4 ms·

Make sure keeping a patent is prohibitively expensive. Start with some trivial price y, like say a dollar. Then make every year cost equal to `(y*x)!` where x i

by Ygg2 3y ago

Make sure keeping a patent is prohibitively expensive. Start with some trivial price y, like say a dollar. Then make every year cost equal to `(y*x)!` where x is the year/month/time period and `!` is the factorial function. Any patent worth the upkeep for first 10 years is probably worth keeping it.

gruez 3y ago
How does this work for patents like drugs or whatever, which are very expensive to develop/bring to market?
- mschuster91 3y ago
  Medical r&d should be done by the government anyway. There's no reason to allow pharma companies to extract untold billions of dollars in profit from the economy every year when the involved "research" is either trivial (such as with the insulin racket) or financed by the government anyway.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >when the involved "research" is either trivial (such as with the insulin racket) source that "the insulin racket" was "trivial" to research? Yes, insulin was discovered more than a century ago, but that's not the thing that's patented today. All the expensive insulin are enhanced versions that are better in some way (eg. lasts longer, reacts sooner). If you want the old, crappy, and non-patented kind, you can get it at walmart for less than $25. >financed by the government anyway. Basic research that the government finances doesn't cover the billions of dollars needed to bring the drug to market.
- themoonisachees 3y ago
  Then it works as intended, the pharma company at first enjoys a cheap patent, but gatekeeping the drug for years, until way after the r&d costs are recouped from sales, becomes prohibitively expensive. If the drug doesn't sell a lot and is never profitable, then the patent gets dropped earlier to avoid sinking more costs. If the drug cures cancer and makes millions, the company can easily recoup its cost up until the upkeep is too much, at which point surely it would be better for society that the drug be open for everyone? Pharma companies are massively profitable, the argument of "think of the poor pharma companies doing r&d and their costs uwu" isn't really valid.

by Ygg2 3y ago

gruez 3y ago

How does this work for patents like drugs or whatever, which are very expensive to develop/bring to market?

mschuster91 3y ago
Medical r&d should be done by the government anyway. There's no reason to allow pharma companies to extract untold billions of dollars in profit from the economy every year when the involved "research" is either trivial (such as with the insulin racket) or financed by the government anyway.
- gruez 3y ago
  >when the involved "research" is either trivial (such as with the insulin racket) source that "the insulin racket" was "trivial" to research? Yes, insulin was discovered more than a century ago, but that's not the thing that's patented today. All the expensive insulin are enhanced versions that are better in some way (eg. lasts longer, reacts sooner). If you want the old, crappy, and non-patented kind, you can get it at walmart for less than $25. >financed by the government anyway. Basic research that the government finances doesn't cover the billions of dollars needed to bring the drug to market.
themoonisachees 3y ago
Then it works as intended, the pharma company at first enjoys a cheap patent, but gatekeeping the drug for years, until way after the r&d costs are recouped from sales, becomes prohibitively expensive. If the drug doesn't sell a lot and is never profitable, then the patent gets dropped earlier to avoid sinking more costs. If the drug cures cancer and makes millions, the company can easily recoup its cost up until the upkeep is too much, at which point surely it would be better for society that the drug be open for everyone? Pharma companies are massively profitable, the argument of "think of the poor pharma companies doing r&d and their costs uwu" isn't really valid.