4 ms·

This is a great article full of examples about why IP law has hampered innovation. But it fails to answer a very important question: what should be done by the

by mryall 16y ago

This is a great article full of examples about why IP law has hampered innovation. But it fails to answer a very important question: what should be done by the government to remedy it? The first and simplest part of lobbying is identifying the problem. The much more challenging part is following up with useful recommendations on what should be done to fix it. In terms of software patents, should the executive branch propose a bill to forbid them? What would the outcome of that be? How should copyright law be reined in? These are the questions that the next generation of policymakers need to solve and the recommendations we need to be sending to our respective governments.

marshray 16y ago
what should be done by the government to remedy it? A. Eliminate patents for everything except FDA-regulated drugs. B. Eliminate the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions and strengthen protections for reverse engineering and development of compatible products.
- dctoedt 16y ago
  > Eliminate patents for everything except FDA-regulated drugs. I agree the patent system has its problems, but I'm curious: Why that one exception, but no others? What about, say, medical devices? And then where do you draw the line -- and why there and not somewhere else? (These are issues that legislators, lawyers, and judges have to deal with all the time.)
  - marshray 16y ago
    I know it's odd and inconsistent, but a concession to reality: it takes years of investment to develop a new drug and then years of government-imposed studies to be allowed to actually market it. The second part is necessarily a public process so competitors would have nearly as much time as the developer to ramp up their production process. A term like 'ten years after FDA approval or 15 after FDA submission' sounds about right. Maybe something more like a short-term copyright on the molecule would make more sense than patents on general concepts that are usually just imitating nature. Medical devices - well maybe, but I wouldn't want to stretch it. I've know companies that had stuff that comes in a syringe and goes in the human body to be regulated as a "device" and companies that made products to dispense drugs not regulated at all. They patented basic stuff like the idea of sorting work items into plastic baskets in alphabetical order.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    If we're going to support government monopolies for drugs, why not just fund them directly from taxes? At least then we can direct them not to waste their energy creating minor variations on drugs as they fall out of patent protection, or chasing lucrative pill-per-day treatments for lifestyle diseases of the rich and instead focus on curing illnesses that blight large numbers of people across the globe.
- Kilimanjaro 16y ago
  Eliminate patents for everything. Period. If bigPharma discovered that amazonian aborigines by eating a rare fruit have lasting erections, they can't claim a patent for that, moreover, let other bigPharmas develop that drug too (on the shoulders of giants) so everybody (we the people) benefits from innovation, not just the first one who got there. We may give them a year to profit from their discovery so they build a brand but that's it. I rather go to the drugstore and find 10 cures for cancer than none because somebody got a patent and has a monopoly for that drug.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >Eliminate patents for everything. vs >We may give them a year to profit from their discovery* Which is it? >I rather go to the drugstore and find 10 cures for cancer than none because somebody got a patent and has a monopoly for that drug. I'd agree the terms are too long, Pharma's spend more on advertising than R&D. However, this is short sighted. In part the funding comes from investment, the investment won't be there if once the drug goes on sale the Pharma can't prevent their rivals (who didn't have the up front costs) from simply capitalising on the invention. The investors unfortunately aren't investing to find a cure (generally) they're investing to make money. It's capitalism. If you're going to keep capitalism I think you need to keep some form of patent (but I'd limit the term more and probably add a profit multiplier limitation too if it's possible to work out the details effectively).
    - Kilimanjaro 16y ago
      "Which is it?" No patents. Just a recognition of being first which entitles you to one year advantage over your competitors. And you have to have a product in the market in that year, so no patent trolls sitting on their asses collecting fees. "funding comes from investment" Well, yes and no, I bet you most of scientists and researchers work their butts off for recognition first, then money. When Flemming discovered penicillin he wasn't thinking on patenting that discovery, and I bet he wasn't being funded either, he just did it for the love of science and the greater benefit of humanity. The same can be said of Tesla. For the joy. The same we code day and night for the love of our profession.

by mryall 16y ago

marshray 16y ago

what should be done by the government to remedy it? A. Eliminate patents for everything except FDA-regulated drugs. B. Eliminate the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions and strengthen protections for reverse engineering and development of compatible products.

dctoedt 16y ago
> Eliminate patents for everything except FDA-regulated drugs. I agree the patent system has its problems, but I'm curious: Why that one exception, but no others? What about, say, medical devices? And then where do you draw the line -- and why there and not somewhere else? (These are issues that legislators, lawyers, and judges have to deal with all the time.)
- marshray 16y ago
  I know it's odd and inconsistent, but a concession to reality: it takes years of investment to develop a new drug and then years of government-imposed studies to be allowed to actually market it. The second part is necessarily a public process so competitors would have nearly as much time as the developer to ramp up their production process. A term like 'ten years after FDA approval or 15 after FDA submission' sounds about right. Maybe something more like a short-term copyright on the molecule would make more sense than patents on general concepts that are usually just imitating nature. Medical devices - well maybe, but I wouldn't want to stretch it. I've know companies that had stuff that comes in a syringe and goes in the human body to be regulated as a "device" and companies that made products to dispense drugs not regulated at all. They patented basic stuff like the idea of sorting work items into plastic baskets in alphabetical order.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  If we're going to support government monopolies for drugs, why not just fund them directly from taxes? At least then we can direct them not to waste their energy creating minor variations on drugs as they fall out of patent protection, or chasing lucrative pill-per-day treatments for lifestyle diseases of the rich and instead focus on curing illnesses that blight large numbers of people across the globe.
Kilimanjaro 16y ago
Eliminate patents for everything. Period. If bigPharma discovered that amazonian aborigines by eating a rare fruit have lasting erections, they can't claim a patent for that, moreover, let other bigPharmas develop that drug too (on the shoulders of giants) so everybody (we the people) benefits from innovation, not just the first one who got there. We may give them a year to profit from their discovery so they build a brand but that's it. I rather go to the drugstore and find 10 cures for cancer than none because somebody got a patent and has a monopoly for that drug.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >Eliminate patents for everything. vs >We may give them a year to profit from their discovery* Which is it? >I rather go to the drugstore and find 10 cures for cancer than none because somebody got a patent and has a monopoly for that drug. I'd agree the terms are too long, Pharma's spend more on advertising than R&D. However, this is short sighted. In part the funding comes from investment, the investment won't be there if once the drug goes on sale the Pharma can't prevent their rivals (who didn't have the up front costs) from simply capitalising on the invention. The investors unfortunately aren't investing to find a cure (generally) they're investing to make money. It's capitalism. If you're going to keep capitalism I think you need to keep some form of patent (but I'd limit the term more and probably add a profit multiplier limitation too if it's possible to work out the details effectively).
  - Kilimanjaro 16y ago
    "Which is it?" No patents. Just a recognition of being first which entitles you to one year advantage over your competitors. And you have to have a product in the market in that year, so no patent trolls sitting on their asses collecting fees. "funding comes from investment" Well, yes and no, I bet you most of scientists and researchers work their butts off for recognition first, then money. When Flemming discovered penicillin he wasn't thinking on patenting that discovery, and I bet he wasn't being funded either, he just did it for the love of science and the greater benefit of humanity. The same can be said of Tesla. For the joy. The same we code day and night for the love of our profession.