5 ms·

What about drug discovery? The road to approval is a long, risky, and amazingly expensive one. Without patent protection, there wouldn't be a lot of incentive t

by njl 17y ago

What about drug discovery? The road to approval is a long, risky, and amazingly expensive one. Without patent protection, there wouldn't be a lot of incentive to develop new drugs. I think, as software people, we tend to generalize the ridiculousness of software patents, and we decide that all patents are ridiculous. There are industries where innovation is the result of serious risk and serious investment, and it is in everyone's best interest to encourage that. The rub is figuring out which industries and which classes of innovation should be protected, and which should not be protected.

binspace 17y ago
> What about drug discovery? I can see how patents could help there. Are there any studies that favor patents?
blahedo 17y ago
Even with patent protection, there's only direct incentive to develop new drugs for rich people, who can pay for them---which is why you don't see as much research on medicines for malaria as, say, erectile dysfunction.
- hugh3 17y ago
  Is that true? Is there really less research on medicines for malaria than erectile dysfunction? I've met a whole bunch of malaria researchers, but never an erectile dysfunction researcher.
  - cma 17y ago
    It is clear from the context that he is talking about private-market research, not NSF funded university research, etc.
- stretchwithme 17y ago
  good point I would also argue that a lot of people invest in finding a solution to problems that affect themselves or loved ones without any thought to the possible financial return. The cure is what they want and its worth spending money to obtain.
stretchwithme 17y ago
I'm working on a medical device, so can't say I am only thinking about software patents. I would suggest the bounty system as a way to deal with the need for CURES to disease. Or treatments if cures are not possible. There is a cost to innovating and a cost of dealing with the government. Yes, dealing with the government is a very expensive process. Ensuring safety is important. Does the current approach accomplish this? Some would question that it does. Still, whoever pays that bill and takes the risk of never being paid back should get a fair return if successful. If one feels that the government has the right to create this enormous regulatory burden, than it can certainly assign the benefits of going through all of that to the one paying the bills for a sufficient time to recover those costs. I qualify that because I don't quite agree the government should be involved or that coercion is necessary, but that is a whole other can of worms. If there is a benefit to be had, there is a price worth paying. I just don't automatically assume government is the way to make that happen. We are quite used to seeing government or coercion as the method, but I think other mechanisms can make the same beneficial occur. For the most part, I think government is a far greater impediment to many good things than most people realize. But I give your comment a point. Its a valid concern.

by njl 17y ago

binspace 17y ago

> What about drug discovery? I can see how patents could help there. Are there any studies that favor patents?

blahedo 17y ago

Even with patent protection, there's only direct incentive to develop new drugs for rich people, who can pay for them---which is why you don't see as much research on medicines for malaria as, say, erectile dysfunction.

hugh3 17y ago
Is that true? Is there really less research on medicines for malaria than erectile dysfunction? I've met a whole bunch of malaria researchers, but never an erectile dysfunction researcher.
- cma 17y ago
  It is clear from the context that he is talking about private-market research, not NSF funded university research, etc.
stretchwithme 17y ago
good point I would also argue that a lot of people invest in finding a solution to problems that affect themselves or loved ones without any thought to the possible financial return. The cure is what they want and its worth spending money to obtain.

stretchwithme 17y ago

I'm working on a medical device, so can't say I am only thinking about software patents. I would suggest the bounty system as a way to deal with the need for CURES to disease. Or treatments if cures are not possible. There is a cost to innovating and a cost of dealing with the government. Yes, dealing with the government is a very expensive process. Ensuring safety is important. Does the current approach accomplish this? Some would question that it does. Still, whoever pays that bill and takes the risk of never being paid back should get a fair return if successful. If one feels that the government has the right to create this enormous regulatory burden, than it can certainly assign the benefits of going through all of that to the one paying the bills for a sufficient time to recover those costs. I qualify that because I don't quite agree the government should be involved or that coercion is necessary, but that is a whole other can of worms. If there is a benefit to be had, there is a price worth paying. I just don't automatically assume government is the way to make that happen. We are quite used to seeing government or coercion as the method, but I think other mechanisms can make the same beneficial occur. For the most part, I think government is a far greater impediment to many good things than most people realize. But I give your comment a point. Its a valid concern.