3 ms·

> Why is a temporary monopoly even necessary here? I've written about this before, but every time I see "patents" mentioned anywhere, I find myself thinking "Do

by notlob 9y ago

> Why is a temporary monopoly even necessary here? I've written about this before, but every time I see "patents" mentioned anywhere, I find myself thinking "Do we need this system?" In biotech and medtech no one will invest in your startup, even at the angel level, unless you have a sound IP strategy that includes patents or a very well-considered trade secret plan. The time from discovery to translation and commercialization is long, risky, expensive, and too difficult to predict to permit investment without some sort of period of exclusivity. If someone can clone a product as soon as it is developed and on the market, how could a company recoup development costs?

dave_sullivan 9y ago
I've had this conversation before (not with you, but re: this argument) and I think you're right, it's hard to make certain areas of biotech work without having the ability to recoup costs (today handled with a temporary monopoly on the product, keeping gross margins very high). One answer is "if you abolish patents a lot of science research will have to come from privately or publicly funded research" but this is pretty extreme and would be a tectonic shift in the biotech industry. I'm not advocating an extreme solution like abolishing patents. But I think the pendulum needs to shift very hard in the other direction re: patents in general. Like, how about not having one court in Texas decide it all? Or "you have to sell the product to keep the patent and you can't just pretend to sell it". Or you can't patent software unless there's a really really good reason (like recouping huge development losses)
davesque 9y ago
I feel like this only underscores the ethical problems of for-profit medicine. The argument, if I understand correctly, is essentially that there's no other way to fund large innovations in medical treatment in a free market than to have a patent system or some kind of artificial exclusivity. To me, this doesn't answer the question of what you're supposed to say to a dying person who can't afford to save their own life when a drug company unfairly sets their prices too high.

by notlob 9y ago

dave_sullivan 9y ago

I've had this conversation before (not with you, but re: this argument) and I think you're right, it's hard to make certain areas of biotech work without having the ability to recoup costs (today handled with a temporary monopoly on the product, keeping gross margins very high). One answer is "if you abolish patents a lot of science research will have to come from privately or publicly funded research" but this is pretty extreme and would be a tectonic shift in the biotech industry. I'm not advocating an extreme solution like abolishing patents. But I think the pendulum needs to shift very hard in the other direction re: patents in general. Like, how about not having one court in Texas decide it all? Or "you have to sell the product to keep the patent and you can't just pretend to sell it". Or you can't patent software unless there's a really really good reason (like recouping huge development losses)

davesque 9y ago

I feel like this only underscores the ethical problems of for-profit medicine. The argument, if I understand correctly, is essentially that there's no other way to fund large innovations in medical treatment in a free market than to have a patent system or some kind of artificial exclusivity. To me, this doesn't answer the question of what you're supposed to say to a dying person who can't afford to save their own life when a drug company unfairly sets their prices too high.