3 ms·

How would you encourage the development of new pharmaceuticals (the process of which costs vast, vast sums of money and can take decades) if, as soon as the new

by nudge 16y ago

How would you encourage the development of new pharmaceuticals (the process of which costs vast, vast sums of money and can take decades) if, as soon as the new drug is done, anyone can come and just copy the formula? I'm not pro-patents on everything, but pharmaceuticals is a case where the patent bargain seems to produce benefits in terms of drugs that otherwise might not be developed.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
Your argument assumes that you need some kind of artificial encouragement to make the development of pharmaceuticals thrive. Against Intellectual Monopoly[1], shows rather strong empirical evidence to the contrary: drug development thrived before patents arrived, and didn't accelerate after. They may even have slowed down. Your argument is appealing, but most probably wrong. [1]: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...
- nudge 16y ago
  I'm willing to accept I'm wrong, but could you answer my point so I know exactly how it is that I am? In particular, exactly how is it that the large upfront R&D costs I mentioned would not be a problem in a patent-free world? Also, I wasn't assuming any kind of 'artificial encouragement'. I was talking about firms spending hundreds of millions of dollars researching drugs, and wanting to earn that back (and, obviously, more) through patent protection. There's nothing artificial about the kind of encouragement that comes from wanting to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    I didn't address that point because that point is irrelevant. I am not interested in the well being of a particular pharmaceutical firm. I am interested in the well being of the whole field. And I suspect, so are you. It looks like you think that for pharmaceutical to thrive, it needs corporation to be "encouraged" to invest lots of money. You also seem to think that patents are a major provider of that encouragement. If so, the introduction of the patent system should have accelerated innovation. Empirical evidence shows that it didn't. I see only 2 explanations: either patents are not an effective encouragement (compared to already existing ones), or their disadvantages nullifies the additional encouragement.
    - nudge 16y ago
      Please just explain how it is that you think we would get new, expensive-to-develop drugs, if there were no guarantee of a limited monopoly for the inventor. Forget the abstract arguments about corporations being "encouraged" or whatever you think I think. Just tell me how it would work. If it helps, imagine that you run a pharmaceutical firm, and you have the choice to spend hundreds of millions of dollars researching a drug which, once perfected by your researchers, is not owned in any sense (even temporarily) by you, but rather immediately becomes a generic commodity worth fractions of a cent per unit, and which cannot possibly earn you back the money you spent developing it. In that situation, would you start the research? And if not, where will the new drugs come from?
      - loup-vaillant 16y ago
        > Just tell me how it would work. Ha ha, that's the beauty of it: I don't know. I just know it works. I know it from a source[1] which I consider reliable. And that source presented empirical observations which strongly support my view. You keep talking about how it would work, doing what's amounts to a thought experiment. That's valuable, but not nearly as good as actual observations in assessing how the world works. From the dawn of humanity, the Sun has been observed to rise from a direction and set to a roughly opposite direction. Why? How? For a very long time, no one knew. But only a fool would contradict that observation just because what he thinks of the sun doesn't fit what everybody sees. In short, when your view of the world doesn't fit the observations, update your view of the world. Now, I see very few ways in which you could still disagree with me: (1) You think I misreported my source. (2) You don't trust my source. (3) You know of very strong evidence which support your view and not mine. So which it is? [1]: Against Intellectual Monopoly
        nudge 16y ago
        Alright, if you don't know how it would work, but you do know how it does work, tell me how it does work. What countries are you talking about, what years, what drugs? How did the companies cover the cost of research? What was in it for them? Why did they do it? I am perfectly willing to amend my views but so far you have done nothing but say you have evidence. Show me! I don't have time to read your source but I am happy to read what you quote as relevant.
kunley 16y ago
You are forgetting that pharmaceutics business earns vast, vast, vast sums of money.
- nudge 16y ago
  I'm not forgetting that at all. Of course they make enormous profits. But they would make no profits if they did not have a temporary monopoly on the drugs they invent, because others would sell it for cost price (next to nil) and they would never, ever recoup the money they spent developing the drug. My point isn't that pharma companies don't make money. It's that if you took away patent protection, they wouldn't invest in new drugs, because they would never earn anything on those investments.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    Hey, did you read me? New drugs are invented even when there is no patents around! Necessary investments are made even when there is no patent system! Introducing patents does not benefit pharmaceutical innovation. It has been observed empirically, in the real world. Your point here is wrong. Unless you can tell why the empirical evidence I speak of is inconclusive or non-existent, I suggest you accept it.
    - nudge 16y ago
      You just keep saying "it has been observed empirically". Name the drugs. edit: Also, explain (as I keep asking you to) how it is that the companies are to earn back the money spent on the R&D investments, if there are no patents. You say there is plenty of empirical evidence. Tell me how it is done.
      - loup-vaillant 16y ago
        Reference for outsiders: my only substantial argument so far is the quote in this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1497246 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1497246
tomjen3 16y ago
I don't see much point in encuraging the development of new pharamaceuticals. Not that I don't like being healthy, but the new pharamaceuticals are just stuff that makes you not die, rather than cure the disease and it is developed only because the patent on the old stuff is on the verge on running out. A better way would be by removing all the nonessential regulation that makes such medicine so bloody expensive in the first place.
- nudge 16y ago
  You're absolutely right, obviously. And I'm sure that if your children developed some terrible illness, you wouldn't want to use any pharmaceuticals to keep them alive longer, because - as you say - the disease might get them in the end anyway. "Stuff that makes you not die" is, as you point out, obviously worthless to everyone.

by nudge 16y ago

loup-vaillant 16y ago

Your argument assumes that you need some kind of artificial encouragement to make the development of pharmaceuticals thrive. Against Intellectual Monopoly[1], shows rather strong empirical evidence to the contrary: drug development thrived before patents arrived, and didn't accelerate after. They may even have slowed down. Your argument is appealing, but most probably wrong. [1]: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...

nudge 16y ago
I'm willing to accept I'm wrong, but could you answer my point so I know exactly how it is that I am? In particular, exactly how is it that the large upfront R&D costs I mentioned would not be a problem in a patent-free world? Also, I wasn't assuming any kind of 'artificial encouragement'. I was talking about firms spending hundreds of millions of dollars researching drugs, and wanting to earn that back (and, obviously, more) through patent protection. There's nothing artificial about the kind of encouragement that comes from wanting to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  I didn't address that point because that point is irrelevant. I am not interested in the well being of a particular pharmaceutical firm. I am interested in the well being of the whole field. And I suspect, so are you. It looks like you think that for pharmaceutical to thrive, it needs corporation to be "encouraged" to invest lots of money. You also seem to think that patents are a major provider of that encouragement. If so, the introduction of the patent system should have accelerated innovation. Empirical evidence shows that it didn't. I see only 2 explanations: either patents are not an effective encouragement (compared to already existing ones), or their disadvantages nullifies the additional encouragement.
  - nudge 16y ago
    Please just explain how it is that you think we would get new, expensive-to-develop drugs, if there were no guarantee of a limited monopoly for the inventor. Forget the abstract arguments about corporations being "encouraged" or whatever you think I think. Just tell me how it would work. If it helps, imagine that you run a pharmaceutical firm, and you have the choice to spend hundreds of millions of dollars researching a drug which, once perfected by your researchers, is not owned in any sense (even temporarily) by you, but rather immediately becomes a generic commodity worth fractions of a cent per unit, and which cannot possibly earn you back the money you spent developing it. In that situation, would you start the research? And if not, where will the new drugs come from?
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      > Just tell me how it would work. Ha ha, that's the beauty of it: I don't know. I just know it works. I know it from a source[1] which I consider reliable. And that source presented empirical observations which strongly support my view. You keep talking about how it would work, doing what's amounts to a thought experiment. That's valuable, but not nearly as good as actual observations in assessing how the world works. From the dawn of humanity, the Sun has been observed to rise from a direction and set to a roughly opposite direction. Why? How? For a very long time, no one knew. But only a fool would contradict that observation just because what he thinks of the sun doesn't fit what everybody sees. In short, when your view of the world doesn't fit the observations, update your view of the world. Now, I see very few ways in which you could still disagree with me: (1) You think I misreported my source. (2) You don't trust my source. (3) You know of very strong evidence which support your view and not mine. So which it is? [1]: Against Intellectual Monopoly
      - nudge 16y ago
        Alright, if you don't know how it would work, but you do know how it does work, tell me how it does work. What countries are you talking about, what years, what drugs? How did the companies cover the cost of research? What was in it for them? Why did they do it? I am perfectly willing to amend my views but so far you have done nothing but say you have evidence. Show me! I don't have time to read your source but I am happy to read what you quote as relevant.

kunley 16y ago

You are forgetting that pharmaceutics business earns vast, vast, vast sums of money.

nudge 16y ago
I'm not forgetting that at all. Of course they make enormous profits. But they would make no profits if they did not have a temporary monopoly on the drugs they invent, because others would sell it for cost price (next to nil) and they would never, ever recoup the money they spent developing the drug. My point isn't that pharma companies don't make money. It's that if you took away patent protection, they wouldn't invest in new drugs, because they would never earn anything on those investments.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  Hey, did you read me? New drugs are invented even when there is no patents around! Necessary investments are made even when there is no patent system! Introducing patents does not benefit pharmaceutical innovation. It has been observed empirically, in the real world. Your point here is wrong. Unless you can tell why the empirical evidence I speak of is inconclusive or non-existent, I suggest you accept it.
  - nudge 16y ago
    You just keep saying "it has been observed empirically". Name the drugs. edit: Also, explain (as I keep asking you to) how it is that the companies are to earn back the money spent on the R&D investments, if there are no patents. You say there is plenty of empirical evidence. Tell me how it is done.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      Reference for outsiders: my only substantial argument so far is the quote in this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1497246 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1497246

tomjen3 16y ago

I don't see much point in encuraging the development of new pharamaceuticals. Not that I don't like being healthy, but the new pharamaceuticals are just stuff that makes you not die, rather than cure the disease and it is developed only because the patent on the old stuff is on the verge on running out. A better way would be by removing all the nonessential regulation that makes such medicine so bloody expensive in the first place.

nudge 16y ago
You're absolutely right, obviously. And I'm sure that if your children developed some terrible illness, you wouldn't want to use any pharmaceuticals to keep them alive longer, because - as you say - the disease might get them in the end anyway. "Stuff that makes you not die" is, as you point out, obviously worthless to everyone.