3 ms·

I don't know exactly how patents work for drugs, but I don't believe that you can patent an already existing (generic) drug, but in pills colored red and blue,

by kika 14y ago

I don't know exactly how patents work for drugs, but I don't believe that you can patent an already existing (generic) drug, but in pills colored red and blue, for example. And another patent for yellow pills. And another and another. Alas, in the software industry this is very much possible (and being done every day).

ekianjo 14y ago
It's been a long time the patent game is not about innovation anymore. The review process for granting patent fails to be transparent. And patents should never be made to last so long in the first place.
sirclueless 14y ago
That's definitely false. You might be able to patent a new delivery mechanism or something, turn a generic into a gel capsule and patent that maybe, but the important thing is that once the generic drug passes out from under its patents anyone can create it. To use an analogy with razors: I might not be able to make a razor with 4 blades and a cushioning lotion pad above and below because Gillette will sue me, but I can make a razor with three blades set in plastic because it's been so long since that innovation came along. It might not be as snazzy and hence less profitable, but it gets the job done.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jeffool 14y ago
  And if you own a drug patent, you can continually extend the patent via a process called "evergreening". Pharmaceutical companies make minimal changes and get patent extensions. These changes can include the color or flavor of medicine. It's illegal in many other nations, but here in the US... And we wonder why we pay so much for medicine. Patents as they work today seem to curtail progress at every turn.
  - anamax 14y ago
    > Pharmaceutical companies make minimal changes and get patent extensions. These changes can include the color or flavor of medicine. So? Other companies are free to make the unchanged version after the original patent expires. If some companies are unwilling to make drugs unless there's some sort of monopoly, what does that tell you about what they'll do if there's no way to get a monopoly?
    - jeffool 14y ago
      >So? Other companies are free to make the unchanged version after the original patent expires. No they're not. You misunderstand; the original patent doesn't expire. It's EXTENDED. The original drug does not go into any public domain to be manufactured or built on by other companies. Many drug manufacturers make generic drugs, but that number has decreased, which has led to behavior like the larger original drug manufacturers. I won't allege outright collusion, but it's crazy when everyone in an industry starts agreeing at one time that a medicine isn't profitable... Leaving a strong demand and opportunity for any one of them to step in and clean up... And no one does. And before anyone wants to jump into the cost of research, some pharma businesses like GSK, spend about twice on sales and business costs than they do research[0]. And then there's the amount they DO contribute that gives patenting applicability to mostly public research. It's quite depressing. [0]http://www.gsk.com/investors/reps11/GSK-Annual-Report-2011.pdf http://www.gsk.com/investors/reps11/GSK-Annual-Report-2011.p... Around page 136, I think.
      - vidarh 14y ago
        > the original patent doesn't expire. It's EXTENDED. Really? I can find no indication that US patent law allows for extension of patents at all except as a result of delays caused by the USPTO or regulatory delays (e.g. reviews by the FDA). Everything I've seen about evergreening has been tied to filing new patents covering things like delivery systems to make it harder to produce a generic that doesn't infringe, and frustrating competitors by threats of lawsuits over trademarks, marketing, packaging etc.. None of that would be necessary if they were able to just obtain an extension on the original patent.

by kika 14y ago

ekianjo 14y ago

It's been a long time the patent game is not about innovation anymore. The review process for granting patent fails to be transparent. And patents should never be made to last so long in the first place.

sirclueless 14y ago

That's definitely false. You might be able to patent a new delivery mechanism or something, turn a generic into a gel capsule and patent that maybe, but the important thing is that once the generic drug passes out from under its patents anyone can create it. To use an analogy with razors: I might not be able to make a razor with 4 blades and a cushioning lotion pad above and below because Gillette will sue me, but I can make a razor with three blades set in plastic because it's been so long since that innovation came along. It might not be as snazzy and hence less profitable, but it gets the job done.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jeffool 14y ago
And if you own a drug patent, you can continually extend the patent via a process called "evergreening". Pharmaceutical companies make minimal changes and get patent extensions. These changes can include the color or flavor of medicine. It's illegal in many other nations, but here in the US... And we wonder why we pay so much for medicine. Patents as they work today seem to curtail progress at every turn.
- anamax 14y ago
  > Pharmaceutical companies make minimal changes and get patent extensions. These changes can include the color or flavor of medicine. So? Other companies are free to make the unchanged version after the original patent expires. If some companies are unwilling to make drugs unless there's some sort of monopoly, what does that tell you about what they'll do if there's no way to get a monopoly?
  - jeffool 14y ago
    >So? Other companies are free to make the unchanged version after the original patent expires. No they're not. You misunderstand; the original patent doesn't expire. It's EXTENDED. The original drug does not go into any public domain to be manufactured or built on by other companies. Many drug manufacturers make generic drugs, but that number has decreased, which has led to behavior like the larger original drug manufacturers. I won't allege outright collusion, but it's crazy when everyone in an industry starts agreeing at one time that a medicine isn't profitable... Leaving a strong demand and opportunity for any one of them to step in and clean up... And no one does. And before anyone wants to jump into the cost of research, some pharma businesses like GSK, spend about twice on sales and business costs than they do research[0]. And then there's the amount they DO contribute that gives patenting applicability to mostly public research. It's quite depressing. [0]http://www.gsk.com/investors/reps11/GSK-Annual-Report-2011.pdf http://www.gsk.com/investors/reps11/GSK-Annual-Report-2011.p... Around page 136, I think.
    - vidarh 14y ago
      > the original patent doesn't expire. It's EXTENDED. Really? I can find no indication that US patent law allows for extension of patents at all except as a result of delays caused by the USPTO or regulatory delays (e.g. reviews by the FDA). Everything I've seen about evergreening has been tied to filing new patents covering things like delivery systems to make it harder to produce a generic that doesn't infringe, and frustrating competitors by threats of lawsuits over trademarks, marketing, packaging etc.. None of that would be necessary if they were able to just obtain an extension on the original patent.