6 ms·

Because the US govt can't file for most patents. The constitution says any IP developed by the US is in the public domain (there are secret patents but they may

Because the US govt can't file for most patents. The constitution says any IP developed by the US is in the public domain (there are secret patents but they may not survive a skeptical supreme court). The US govt wants American companies to own patents so the profits come to the US. US developed products and research used to be free to everyone (the US govt funded BSD). The US govt stopped that when Japanese companies started bring new inventions to market that American companies didn't want to because it threatened it's current product line. With tax shifting strategies and countries negotiating deep discounts while Americans pay much higher prices; it is difficult to justify the current practice now.

opportune 8y ago
But I am suggesting that these developed drugs do become part of the public domain! Let the government develop it and let anyone who meets manufacturing standards manufacture it. It sucks when Japan does that to cars, but it would suck a lot less if Japan did that for lifesaving pharmaceuticals. In that case it’s not an investment in technology that could be used to strengthen the economy directly, but instead an investment in public health (which will of course benefit the economy indirectly)
- dgzl 8y ago
  I love the spirit, but "let the government do it" usually means contacting. Edit: which is considerably more expensive than it should be.
  - opportune 8y ago
    The gov. could "contract" the way they do with research grants, and could also expand the FDA/NIH to do more in house. Traditional government contracting sucks, I fully agree
mrfusion 8y ago
Makes me wonder. Can the usps file for patents? Can they have trade secrets? What about trade marks?
- monocasa 8y ago
  They have definitely enforced trade mark. I remember hearing that they had sued the band "The Postal Service".
  - astura 8y ago
    "ZIP Code" was originally trademarked, but I believe it has expired now. The State of New Jersey actually sued a Florida pizza place for trademark violations: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-Jersey-Loses-Trademark-Fight-With-Florida-Pizza-Shop-Over-Logo-482917131.html https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-Jersey-Loses-Trade... they lost, however, because nobody ever confused a Florida pizza place with a New Jersey highway.
  - spacehome 8y ago
    That’s bizarre. Lots of countries have postal services. Does USPS think they have a monopoly on the concept of delivering mail?
    - girvo 8y ago
      The settlement was The Postal Service playing a small concert for USPS employees, so the end result was kind of cute :)
    - monocasa 8y ago
      > Does USPS think they have a monopoly on the concept of delivering mail? Under the name "The Postal Service" and within US borders? Yes, they do think that, and their trademark would agree with them.
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      Yes they legally have a monopoly mail service. You cannot compete against them. Package delivery services like ups or FedEx are a different type of service and distinctly defined. But mail carrier is exclusive to USPS.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
csdreamer7 8y ago
Why are people down voting my above comment? It had up votes until recently and people are not posting any counters.
- Retric 8y ago
  It’s factually incorrect. The US government can hold patents. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3 More widely, if someone argues that changing the law to do X is a good idea. You can’t argue that the law prevents Y because changing the law is the idea.
  - csdreamer7 8y ago
    > It’s factually incorrect. The US government can hold patents. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3 Fine, that small part about filing is incorrect. But most of my argument is correct. The US govt allows private companies to monopolize public funded research to keep jobs and tax revenue that research would make in the US, because the US govt can't legally restrict them by filling patents of it's own (except for certain secret patents I read in Wired magazine). > More widely, if someone argues that changing the law to do X is a good idea. You can’t argue that the law prevents Y because changing the law is the idea. I was answering OP's question. The US govt wanted a return for it's funding of ALL RESEARCH and this was a way to deal with it ~40 years ago. This is now having issues with drug patents today. If you actually read my argument more carefully you would see I agree with OP at least with drug patents. > With tax shifting strategies and countries negotiating deep discounts while Americans pay much higher prices; it is difficult to justify the current practice now. Please actually comment instead of just downvoting; this isn't reddit.

opportune 8y ago

But I am suggesting that these developed drugs do become part of the public domain! Let the government develop it and let anyone who meets manufacturing standards manufacture it. It sucks when Japan does that to cars, but it would suck a lot less if Japan did that for lifesaving pharmaceuticals. In that case it’s not an investment in technology that could be used to strengthen the economy directly, but instead an investment in public health (which will of course benefit the economy indirectly)

dgzl 8y ago
I love the spirit, but "let the government do it" usually means contacting. Edit: which is considerably more expensive than it should be.
- opportune 8y ago
  The gov. could "contract" the way they do with research grants, and could also expand the FDA/NIH to do more in house. Traditional government contracting sucks, I fully agree

mrfusion 8y ago

Makes me wonder. Can the usps file for patents? Can they have trade secrets? What about trade marks?

monocasa 8y ago
They have definitely enforced trade mark. I remember hearing that they had sued the band "The Postal Service".
- astura 8y ago
  "ZIP Code" was originally trademarked, but I believe it has expired now. The State of New Jersey actually sued a Florida pizza place for trademark violations: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-Jersey-Loses-Trademark-Fight-With-Florida-Pizza-Shop-Over-Logo-482917131.html https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-Jersey-Loses-Trade... they lost, however, because nobody ever confused a Florida pizza place with a New Jersey highway.
- spacehome 8y ago
  That’s bizarre. Lots of countries have postal services. Does USPS think they have a monopoly on the concept of delivering mail?
  - girvo 8y ago
    The settlement was The Postal Service playing a small concert for USPS employees, so the end result was kind of cute :)
  - monocasa 8y ago
    > Does USPS think they have a monopoly on the concept of delivering mail? Under the name "The Postal Service" and within US borders? Yes, they do think that, and their trademark would agree with them.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    Yes they legally have a monopoly mail service. You cannot compete against them. Package delivery services like ups or FedEx are a different type of service and distinctly defined. But mail carrier is exclusive to USPS.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago

csdreamer7 8y ago

Why are people down voting my above comment? It had up votes until recently and people are not posting any counters.

Retric 8y ago
It’s factually incorrect. The US government can hold patents. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3 More widely, if someone argues that changing the law to do X is a good idea. You can’t argue that the law prevents Y because changing the law is the idea.
- csdreamer7 8y ago
  > It’s factually incorrect. The US government can hold patents. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3 Fine, that small part about filing is incorrect. But most of my argument is correct. The US govt allows private companies to monopolize public funded research to keep jobs and tax revenue that research would make in the US, because the US govt can't legally restrict them by filling patents of it's own (except for certain secret patents I read in Wired magazine). > More widely, if someone argues that changing the law to do X is a good idea. You can’t argue that the law prevents Y because changing the law is the idea. I was answering OP's question. The US govt wanted a return for it's funding of ALL RESEARCH and this was a way to deal with it ~40 years ago. This is now having issues with drug patents today. If you actually read my argument more carefully you would see I agree with OP at least with drug patents. > With tax shifting strategies and countries negotiating deep discounts while Americans pay much higher prices; it is difficult to justify the current practice now. Please actually comment instead of just downvoting; this isn't reddit.