4 ms·

Patents are disgusting as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter the industry. I'm in biotech, and despite the tedious work involved in the process of investi

Patents are disgusting as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter the industry. I'm in biotech, and despite the tedious work involved in the process of investigative research--despite the sometimes massive materials and labor cost--patents do not make any sense. In the end, the products of molecular cloning can be distributed essentially just like software. It's just information. You should not be able to corner off and control information space. If I want to work in a given area according to my interest, I should not have to pay royalties or join an exclusive research team.

potatolicious 16y ago
There's at least a potential defense of patents in traditional industries. When something takes tens of millions of dollars of research to create, there's some case to be made for limited-term exclusivity. But when it comes to something like UI, which someone hacked up over the course of a few hours... does this justify exclusivity for years? Patents were created to balance the harmful effect of exclusivity and monopoly with the cost of creating innovation. In software the cost of creating innovation is practically free in comparison to traditional industries, and IMHO the scope of protection needs to be proportionate.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  But when it comes to something like UI, which someone hacked up over the course of a few hours... does this justify exclusivity for years? In theory though that shouldn't justify a SW patent either. It seems like if we really held true to the non-obviousness test things would be better. Ironically MS has a court case in the Supreme Court to weaken patents, which would in turn makes it easier for BN to overturn MS's patents.
- TillE 16y ago
  Developing a new drug costs about $1 billion on average, from initial research to final testing and regulatory approval. A temporary monopoly of several years seems entirely appropriate, even necessary if you expect private industry to be involved in pharmaceutical research.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    Or so they keep telling us anyway: Does the pharmaceutical industry exaggerate their R&D costs? http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/21/does-the-pharmaceuti.html http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/21/does-the-pharmaceuti.ht...
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      From the first comment on that article: I never post here, but after seeing this, I just had to. The Light article is very biased and disingenuous - they have an agenda that's obvious from the tone of their text. For a realistic rebuttal, check out: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/07/the_costs_of_drug_research_beginning_a_rebuttal.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/07/the_costs_of... http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/08/that_43_million_rd_figure.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/08/that_43_mill... There are many other realistic, balanced rebuttals to the Light article out there as well. I've worked in the the biotech and drug industry (10 years) and am currently an academic. I've been on both sides of the fence and have a realistic perspective on how much it costs and how tough it is to discover and develop new medicines. The Light/Warburton figure is WAY off.
      - tesseract 16y ago
        Incidentally Pipeline is a blog I highly recommend if you are interested in chemistry or pharma.
      - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
        Note his rebuttal is mostly addressed to their own suggested $43 million figure, rather than disputing that the original $1+ billion figure is correct, as he seems to agree with the part of the paper discussing the problems with that number. There's an couple of orders of magnitude between the estimates, so it's entirely possible for both to be WAY off.
  - wazoox 16y ago
    Then you discover that pharma spends 4 time as much in marketing than research. Kill patents, crush this evil, ugly beast!
dpatru 16y ago
Without patents, companies that wanted to maintain a research lead would not publish. Information would be scarce, researchers would end up re-inventing a lot. With patents, a lot of information is public, but if you want to use it directly, you have to pay.

potatolicious 16y ago

There's at least a potential defense of patents in traditional industries. When something takes tens of millions of dollars of research to create, there's some case to be made for limited-term exclusivity. But when it comes to something like UI, which someone hacked up over the course of a few hours... does this justify exclusivity for years? Patents were created to balance the harmful effect of exclusivity and monopoly with the cost of creating innovation. In software the cost of creating innovation is practically free in comparison to traditional industries, and IMHO the scope of protection needs to be proportionate.

kenjackson 16y ago
But when it comes to something like UI, which someone hacked up over the course of a few hours... does this justify exclusivity for years? In theory though that shouldn't justify a SW patent either. It seems like if we really held true to the non-obviousness test things would be better. Ironically MS has a court case in the Supreme Court to weaken patents, which would in turn makes it easier for BN to overturn MS's patents.
TillE 16y ago
Developing a new drug costs about $1 billion on average, from initial research to final testing and regulatory approval. A temporary monopoly of several years seems entirely appropriate, even necessary if you expect private industry to be involved in pharmaceutical research.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  Or so they keep telling us anyway: Does the pharmaceutical industry exaggerate their R&D costs? http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/21/does-the-pharmaceuti.html http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/21/does-the-pharmaceuti.ht...
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    From the first comment on that article: I never post here, but after seeing this, I just had to. The Light article is very biased and disingenuous - they have an agenda that's obvious from the tone of their text. For a realistic rebuttal, check out: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/07/the_costs_of_drug_research_beginning_a_rebuttal.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/07/the_costs_of... http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/08/that_43_million_rd_figure.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/08/that_43_mill... There are many other realistic, balanced rebuttals to the Light article out there as well. I've worked in the the biotech and drug industry (10 years) and am currently an academic. I've been on both sides of the fence and have a realistic perspective on how much it costs and how tough it is to discover and develop new medicines. The Light/Warburton figure is WAY off.
    - tesseract 16y ago
      Incidentally Pipeline is a blog I highly recommend if you are interested in chemistry or pharma.
    - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
      Note his rebuttal is mostly addressed to their own suggested $43 million figure, rather than disputing that the original $1+ billion figure is correct, as he seems to agree with the part of the paper discussing the problems with that number. There's an couple of orders of magnitude between the estimates, so it's entirely possible for both to be WAY off.
- wazoox 16y ago
  Then you discover that pharma spends 4 time as much in marketing than research. Kill patents, crush this evil, ugly beast!

dpatru 16y ago

Without patents, companies that wanted to maintain a research lead would not publish. Information would be scarce, researchers would end up re-inventing a lot. With patents, a lot of information is public, but if you want to use it directly, you have to pay.