in nature or in prior art, and the applicant must have synthesized a measurable quantity of it. In practice, this means patentable molecules have to be rather complex, because there are a ridiculous number of compounds that have been created once, for someone's dissertation, or to create catalog entries for boiling points, freezing points, dissociation constants, and such, and then never looked at again. Quite a lot of "new" drugs were actually first described decades ago and then shelved. There are just too many possibilities in organic chemistry to examine each in detail without a specific application already in mind.

by delecti 10y ago

PieterH 10y ago

Because it's a discovery rather than an invention. Though the mere concept of patents is already a fraud, as is clear when you start to look closely the arguments. See http://hintjens.com/blog:31 http://hintjens.com/blog:31.

delecti 10y ago
I would argue that any invention is a discovery of sorts. The inventor of the electric coffee maker didn't fundamentally alter the universe to cause it to be possible for a device to brew coffee. And even if you don't buy that argument (it's admittedly tenuous) the fact that it's a discovery wouldn't convince me that the discoverer shouldn't still get exclusivity rights, given the amount of research involved in discovering new molecules and shepherding them through the approval process. Could you possibly find something a little less conspiracy theory looking? Also something a little less manifesto.
- hobs 10y ago
  > Could you possibly find something a little less conspiracy theory looking? Also something a little less manifesto. Clearly his own blog.
  - delecti 10y ago
    Oh, so it is. Good catch.
- PieterH 10y ago
  It's my own blog. I spent two years fighting software parents in Europe as president of the largest NGO involved (FFII), and it was pretty clear that we were fighting a well organised and funded lobbying machine. After some years of analysis my conclusion was that software was not in fact a special case, and that all patents were a problem. Sorry to not have made it clear that I was linking to my own work.
- PieterH 10y ago
  The question is whether that reward benefits society or not. Do we get innovation without it? Are there studies that show patents preceding innovation rather than following it?
redler 10y ago
What if it's an engineered molecule?
pinaceae 10y ago
you're absolutely wrong. if you think finding out which molecule fights cancer cells vs kills you outright and how to produce it in controlled fashion is trivial, you're a moron. if you think creating genetically enginnered bacteria to produce insulin is trivial, you're an utter moron. lest you like injecting harvested insulin from pigs or dead humans. HN likes to pride itself on techie knowledge, but the cluelessness around actual hard tech is staggering. modern medicine is up there with rocket science, worthy of nobel prizes. they just CURED hep C for FUCKS SAKE. but yeah, no reward for that, but sharing catpics - here, have billions.
- fisherjeff 10y ago
  Nobody's questioning whether these things are non-trivial or high-value. There are very legitimate questions to be asked, though, especially regarding patentability and profitability. There are many other fields with very high barriers to entry and which require very large R&D budgets, but which - unlike the prescription drug market - nonetheless manage to attract competitiors: The semiconductor industry, for example, comes to mind.
  - pinaceae 10y ago
    hardware is full of patents. your point? pharma is full of competitors. exactly because it rewards risk. the whole point of the system. and the patent cliff hits and generics and biosimilars take over.
refurb 10y ago
Most of the patent drugs never existed until somebody first synthesized them. How is that not an invention?
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Great write-up. More as a reference work to draw on. There's simply too many angles and information in it. Do you mind if I present a condensed, high-impact version of it should I run into those that can influence the patent system? I'll credit you as the original source with mine being a re-hash or revision.
- PieterH 10y ago
  Go for it.
etendue 10y ago
This is an absolutely incorrect assertion: drug discovery is but one part of the drug development process. You're ignoring (among other things) the work in medicinal chemistry, retrosynthesis, and scale up/chemical engineering that go into creating a drug. The compound at the end of the development process rarely looks like the one identified in initial screening, and the work done to manufacture it and bring it to market unquestionably count as inventive.

logfromblammo 10y ago

You don't patent the molecule. You patent the method of synthesis or extraction, and you patent the method for treating a human disease or ailment. If you discovered a novel use for acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), you could patent that. You are not re-patenting aspirin. It can still be used as an analgesic. If you discovered a novel process to produce ethanol, you could patent that. You are not re-patenting alcohol. People could still use the traditional fermentation and distillation process. You could even patent a process step to remove the remaining water from azeotropic distilled alcohol. Obviously, such patents are more monetizable if the molecule in question is expensive to produce by the public domain processes, has no other commonly known uses, or is a controlled substance.

hmahncke 10y ago
There are composition of matter patents that allow you to patent a novel molecule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_matter
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  That's perfectly in line with patenting inventions, but not discoveries, and implementations, but not ideas. So in order for me to accept a patent on a molecule, it would have to be found nowhere else in nature or in prior art, and the applicant must have synthesized a measurable quantity of it. In practice, this means patentable molecules have to be rather complex, because there are a ridiculous number of compounds that have been created once, for someone's dissertation, or to create catalog entries for boiling points, freezing points, dissociation constants, and such, and then never looked at again. Quite a lot of "new" drugs were actually first described decades ago and then shelved. There are just too many possibilities in organic chemistry to examine each in detail without a specific application already in mind.