4 ms·

It's because they're fundamentally different things. Making and patenting a new, novel, molecule (which is what the entire pharma, materials and chemicals indu

It's because they're fundamentally different things. Making and patenting a new, novel, molecule (which is what the entire pharma, materials and chemicals industries basically do at the most basic level) is very different than making a hardware product, which is yet different than making a semiconductor product, which is yet different than a software product, yet different than a genetic product. The context of this conversation is specifically a hardware product. Like so many things, it's not about what "should be" but what pragmatically falls out of the chaos of the world. These things aren't master planned by some single person in control. In reality for a hardware product, and any product in general, they say your patent portfolio is only as good as your ability to protect it. That is why these big classic chemical and pharma companies like Dow, 3M, J&J, etc. all have insanely robust patent infringement protection infrastructures in addition to their patent portfolio. In many cases those companies didn't even develop the molecule originally, they bought it. They're basically manufacturing companies with patent enforcement teams. People like me (I have many hardware patents) don't want to run manufacturing and patent lawyer companies. We want to develop new products and then sell them to the former. You say why shouldn't someone invent the clapper and then run a company that manufactures only the clapper for their whole career. I say what great inventions did society miss out on because a creative inventor was playing lawyer and manufacturing manager instead. Ultimately the answer is because different people are good at different things, at different parts of the process. Not recognizing this is to fall victim to "founders syndrome"

gary_0 3y ago
AFAIK the "manufacture a new molecule" part, or even the "find a molecule that looks likely to treat a disease" part, is in practice not even the main expense the patent secures; it's the "convince the FDA that the molecule is safe and effective" part, which is less engineering and more procedural/bureaucratic, and it takes the most time and money (after marketing expenses).
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  The FDA part is indeed expensive, and is a major part of the cost in what I do too (medical devices, hardware), but often these molecules are the result of decades of research. It's not really the case, the FDA part is hard, and takes years, but the molecule part often is even harder and takes even longer, costing even more.
  - gary_0 3y ago
    I'm not trying to say the "molecule" part is easy (heck no!) just that the business of drug patents is another kind of ballgame entirely. Also, just about any innovation in any technical field has decades of research behind it, no? (I have worked at a medical devices company as well, but a few steps removed from anything that poked a human.)
    - iancmceachern 3y ago
      Not really. The design cycle for hardware products is typically 6 months to 2 years maximum. Moat consumer products get refreshed pr redesigned every year, typically to coincide with CES and other things like the holiday rush. Same with the toy industry, there is a big annual show that you need to release your toy at or you wait to next year. In medical devices it's a bit longer, 2-3 years is common. If you take much longer than that to bring the product to market you have to start redesigning the stuff you designed first. Components go obsolete, computers and displays change every year, software needs to be patched. It's why programs like the f35 and f22 are such messes, they were designed over a decade. Most hardware products we interact with daily took less than 3 years to design and bring to market, they are not F22s. Some things take longer like an MRI machine but they typically are done in a iterative way so that proved versions of a product are brought out every year or two.
fragmede 3y ago
At your level of resolution, they're different things, but if you zoom out even further, they're the same. A gifted and talented person or persons worked really hard and produced a thing. Whether that's insulin, USB, Bohemian Rhapsody, or the French Laundry is besides the point. Why should one area be treated any differently than the other? If society really wanted to wring every possible invention out of inventors, we'd lock them in the basement and give them a workshop but instead we let them loose on YouTube so they can try to become Internet famous. What great works of art are we missing out on because someone needed to work a job for money instead? What great works are we missing out on because someone was successful, made a bunch of money, and didn't have to work again? You're totally right about specialization and people getting into traps as a founder.

gary_0 3y ago

AFAIK the "manufacture a new molecule" part, or even the "find a molecule that looks likely to treat a disease" part, is in practice not even the main expense the patent secures; it's the "convince the FDA that the molecule is safe and effective" part, which is less engineering and more procedural/bureaucratic, and it takes the most time and money (after marketing expenses).

iancmceachern 3y ago
The FDA part is indeed expensive, and is a major part of the cost in what I do too (medical devices, hardware), but often these molecules are the result of decades of research. It's not really the case, the FDA part is hard, and takes years, but the molecule part often is even harder and takes even longer, costing even more.
- gary_0 3y ago
  I'm not trying to say the "molecule" part is easy (heck no!) just that the business of drug patents is another kind of ballgame entirely. Also, just about any innovation in any technical field has decades of research behind it, no? (I have worked at a medical devices company as well, but a few steps removed from anything that poked a human.)
  - iancmceachern 3y ago
    Not really. The design cycle for hardware products is typically 6 months to 2 years maximum. Moat consumer products get refreshed pr redesigned every year, typically to coincide with CES and other things like the holiday rush. Same with the toy industry, there is a big annual show that you need to release your toy at or you wait to next year. In medical devices it's a bit longer, 2-3 years is common. If you take much longer than that to bring the product to market you have to start redesigning the stuff you designed first. Components go obsolete, computers and displays change every year, software needs to be patched. It's why programs like the f35 and f22 are such messes, they were designed over a decade. Most hardware products we interact with daily took less than 3 years to design and bring to market, they are not F22s. Some things take longer like an MRI machine but they typically are done in a iterative way so that proved versions of a product are brought out every year or two.

fragmede 3y ago

At your level of resolution, they're different things, but if you zoom out even further, they're the same. A gifted and talented person or persons worked really hard and produced a thing. Whether that's insulin, USB, Bohemian Rhapsody, or the French Laundry is besides the point. Why should one area be treated any differently than the other? If society really wanted to wring every possible invention out of inventors, we'd lock them in the basement and give them a workshop but instead we let them loose on YouTube so they can try to become Internet famous. What great works of art are we missing out on because someone needed to work a job for money instead? What great works are we missing out on because someone was successful, made a bunch of money, and didn't have to work again? You're totally right about specialization and people getting into traps as a founder.