5 ms·

Patents aren't just an incentive to invest in research: it's (moreso, even) an incentive to also disclose that research. So yes, in a world with patents, priva

by messe 3y ago

Patents aren't just an incentive to invest in research: it's (moreso, even) an incentive to also disclose that research. So yes, in a world with patents, private entities would still engage in research, but what would they gain from disclosing the details of their process?

lucubratory 3y ago
It is extremely rare that actionable, reproducible information comes out of the patent process. In general, they provide as little information as possible in order to satisfy the office, which is extremely overworked and (by design) rubber stamps everything that has basically the correct headings and formatting and isn't too similar to an existing patent.
- krab 3y ago
  In the case of drugs, it works. The day a patent expires, you have generics that instantly lower the market price. Replicating a drug from a patent is not free but you know that the compound works and can be synthesized. It's much cheaper than doing original research where a drug candidate can fail after you invested a lot into it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    That's generally because other companies figure out the synthesis themselves in that 20 years timespan, not because they got accurate synthesis instructions.
    - krab 3y ago
      Yes, that's what I'm saying. But the generics researchers know exactly what they're trying to make. And they don't have to prove that their drug is better than the standard of care. Just that they synthesized the right thing.
  - Qwertious 3y ago
    For drugs, patents: 1. Successfully provide a profit 2. Are necessary to provide said profit 3. Are long enough to provide enough profit to pay back the investment But it's not clear that they're short enough to encourage further rapid improvements. Like, suppose a patent lasts 20 years but would still be worth pursuing even if it lasted only 5 years; that's 15 years of public development opportunity lost, for each patent. Currently, the system is that the government declares "X years" by fiat. If it's too short, then corporations can lobby for longer patent durations. If it's not too short, then corporations can lobby anyway. This is a functional but mediocre system, and there's clearly room for improvement.
    - krab 3y ago
      I agree. This might be worth optimizing. In case of drugs, you can easily spend the first ten years in research and testing, while paying the patent fees. Software or manufacturing patents, on the other hand, might get different time frame.
logicchains 3y ago
>So yes, in a world with patents, private entities would still engage in research, but what would they gain from disclosing the details of their process? They might not gain, but the people working for them would certainly gain from moving to other employers who needed their "expertise".

by messe 3y ago

lucubratory 3y ago

It is extremely rare that actionable, reproducible information comes out of the patent process. In general, they provide as little information as possible in order to satisfy the office, which is extremely overworked and (by design) rubber stamps everything that has basically the correct headings and formatting and isn't too similar to an existing patent.

krab 3y ago
In the case of drugs, it works. The day a patent expires, you have generics that instantly lower the market price. Replicating a drug from a patent is not free but you know that the compound works and can be synthesized. It's much cheaper than doing original research where a drug candidate can fail after you invested a lot into it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  That's generally because other companies figure out the synthesis themselves in that 20 years timespan, not because they got accurate synthesis instructions.
  - krab 3y ago
    Yes, that's what I'm saying. But the generics researchers know exactly what they're trying to make. And they don't have to prove that their drug is better than the standard of care. Just that they synthesized the right thing.
- Qwertious 3y ago
  For drugs, patents: 1. Successfully provide a profit 2. Are necessary to provide said profit 3. Are long enough to provide enough profit to pay back the investment But it's not clear that they're short enough to encourage further rapid improvements. Like, suppose a patent lasts 20 years but would still be worth pursuing even if it lasted only 5 years; that's 15 years of public development opportunity lost, for each patent. Currently, the system is that the government declares "X years" by fiat. If it's too short, then corporations can lobby for longer patent durations. If it's not too short, then corporations can lobby anyway. This is a functional but mediocre system, and there's clearly room for improvement.
  - krab 3y ago
    I agree. This might be worth optimizing. In case of drugs, you can easily spend the first ten years in research and testing, while paying the patent fees. Software or manufacturing patents, on the other hand, might get different time frame.

logicchains 3y ago

>So yes, in a world with patents, private entities would still engage in research, but what would they gain from disclosing the details of their process? They might not gain, but the people working for them would certainly gain from moving to other employers who needed their "expertise".