4 ms·

Though I like the analogy used here, I think this whole "ideas" versus "execution" debate is rather silly. Though obviously worthless unless executed, a truly

• brudgers 14y ago
  Lipitor wasn't an idea, it was the result of research followed by intensive development. Synthesis of an organic salt tends to be non-trivial. FDA approval is left as an exercise for the reader. Atorvastatin was first synthesized in 1985 by Bruce Roth of Parke-Davis Warner-Lambert Company (now Pfizer). The best selling drug in pharmaceutical history, sales of Lipitor since it was approved in 1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipitor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipitor
  • sp332 14y ago
    Even after you've developed the method of synthesis, you still have to actually do it at scale, market it, and as you mentioned, get FDA approval. That all counts as execution.
• codeflo 14y ago
  But the patent covers the result of years of research, not the original idea, or does it? I don't know how drugs are actually developed, but I cannot imagine that someone goes, "Gee, I have this awesome idea: C33H35FN2O5! Now let's see what it's good for."
  • pcrh 14y ago
    The point I intended to make was that a patent describes an invention, and has clear requirements for novelty and non-obviousness. Clearly the money made from Lipitor required FDA approval, etc, etc, which is the execution. However, without the initial inventive step, which was non-obvious there would have been no patent, and fewer profits to be made. My other point is that truly good ideas are very rare indeed, an idea whose execution is too difficult does not count as a "good" idea.
    • incision 14y ago
      I'm confused. To me: Lowering cholesterol with drugs is an idea. Lipitor is an effective, workable execution of that idea. Qualifying an idea with "executability" makes it an invention.
      • pcrh 14y ago
        Without a doubt there was a string of novel ideas that eventually lead to Lipitor itself [1]. It is absurd in this context to say that those ideas were "worthless", and execution was everything. Indeed, if there were no novel ideas on the road to Lipitor, it couldn't have been patented. I am only using patents to illustrate both that "ideas" are worth something, and also that it is actually very hard to have a truly good and original idea. (The WWW is another example of a great idea) Most people's "great ideas" are really not that great at all. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin#History
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• jfno67 14y ago
  The formula by Sivers he refers too seems to be the best approximation to value idea. I still like to put emphasis on execution instead of idea, since almost everybody I talk with that value idea is in fact doing some analysis paralysis and will start working when they get that "great idea".
• brilee 14y ago
  Lipitor was most likely discovered by screening a library of billions of compounds for ones with some bioactivity. Then, by putting these compounds through more refined screenings, they have a bunch of candidate compounds. Then, these candidate compounds go through many, very expensive rounds of clinical testing to establish safety and efficacy. In the process, the structure of the molecule undergoes many tweaks, again, which are often not 'rationally designed', but tried en masse and screened for activity/metabolism. The Lipitor patent is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what you're trying to convey here. There is zero 'idea' behind Lipitor, just massive amounts of screening.