8 ms·

So you're suggesting that if there were no patents, drug companies would cease to exist? That doesn't seem very likely.

CWuestefeld 5y ago
False choice fallacies aren't helpful. Incentives change behavior at the margins. So if there were no patents, we'd like have fewer drugs.
- aunty_helen 5y ago
  Yes I know, that's why I replied to: >but little to copy, therefore companies would stop doing research altogether. It's much more likely these companies would find a different incentives / business models.
smitty1e 5y ago
Patents have the positive effect of rewarding risk to recoup development costs. The 17yr patent clock ends up leaving a handful of years for a company to balance its books before expiry and the onslaught of generics. Hence the ludicrous per-pill costs. Those demonizing pharma have not done the homework. Disclaimer: wife works in pharma.
- naasking 5y ago
  I often demonize pharma because my partner works in that field. People in that field are often blind to its faults, like perverse incentive structures and Byzantine regulatory processes that often harm more than help. Pharma companies' R&D budget is dwarfed by its marketing and expenditures on financial games like stock buybacks, so this talk of recouping costs doesn't hold much water in my opinion. If something is necessary but unprofitable in the near term, the early research is often already publically funded, like the mRNA vaccines.
  - smitty1e 5y ago
    > Byzantine regulatory processes that often harm more than help Right. Regulation is to the economy as bandages to the mummy. The incentives are deep and perverse.
    - naasking 5y ago
      The regulatory failures are numerous, and even recent examples are common: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/when-will-the-fda-approve-paxlovid?utm_source=url https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/when-will-the-fda-appr... https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/adumbrations-of-aducanumab?utm_source=url https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/adumbrations-of-aducan... The FDA is simultaneously too lax and too strict.
martindbp 5y ago
Mm, no, you're right. But they'd spend a lot less on research, they'd have to. I don't claim to know a lot about that industry so I may be wrong, it's just an example. Can't think of an example where patents are more defensible though.

False choice fallacies aren't helpful. Incentives change behavior at the margins. So if there were no patents, we'd like have fewer drugs.

aunty_helen 5y ago
Yes I know, that's why I replied to: >but little to copy, therefore companies would stop doing research altogether. It's much more likely these companies would find a different incentives / business models.

smitty1e 5y ago

Patents have the positive effect of rewarding risk to recoup development costs. The 17yr patent clock ends up leaving a handful of years for a company to balance its books before expiry and the onslaught of generics. Hence the ludicrous per-pill costs. Those demonizing pharma have not done the homework. Disclaimer: wife works in pharma.

naasking 5y ago
I often demonize pharma because my partner works in that field. People in that field are often blind to its faults, like perverse incentive structures and Byzantine regulatory processes that often harm more than help. Pharma companies' R&D budget is dwarfed by its marketing and expenditures on financial games like stock buybacks, so this talk of recouping costs doesn't hold much water in my opinion. If something is necessary but unprofitable in the near term, the early research is often already publically funded, like the mRNA vaccines.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  > Byzantine regulatory processes that often harm more than help Right. Regulation is to the economy as bandages to the mummy. The incentives are deep and perverse.
  - naasking 5y ago
    The regulatory failures are numerous, and even recent examples are common: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/when-will-the-fda-approve-paxlovid?utm_source=url https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/when-will-the-fda-appr... https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/adumbrations-of-aducanumab?utm_source=url https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/adumbrations-of-aducan... The FDA is simultaneously too lax and too strict.

martindbp 5y ago

Mm, no, you're right. But they'd spend a lot less on research, they'd have to. I don't claim to know a lot about that industry so I may be wrong, it's just an example. Can't think of an example where patents are more defensible though.