5 ms·

You need to have enforceable NDA's, keep things as trade secrets, and have a well built organization that simply continuously out-innovates AND out-executes the

You need to have enforceable NDA's, keep things as trade secrets, and have a well built organization that simply continuously out-innovates AND out-executes the competition. I think patents are okay, but the maximum duration should be 5 years and there needs to be some proof of utilization of the patent to sue for damages. 20 year patents are ridiculous, and it seems like even in the 1800's that should have been considered a bit extreme.

thfuran 3y ago
The term (in the US) wasn't originally that long. It was decided individually but not to exceed 14 years. That's long, but much more reasonable in a time when it could take months for just some basic roundtrip long-distance correspondence.
- TylerE 3y ago
  I don't think you can just state that in good faith while ignoring how much harder/more expensive R&D is these days.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    How much harder/more expensive is R&D these days?
  - thfuran 3y ago
    Is it harder by an amount that exceeds the amount by which the readily addressable market has expanded for most things?
rudyfink 3y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if it takes 5 years (or more) to both get a patent and litigate it though any appeal. FWIW, in the current U.S. system, my understanding is the time it takes to get the patent comes out of the 20 years, though I think you can get some time back if it takes a very long time.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Correct. There IS a "patent term adjustment" if the PTO takes longer than it should. The term you want is "prosecute" not "litigate."
wongarsu 3y ago
It should probably depend on the product type. I get 20 year parents for medicine where research is expressive and time-to-market is long. But for most fields 5-10 years is plenty to make back your R&D investment and make a profit. And after your patent expires you still have the first-mover advantage
- Zigurd 3y ago
  Pharma "research" categorization of expenses is maximized. In part to create sympathy for long patent terms, in part to obscure the role of government funded research underlying many pharma products, and in part to maximize tax benefits.
  - anankaie 3y ago
    And in large part because FDA multi-stage trials are very expensive to get through and the risk of failure is high. I know it is popular to hate on the pharmacy companies right now - and deservedly so - but the research costs are not totally made up like you are implying.
    - Zigurd 3y ago
      Maximized is not "totally made up." You will find software companies maximizing R&D tax credits, too, for example. A JHU study found median costs for clinical trials of $19 million. That's expensive relative to software. If I piled HIPAA, payments processing, and whatever telcos might require for hooking up to SS7 in one app (call it "X") I doubt I could get halfway to $19 million. But $19 million is peanuts compared to pharma revenue. I stand by the assertion that pharma gets undeserved sympathy for long patent terms.
      - kbenson 3y ago
        > I stand by the assertion that pharma gets undeserved sympathy for long patent terms. Sure. That's an assertion that's easy to stand by because it's so easy for it to be true because it's so open ended and unbounded. I think most people believe the pharma companies are playing it up some and getting some undue sympathy, but 10x the sympathy and 10% more sympathy are vastly different situations and your assertion is "true" for both. It's less a question of whether that assertion is true, and more about to what degree, because that's what really matters in a discussion like this. A statement about the median cost of a single study across an industry compared to pharma revenue (across an industry, across all studies done, whether resulting in a successful product that can make it to market and earn revenue), is not something we can make useful assertions from, whether or not I believe your assertion to be true (I do). It's just throwing disjointed numbers around and using implications instead of data to link them, which isn't a useful way to convince people who want to understand what's going on.

thfuran 3y ago

The term (in the US) wasn't originally that long. It was decided individually but not to exceed 14 years. That's long, but much more reasonable in a time when it could take months for just some basic roundtrip long-distance correspondence.

TylerE 3y ago
I don't think you can just state that in good faith while ignoring how much harder/more expensive R&D is these days.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  How much harder/more expensive is R&D these days?
- thfuran 3y ago
  Is it harder by an amount that exceeds the amount by which the readily addressable market has expanded for most things?

rudyfink 3y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if it takes 5 years (or more) to both get a patent and litigate it though any appeal. FWIW, in the current U.S. system, my understanding is the time it takes to get the patent comes out of the 20 years, though I think you can get some time back if it takes a very long time.

AlbertCory 3y ago
Correct. There IS a "patent term adjustment" if the PTO takes longer than it should. The term you want is "prosecute" not "litigate."

wongarsu 3y ago

It should probably depend on the product type. I get 20 year parents for medicine where research is expressive and time-to-market is long. But for most fields 5-10 years is plenty to make back your R&D investment and make a profit. And after your patent expires you still have the first-mover advantage

Zigurd 3y ago
Pharma "research" categorization of expenses is maximized. In part to create sympathy for long patent terms, in part to obscure the role of government funded research underlying many pharma products, and in part to maximize tax benefits.
- anankaie 3y ago
  And in large part because FDA multi-stage trials are very expensive to get through and the risk of failure is high. I know it is popular to hate on the pharmacy companies right now - and deservedly so - but the research costs are not totally made up like you are implying.
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    Maximized is not "totally made up." You will find software companies maximizing R&D tax credits, too, for example. A JHU study found median costs for clinical trials of $19 million. That's expensive relative to software. If I piled HIPAA, payments processing, and whatever telcos might require for hooking up to SS7 in one app (call it "X") I doubt I could get halfway to $19 million. But $19 million is peanuts compared to pharma revenue. I stand by the assertion that pharma gets undeserved sympathy for long patent terms.
    - kbenson 3y ago
      > I stand by the assertion that pharma gets undeserved sympathy for long patent terms. Sure. That's an assertion that's easy to stand by because it's so easy for it to be true because it's so open ended and unbounded. I think most people believe the pharma companies are playing it up some and getting some undue sympathy, but 10x the sympathy and 10% more sympathy are vastly different situations and your assertion is "true" for both. It's less a question of whether that assertion is true, and more about to what degree, because that's what really matters in a discussion like this. A statement about the median cost of a single study across an industry compared to pharma revenue (across an industry, across all studies done, whether resulting in a successful product that can make it to market and earn revenue), is not something we can make useful assertions from, whether or not I believe your assertion to be true (I do). It's just throwing disjointed numbers around and using implications instead of data to link them, which isn't a useful way to convince people who want to understand what's going on.