5 ms·

Microsoft Office retails for $250 but costs $0 to make. Perhaps it could be argued that installation CDs are "expensive", but not $250, and online downloads mak

Microsoft Office retails for $250 but costs $0 to make. Perhaps it could be argued that installation CDs are "expensive", but not $250, and online downloads make this item moot.

aaomidi 2y ago
Is there a difference between Microsoft Office and medication that can help solve an endemic/pandemic of Obesity I wonder? There are times where the government, can, and should drop in and buy the entire IP associated with a medication. This price should be set with a council of various representatives, and it should not be something that the drug manufacturing company can reject. Most of the research here is already partially funded by the tax payer through Government funds of colleges, etc etc anyway. This isn't even something unheard of. The US has the power to unilaterally cancel patents.
- richwater 2y ago
  > help solve an endemic/pandemic of Obesity I wonder? Solving obesity is free. For the vast majority of people, Ozempic or Wigovy is solving a motivation/discipline problem, not an obesity problem. > This price should be set with a council of various representatives, and it should not be something that the drug manufacturing company can reject. Any other authoritarian ideas? What a great way to destroy innovation.
  - karaterobot 2y ago
    > For the vast majority of people, Ozempic or Wigovy is solving a motivation/discipline problem, not an obesity problem. I'd invert that: on the scale of a population, motivation and discipline are empirically not the cure for obesity. The statistics and the studies are on my side here. I agree that it would be convenient if that strategy, which we've been trying for about 80 years now, suddenly turned out to work. But my guess is doubling down on it wouldn't be any more effective than it has been, so let's take this new approach, which appears to work much better, seriously.
- spywaregorilla 2y ago
  > There are times where the government, can, and should drop in and buy the entire IP associated with a medication. For what price?
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    > This price should be set with a council of various representatives, and it should not be something that the drug manufacturing company can reject. This is part of the cost of doing business. If a drug company is going to close shop and want to go operate in Europe or China, that's a risk we should be fine taking.
    - yorwba 2y ago
      Semaglutide was developed in Europe...
    - spywaregorilla 2y ago
      Ok great. So what's the price? Drug X was funded for development for $XXX million because it was perceived to have a strong positive expected ROI dependent on selling the drug for $Y leading to an expected value of $ZZZ million. If you're offering $ZZZ million for it then the drug companies won't complain but you're just having the public pay the total cost up front. If you're offering substantially less than $ZZZ million, then the drug company will not invest $XXX million because you've just slashed he potential ROI.
      - zaroth 2y ago
        The answer is to publicly fund the R&D and claim only those drugs to be royalty-free. Private R&D can still fund development and set prices how they want. But they’ll have to compete with publicly funded alternatives. The shame is that NIH already provides an incredible quantity of funding, but it certainly doesn’t result in the US getting any better drug prices…
        spywaregorilla 2y ago
- squigz 2y ago
  > Is there a difference between Microsoft Office and medication Obviously not, silly. A product is a product. It doesn't matter if it saves millions of lives, ends them, or nothing in between - companies should be free to charge whatever they want, and if you judge them negatively for that, you're clearly in the wrong. I can't believe I have to explain this!
  - renewiltord 2y ago
    The smartest thing we should do is make it profitable to build software and make it not at all profitable to save millions of lives. If we do it that way, people will work on the latter to the exclusion of the former. In fact, the more unprofitable we make the latter, the more of it we'll get.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Keep in mind that the point of maximum profit for a product leaves a lot of people unable to afford it. People are arguing against that kind of optimization, not arguing that private producers should lose money.
      - renewiltord 2y ago
        Ah, and what is the optimal number of people that should be unable to afford a drug?
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        So I interpreted your previous comment as an argument in favor of profits, by sarcastically saying it should be unprofitable to save lives. In which case, shouldn't I be asking you what optimal profit looks like? Why would that be a question to me, when I was listing it as a problem with profit models? If that wasn't your argument, then I have no idea what you're arguing. (But I will go ahead and answer, which is that individual affordability should not be a factor in buying medicine, which implies that normal patent-and-profit models are not the way to go.)
- pkaye 2y ago
  Semaglutide is made by Novo Nordisk in Denmark. Maybe Denmark could buy the IP and give it free to everyone?
- pkaye 2y ago
  Semaglutide is made by Novo Nordisk in Denmark. Maybe Denmark could buy the IP or cancel the patent?
- RetroTechie 2y ago
  > Most of the research here is already partially funded by the tax payer through Government funds of colleges, etc etc anyway. Why not take the extra step then? Government funds the research, result is free-to-use for all. Or: drug developed through research mostly at public institutions like universities etc? -> sorry, no patent 'protection' then. Pharmaceutical companies could then produce whatever they consider worthwhile. But... squeezing buyers too hard? Competitor will step in with a cheaper offer.
- ProjectArcturis 2y ago
  Is your reasoning that people who create the most valuable, life-saving products should be rewarded by having the government break their parents? And the research is not paid for by the taxpayer. The NIH budget is $20B per year. Pharma R&D is $200B per year.
  - larkost 2y ago
    Actually, last year the NIH budget was $48B, 4/5ths of that went straight out as grants for research, and another 11% went to internal labs: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget And you have to be very careful about what counts as R&D, for example Merck reported $30B in R&D, but one half of that was actual for mergers and acquisitions (of research related companies). I have yet to find anyone who has good numbers on this, which is why the study in this article is interesting: it sounds like the article is going to be very transparent about what it means. And for absolute candor here, you have to remember that once the NIH grants arrive at a university somewhere between 15% and 60% (really, it varies wildly) is taken off the top for University expenses, some of which are related to the research (e.g.: building costs), and some of which are not (arguably: university administration).
    - leetnewb 2y ago
      Why wouldn't you consider dollars spent on M&A to effectively be R&D? M&A of those companies before they get to market is basically paying prior stages of investors in the company back for funding the R&D up to that point. Acquired companies in drug development are essentially spending investor money on R&D until: a) they get to market standalone (unlikely, risky, too expensive), b) the clinical trials fail hopelessly early on, or c) they get acquired by a drug company with a large balance sheet and expertise to finish trials and commercialize the drug.
      - swores 2y ago
        > "Why wouldn't you consider dollars spent on M&A to effectively be R&D?" Because M&A includes likely profits for the sellers? As a simple example using unrealistically low figures: if I spend $100 developing a drug, and the drug is so good that you decide it's worth buying the patent from me for $1M, you surely wouldn't argue that $1M has been spent on R&D?
- refurb 2y ago
  > This price should be set with a council of various representatives, and it should not be something that the drug manufacturing company can reject. This sounds like the government just seizing assets once they realize they are valuable. What do you feel might be the consequences of this?
DaveExeter 2y ago
If you only had to pay 20% of the retail price of Microsoft Office, it would retail for $1250 and you would pay a $250 co-pay.
ipaddr 2y ago
But it costs 0 to download from thepiratebay. Until a piratesickbay exists a monopoly exists and prices need to drop.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  Interestingly, there are also places to get generic semaglutide. I'll admit to some interest in the idea myself, but so far I've not been willing to roll the dice on that process.
hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
Most people don't need Microsoft Office to survive. And, the price of Ozempic is $83 in France. American patients are being outright ripped off, and this is not an isolated incident.

Microsoft Office retails for $250 but costs $0 to make. Perhaps it could be argued that installation CDs are "expensive", but not $250, and online downloads make this item moot.

aaomidi 2y ago

Is there a difference between Microsoft Office and medication that can help solve an endemic/pandemic of Obesity I wonder? There are times where the government, can, and should drop in and buy the entire IP associated with a medication. This price should be set with a council of various representatives, and it should not be something that the drug manufacturing company can reject. Most of the research here is already partially funded by the tax payer through Government funds of colleges, etc etc anyway. This isn't even something unheard of. The US has the power to unilaterally cancel patents.

richwater 2y ago
> help solve an endemic/pandemic of Obesity I wonder? Solving obesity is free. For the vast majority of people, Ozempic or Wigovy is solving a motivation/discipline problem, not an obesity problem. > This price should be set with a council of various representatives, and it should not be something that the drug manufacturing company can reject. Any other authoritarian ideas? What a great way to destroy innovation.
- karaterobot 2y ago
  > For the vast majority of people, Ozempic or Wigovy is solving a motivation/discipline problem, not an obesity problem. I'd invert that: on the scale of a population, motivation and discipline are empirically not the cure for obesity. The statistics and the studies are on my side here. I agree that it would be convenient if that strategy, which we've been trying for about 80 years now, suddenly turned out to work. But my guess is doubling down on it wouldn't be any more effective than it has been, so let's take this new approach, which appears to work much better, seriously.
spywaregorilla 2y ago
> There are times where the government, can, and should drop in and buy the entire IP associated with a medication. For what price?
- aaomidi 2y ago
  > This price should be set with a council of various representatives, and it should not be something that the drug manufacturing company can reject. This is part of the cost of doing business. If a drug company is going to close shop and want to go operate in Europe or China, that's a risk we should be fine taking.
  - yorwba 2y ago
    Semaglutide was developed in Europe...
  - spywaregorilla 2y ago
    Ok great. So what's the price? Drug X was funded for development for $XXX million because it was perceived to have a strong positive expected ROI dependent on selling the drug for $Y leading to an expected value of $ZZZ million. If you're offering $ZZZ million for it then the drug companies won't complain but you're just having the public pay the total cost up front. If you're offering substantially less than $ZZZ million, then the drug company will not invest $XXX million because you've just slashed he potential ROI.
    - zaroth 2y ago
      The answer is to publicly fund the R&D and claim only those drugs to be royalty-free. Private R&D can still fund development and set prices how they want. But they’ll have to compete with publicly funded alternatives. The shame is that NIH already provides an incredible quantity of funding, but it certainly doesn’t result in the US getting any better drug prices…
      - spywaregorilla 2y ago
squigz 2y ago
> Is there a difference between Microsoft Office and medication Obviously not, silly. A product is a product. It doesn't matter if it saves millions of lives, ends them, or nothing in between - companies should be free to charge whatever they want, and if you judge them negatively for that, you're clearly in the wrong. I can't believe I have to explain this!
- renewiltord 2y ago
  The smartest thing we should do is make it profitable to build software and make it not at all profitable to save millions of lives. If we do it that way, people will work on the latter to the exclusion of the former. In fact, the more unprofitable we make the latter, the more of it we'll get.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Keep in mind that the point of maximum profit for a product leaves a lot of people unable to afford it. People are arguing against that kind of optimization, not arguing that private producers should lose money.
    - renewiltord 2y ago
      Ah, and what is the optimal number of people that should be unable to afford a drug?
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        So I interpreted your previous comment as an argument in favor of profits, by sarcastically saying it should be unprofitable to save lives. In which case, shouldn't I be asking you what optimal profit looks like? Why would that be a question to me, when I was listing it as a problem with profit models? If that wasn't your argument, then I have no idea what you're arguing. (But I will go ahead and answer, which is that individual affordability should not be a factor in buying medicine, which implies that normal patent-and-profit models are not the way to go.)
pkaye 2y ago
Semaglutide is made by Novo Nordisk in Denmark. Maybe Denmark could buy the IP and give it free to everyone?
pkaye 2y ago
Semaglutide is made by Novo Nordisk in Denmark. Maybe Denmark could buy the IP or cancel the patent?
RetroTechie 2y ago
> Most of the research here is already partially funded by the tax payer through Government funds of colleges, etc etc anyway. Why not take the extra step then? Government funds the research, result is free-to-use for all. Or: drug developed through research mostly at public institutions like universities etc? -> sorry, no patent 'protection' then. Pharmaceutical companies could then produce whatever they consider worthwhile. But... squeezing buyers too hard? Competitor will step in with a cheaper offer.
ProjectArcturis 2y ago
Is your reasoning that people who create the most valuable, life-saving products should be rewarded by having the government break their parents? And the research is not paid for by the taxpayer. The NIH budget is $20B per year. Pharma R&D is $200B per year.
- larkost 2y ago
  Actually, last year the NIH budget was $48B, 4/5ths of that went straight out as grants for research, and another 11% went to internal labs: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget And you have to be very careful about what counts as R&D, for example Merck reported $30B in R&D, but one half of that was actual for mergers and acquisitions (of research related companies). I have yet to find anyone who has good numbers on this, which is why the study in this article is interesting: it sounds like the article is going to be very transparent about what it means. And for absolute candor here, you have to remember that once the NIH grants arrive at a university somewhere between 15% and 60% (really, it varies wildly) is taken off the top for University expenses, some of which are related to the research (e.g.: building costs), and some of which are not (arguably: university administration).
  - leetnewb 2y ago
    Why wouldn't you consider dollars spent on M&A to effectively be R&D? M&A of those companies before they get to market is basically paying prior stages of investors in the company back for funding the R&D up to that point. Acquired companies in drug development are essentially spending investor money on R&D until: a) they get to market standalone (unlikely, risky, too expensive), b) the clinical trials fail hopelessly early on, or c) they get acquired by a drug company with a large balance sheet and expertise to finish trials and commercialize the drug.
    - swores 2y ago
      > "Why wouldn't you consider dollars spent on M&A to effectively be R&D?" Because M&A includes likely profits for the sellers? As a simple example using unrealistically low figures: if I spend $100 developing a drug, and the drug is so good that you decide it's worth buying the patent from me for $1M, you surely wouldn't argue that $1M has been spent on R&D?
refurb 2y ago
> This price should be set with a council of various representatives, and it should not be something that the drug manufacturing company can reject. This sounds like the government just seizing assets once they realize they are valuable. What do you feel might be the consequences of this?

DaveExeter 2y ago

If you only had to pay 20% of the retail price of Microsoft Office, it would retail for $1250 and you would pay a $250 co-pay.

ipaddr 2y ago

But it costs 0 to download from thepiratebay. Until a piratesickbay exists a monopoly exists and prices need to drop.

silverquiet 2y ago
Interestingly, there are also places to get generic semaglutide. I'll admit to some interest in the idea myself, but so far I've not been willing to roll the dice on that process.

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago

Most people don't need Microsoft Office to survive. And, the price of Ozempic is $83 in France. American patients are being outright ripped off, and this is not an isolated incident.