3 ms·

Why do you say that? Just because most modern pharmaceuticals were created with patents, doesn't mean that they wouldn't exist without patents.

ggg9990 9y ago
Because trade secrets are virtually impossible in non-biologic drugs, the entire funding ecosystem around pharmaceuticals is driven by patents.
- mayneack 9y ago
  5 minutes of googling suggests that Penicillin was not patented and the mass production was later patented by the USDA (not some private pharma company). The entire modern funding ecosystem being patent based just means it's the most profitable business model, not that it's the only way to produce pharmaceuticals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#Mass_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#Mass_production https://patents.google.com/patent/US2442141 https://patents.google.com/patent/US2442141
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    Some drugs likely would be discovered through non profit efforts. But it seems reasonable to believe that we would be quite a bit farther behind overall without the profit motive.
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    Of course it’s not the only way to produce pharmaceuticals, as pharmaceuticals are thousands of years old. But without patents the number of new drugs pharmaceuticals over the last 50 years would be probably 1-5% of it actually was.
    - tobltobs 9y ago
      Maybe we would have less but better pharmaceuticals, because it would be easier to improve the existing ones.
ohf 9y ago
The way the system is set up now, there would be little incentive to make pharmaceuticals without patents. The R&D cost is insane, so to be profitable, pharmaceutical companies need exclusive rights to their drugs. Bearing that in mind, I have no reason to believe a fully state-funded pharmaceutical system would be impossible, tied into healthcare. However, to make people complacent with that, it would have to be unbelievably transparent. Many people fear the idea of the state designing and providing them with drugs.

ggg9990 9y ago

Because trade secrets are virtually impossible in non-biologic drugs, the entire funding ecosystem around pharmaceuticals is driven by patents.

mayneack 9y ago
5 minutes of googling suggests that Penicillin was not patented and the mass production was later patented by the USDA (not some private pharma company). The entire modern funding ecosystem being patent based just means it's the most profitable business model, not that it's the only way to produce pharmaceuticals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#Mass_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#Mass_production https://patents.google.com/patent/US2442141 https://patents.google.com/patent/US2442141
- jjeaff 9y ago
  Some drugs likely would be discovered through non profit efforts. But it seems reasonable to believe that we would be quite a bit farther behind overall without the profit motive.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  Of course it’s not the only way to produce pharmaceuticals, as pharmaceuticals are thousands of years old. But without patents the number of new drugs pharmaceuticals over the last 50 years would be probably 1-5% of it actually was.
  - tobltobs 9y ago
    Maybe we would have less but better pharmaceuticals, because it would be easier to improve the existing ones.

ohf 9y ago

The way the system is set up now, there would be little incentive to make pharmaceuticals without patents. The R&D cost is insane, so to be profitable, pharmaceutical companies need exclusive rights to their drugs. Bearing that in mind, I have no reason to believe a fully state-funded pharmaceutical system would be impossible, tied into healthcare. However, to make people complacent with that, it would have to be unbelievably transparent. Many people fear the idea of the state designing and providing them with drugs.