2 ms·

It can be profitable without being outrageously profitable. This sort of reasoning reads to me like the news articles saying there is "nothing to be done" about

It can be profitable without being outrageously profitable. This sort of reasoning reads to me like the news articles saying there is "nothing to be done" about all the shootings in the US, even though it's obvious to everyone what could be done. It's excusing bad behaviour because of cargo-cult beliefs without a good practical foundation and it has to stop.

pergadad 7y ago
Developing and getting approval for a new drug takes two decades and costs hundreds of millions. Part of that surely is patent cost buy the main parts are testing, animal and human trials and the approval process. The 'innovation' lie in telecomms (that you need high margins to assure innovation and investment) is surely not true but pharmaceuticals really are expensive to get from R&D to market. Companies with a big seller where the patent protection runs out, and that didn't succeedem to get another big drug to market, often sell themselves as they expect to go bankrupt or have to sell off their half-developed portfolio, which amounts to the same thing. Of course all a bit different for the big drug makers. So maintaining the current system without patents seems difficult. But an option would of course be to shift the system - public investment for research and promising trials and then the result is free to use (or protected only for a short period).
- epmaybe 7y ago
  I went to a talk by a VP of development at a prominent pharmaceutical company, and nowadays it's taking around 7 years from basic studies to animal studies to human trials to approval. This is especially true for biologics (antibody drugs), as they can test and find good candidates for human trials quickly. I'm sure it's still expensive, though, and many companies like you said go bankrupt.
mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
I was once told by someone who owns lots of guns that every time there is a mass shooting in US of A, the sales of weapons go through the roof. Apparently the fear of regulation triggers a buying spree. True or not, I found it interesting and somewhat ironic how these shootings could be helping gun sales.

pergadad 7y ago

Developing and getting approval for a new drug takes two decades and costs hundreds of millions. Part of that surely is patent cost buy the main parts are testing, animal and human trials and the approval process. The 'innovation' lie in telecomms (that you need high margins to assure innovation and investment) is surely not true but pharmaceuticals really are expensive to get from R&D to market. Companies with a big seller where the patent protection runs out, and that didn't succeedem to get another big drug to market, often sell themselves as they expect to go bankrupt or have to sell off their half-developed portfolio, which amounts to the same thing. Of course all a bit different for the big drug makers. So maintaining the current system without patents seems difficult. But an option would of course be to shift the system - public investment for research and promising trials and then the result is free to use (or protected only for a short period).

epmaybe 7y ago
I went to a talk by a VP of development at a prominent pharmaceutical company, and nowadays it's taking around 7 years from basic studies to animal studies to human trials to approval. This is especially true for biologics (antibody drugs), as they can test and find good candidates for human trials quickly. I'm sure it's still expensive, though, and many companies like you said go bankrupt.

mrhappyunhappy 7y ago

I was once told by someone who owns lots of guns that every time there is a mass shooting in US of A, the sales of weapons go through the roof. Apparently the fear of regulation triggers a buying spree. True or not, I found it interesting and somewhat ironic how these shootings could be helping gun sales.