7 ms·

I find this constitutional fundamentalist attitude to be just as wrong. The founders had no idea how the future would turn out. Lets just face facts: the idea o

I find this constitutional fundamentalist attitude to be just as wrong. The founders had no idea how the future would turn out. Lets just face facts: the idea of owning knowledge can never work out fairly thus patents in themselves are unethical and unfeasible. The system should just be retired. The founders were wrong about this the same way they were wrong about slavery and other 18th century issues. They are forever limited by their 18th century outlook. There is no way you can have a "fair" patent system. Its like having "fair" slavery. Just let it go.

jay_kyburz 14y ago
I think there needs to be some way to give companies an opportunity to recoup their investment in new ideas. I'm just not sure what we have now is working.
- angersock 14y ago
  They have the same chance everyone else does: the market.
  - lbo 14y ago
    Without patents, drug research and development would have to be nationalized. The costs are enormous and drug prices drop 90% in the US after patent expiration. I would rather have new drugs and high prices for a few years than no new drugs at all or nationalized drug r&d. I think the HN community's approach is wrong: patent abolishment isn't optimal, heavy patent reform is. Patent terms should be regulated and adapted in each industry like the Fed Funds Rate, not like the 10 commandments. Software is definitely an example of where they should be abolished, though.
    - csallen 14y ago
      I agree. The universe isn't so perfect a place that we can consistently count on all-or-nothing strategies. Sometimes we have to get a little messy to devise a working system. Drug research is a great example of an industry where patents really are necessary to promote the progress of science.
      - ktizo 14y ago
        Some drug researchers might disagree. Open Source Drug Discovery - http://www.osdd.net/ http://www.osdd.net/ Research article on PLoS; "A Kernel for Open Source Drug Discovery in Tropical Diseases" - http://www.plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0000418 http://www.plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourn...
      - ekianjo 14y ago
        > Drug research is a great example of an industry where patents really are necessary to promote the progress of science. It's too easy to say it this way. Any data to show us why the case of the pharma is so different from others ? The costs involved in the pharm industry depend heavily on: - government regulation - expected returns It's not evolving in any kind of "free market" at all. It's a very poor example to use to justify patents.
        csallen 14y ago
        Good point, enough reform in this area may make patents totally unnecessary. I shouldn't have called it a good example without knowing more about it. However, my intuition is that there could exist a situation or industry in which patents are justified. We should be careful not to dismiss them wholesale, and instead should only dismiss them in areas where we can find superior alternatives.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      Drug research and development is largely nationalised, at least if we are talking about drugs for preventing or curing the most virulent diseases and not about stuff like viagra.
      - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
        Viagra was a by-product/side-effect of a (ineffective) drug for angina and hypertension. I'm not sure how much UK government money was involved in that work, but I'm assuming a lot, as we're generally all for that kind of thing. Also of relevance, the UK patent on using a chemical that gives you an erection as a cure for impotence was thrown out for being obvious. But the patents on how to mass manufacture it are still in effect.
        ktizo 14y ago
        That's cool, but given the subject matter it is hard to treat it with anything other than absolutely no, you-know-what.
    - TimGebhardt 14y ago
      The reason drugs are so expensive to develop is the FDA testing. So instead of patents the FDA can just enforce a rule to not allow generic drugs unless they've gone through the same rigorous testing process the original guy did. This is probably something the FDA should do anyway. Generic drug makers can look at a drug's signature, but there are so many other variables that can affect how a drug performs (quality control of the factory, quality of ingredients, recipe, procedure, etc.) that the FDA should require generic makers to go through the same testing process because they're different drugs. The generic drug makers will have less overall expenses to bring a new drug to market (because someone already figured out a particular protein sequence that works in XYZ manner), but the original inventor will have time to milk the market as the first-to-market, encouraging innovation, and we can still get rid of our awful mess of a patent system. Generally if you've built up a whole system (like the patent system), and it's really only beneficial for a select few (pharma), then maybe it'd be better to design a different system just for them (like the one proposed above) and don't make everyone else suffer the consequences.
      - pyre 14y ago
        The FDA can also go overboard. Recently (~1.5 years ago) they seized 'birthing pools' as 'untested medical devices.' These are basically inflatable pools for women that want to have water births. To give some context, the operating table in a hospital does not qualify as a medical device (and therefore no FDA testing), but apparently inflatable pools that women give birth in require FDA testing.
    - TimGebhardt 14y ago
      And drug research is largely nationalized. Drugs for "important" diseases are typically discovered by academic researchers and the R&D of a pharma company is either focused on a) how to scale up production of the drug b) how to market the drug c) drugs to cure lifestyle issues and psychological issues. Anything else is too risky or requires too long of an investment timeline.
fleitz 14y ago
To be fair only some of the founders were wrong about slavery. Even back then slavery was contentious, just as patents were. In either case it doesn't really matter what the founders thought as ideas should be tried on their merits, rather than who thought of them.
josephcooney 14y ago
I think looking back at what the original law-makers intended is useful in that it removes the veneer of respectability that something 'enshrined in law' might otherwise have, when people more respectable and revered (authors of the constitution) are shown to have doubted and questioned their (patents) validity. Lastly it shows how far we've come in a (relatively) short time. From "very peculiar cases only, if at all" to inalienable, perpetual rights that monied interests have over ideas.
hef19898 14y ago
Things started to turn ugly once legislative bodies became more concerned by the letters of laws instead of the spirit of laws. The spirit is in most cases valid (e.g. you shall not kill), the wording on the other should be adopted in such a way that the spirit fits the situation (changed due to technological developments for example).
chrischen 14y ago
You're right. Whether or not the we should stick to what the founders wanted is irrelevant. However that does not mean the founders' original intent for patents isn't a better interpretation, and that the modern interpretation isn't still a bastardization of that better interpretation.
rsanchez1 14y ago
You can't just say the founders were wrong on slavery. You have to say which were wrong. They had to make a compromise to get states to agree to the Constitution, which states perceived as threatening their rights more than the Articles of Confederation. They compromised with the understanding that the problem will be resolved later, and it ultimately was decided 70 years later in the bloodiest war in American history.

jay_kyburz 14y ago

I think there needs to be some way to give companies an opportunity to recoup their investment in new ideas. I'm just not sure what we have now is working.

angersock 14y ago
They have the same chance everyone else does: the market.
- lbo 14y ago
  Without patents, drug research and development would have to be nationalized. The costs are enormous and drug prices drop 90% in the US after patent expiration. I would rather have new drugs and high prices for a few years than no new drugs at all or nationalized drug r&d. I think the HN community's approach is wrong: patent abolishment isn't optimal, heavy patent reform is. Patent terms should be regulated and adapted in each industry like the Fed Funds Rate, not like the 10 commandments. Software is definitely an example of where they should be abolished, though.
  - csallen 14y ago
    I agree. The universe isn't so perfect a place that we can consistently count on all-or-nothing strategies. Sometimes we have to get a little messy to devise a working system. Drug research is a great example of an industry where patents really are necessary to promote the progress of science.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      Some drug researchers might disagree. Open Source Drug Discovery - http://www.osdd.net/ http://www.osdd.net/ Research article on PLoS; "A Kernel for Open Source Drug Discovery in Tropical Diseases" - http://www.plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0000418 http://www.plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourn...
    - ekianjo 14y ago
      > Drug research is a great example of an industry where patents really are necessary to promote the progress of science. It's too easy to say it this way. Any data to show us why the case of the pharma is so different from others ? The costs involved in the pharm industry depend heavily on: - government regulation - expected returns It's not evolving in any kind of "free market" at all. It's a very poor example to use to justify patents.
      - csallen 14y ago
        Good point, enough reform in this area may make patents totally unnecessary. I shouldn't have called it a good example without knowing more about it. However, my intuition is that there could exist a situation or industry in which patents are justified. We should be careful not to dismiss them wholesale, and instead should only dismiss them in areas where we can find superior alternatives.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Drug research and development is largely nationalised, at least if we are talking about drugs for preventing or curing the most virulent diseases and not about stuff like viagra.
    - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
      Viagra was a by-product/side-effect of a (ineffective) drug for angina and hypertension. I'm not sure how much UK government money was involved in that work, but I'm assuming a lot, as we're generally all for that kind of thing. Also of relevance, the UK patent on using a chemical that gives you an erection as a cure for impotence was thrown out for being obvious. But the patents on how to mass manufacture it are still in effect.
      - ktizo 14y ago
        That's cool, but given the subject matter it is hard to treat it with anything other than absolutely no, you-know-what.
  - TimGebhardt 14y ago
    The reason drugs are so expensive to develop is the FDA testing. So instead of patents the FDA can just enforce a rule to not allow generic drugs unless they've gone through the same rigorous testing process the original guy did. This is probably something the FDA should do anyway. Generic drug makers can look at a drug's signature, but there are so many other variables that can affect how a drug performs (quality control of the factory, quality of ingredients, recipe, procedure, etc.) that the FDA should require generic makers to go through the same testing process because they're different drugs. The generic drug makers will have less overall expenses to bring a new drug to market (because someone already figured out a particular protein sequence that works in XYZ manner), but the original inventor will have time to milk the market as the first-to-market, encouraging innovation, and we can still get rid of our awful mess of a patent system. Generally if you've built up a whole system (like the patent system), and it's really only beneficial for a select few (pharma), then maybe it'd be better to design a different system just for them (like the one proposed above) and don't make everyone else suffer the consequences.
    - pyre 14y ago
      The FDA can also go overboard. Recently (~1.5 years ago) they seized 'birthing pools' as 'untested medical devices.' These are basically inflatable pools for women that want to have water births. To give some context, the operating table in a hospital does not qualify as a medical device (and therefore no FDA testing), but apparently inflatable pools that women give birth in require FDA testing.
  - TimGebhardt 14y ago
    And drug research is largely nationalized. Drugs for "important" diseases are typically discovered by academic researchers and the R&D of a pharma company is either focused on a) how to scale up production of the drug b) how to market the drug c) drugs to cure lifestyle issues and psychological issues. Anything else is too risky or requires too long of an investment timeline.

fleitz 14y ago

To be fair only some of the founders were wrong about slavery. Even back then slavery was contentious, just as patents were. In either case it doesn't really matter what the founders thought as ideas should be tried on their merits, rather than who thought of them.

josephcooney 14y ago

I think looking back at what the original law-makers intended is useful in that it removes the veneer of respectability that something 'enshrined in law' might otherwise have, when people more respectable and revered (authors of the constitution) are shown to have doubted and questioned their (patents) validity. Lastly it shows how far we've come in a (relatively) short time. From "very peculiar cases only, if at all" to inalienable, perpetual rights that monied interests have over ideas.

hef19898 14y ago

Things started to turn ugly once legislative bodies became more concerned by the letters of laws instead of the spirit of laws. The spirit is in most cases valid (e.g. you shall not kill), the wording on the other should be adopted in such a way that the spirit fits the situation (changed due to technological developments for example).

chrischen 14y ago

You're right. Whether or not the we should stick to what the founders wanted is irrelevant. However that does not mean the founders' original intent for patents isn't a better interpretation, and that the modern interpretation isn't still a bastardization of that better interpretation.

rsanchez1 14y ago

You can't just say the founders were wrong on slavery. You have to say which were wrong. They had to make a compromise to get states to agree to the Constitution, which states perceived as threatening their rights more than the Articles of Confederation. They compromised with the understanding that the problem will be resolved later, and it ultimately was decided 70 years later in the bloodiest war in American history.