2 ms·
Probably every pharmaceutical patent. In software? Um... <crickets>. (But you asked "where patents" and not "where software patents", so...)
by AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Probably every pharmaceutical patent.
In software? Um... <crickets>. (But you asked "where patents" and not "where software patents", so...)
- notfed 3y ago> Probably every pharmaceutical patent. Great, they've played their role, then. I'm ready for that stage to be over now. IMO if there's an incentive to manufacture distribute the product, let that be the incentive.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoTo the degree that patents have led to the creation of new pharmaceuticals, you're ready to stop doing that? You're ready for progress in pharmaceuticals to stop where we are, because you don't want patents to exist any longer? I strongly disagree.
- patmcc 3y agoHaving ~zero new drugs introduced does not seem like a great thing? Unless you completely revamp how drug discovery and research is funded and driven, anyway.
- 8note 3y agoPharmaceutical parents seems like an odd choice. Aren't most of those inventions driven by government funding at universities?
- Exoristos 3y agoYes, but they probably wouldn't be without patents to ensure income for the government's partners.
- tick_tock_tick 3y agoNo massive amount come from the private sector. Almost all the money used to get a hypothetically effective drug through the approval and trial process is private.
- dmoy 3y agoRight, to be clear: If the initial research is funded by government grants or at Uni or whatever, the overwhelming majority of the cost is still in Phase 2 and 3 trials. This is why certain drugs don't get developed anymore - if it's a naturally occurring substance that can't be patented, nobody's gonna foot the gallion-dollar bill to go through trials.