3 ms·

So, in really complex and advanced stuff, patents aren't worth it and companies revert to trade secrets and the take-the-secret-to-the-tomb approach, the very s

by nova 14y ago

So, in really complex and advanced stuff, patents aren't worth it and companies revert to trade secrets and the take-the-secret-to-the-tomb approach, the very same thing the existence of patents is intended to avoid. And in more accessible industries, where knowledge is abundant, costs low and independent reinvention highly probable, patents stall and block and create monopolies and in general cause economic damage in wasted time and money. Man, we sure got a sweet deal out of this.

rdl 14y ago
Well, or industries where disclosure is mandated (pharmaceutical and medical devices) by regulatory concerns, providing some additional protection (through patents) to compensate does seem to make sense. But there are a lot of issues with pharma patents, too, like evergreening old drugs by combining two existing about-to-expire into a new drug, or getting approved for a new on-label use, etc. (including really cynical stuff, like initially patenting a drug for use in one patient population (say, white people?) and then doing a new study and re-patenting for another specific population (asians, etc.), where there was never any reason to suspect the drug, disease, method of action, etc. would be different.
- nova 14y ago
  Pharma and medical devices should be directly funded by the State (just the research part I mean), just as we do with military research. And the cost could be shared among the developed countries. And we could direct research towards causes and cures, instead of just treatments. Drugs get made, researchers paid, companies compete on merit and enjoy a steady income instead on gambling on the next Viagra, we stop killing people in poor countries who can't afford monopolistic prices, and there is one less reason for having patents at all.
  - rdl 14y ago
    Medical devices are far more loosely regulated than pharma, and IMO a lot more innovative (maybe as a result of shorter development/trials cycle, easier testing, and thus lower capital requirements). You literally have hobbyists, garage entrepreneurs, etc. still, which is amazing (and a huge Israeli contribution). Medical device development is so interdisciplinary that I have zero confidence in the government being able to staff/grant/etc. its development. The only people in government likely to create medical devices would be end users who happen to be hackers, or government employees (at places like NIST) who are technical, need the product personally, and end up developing it on their own as a side project. Government-funded R&D might work for NIH style long term research which is very structured and well understood, but I think it would be horrible for "hacking", which is what medical device creation largely is. What is really needed for devices is a bunch of bootcamp type programs for non-biomedical engineers to learn about the process, and clinicians posting to the Internet with their problems with current systems. I think today one of the main ways developers find out is when they or a family member/friend goes in for a procedure and they see a need.

by nova 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

Well, or industries where disclosure is mandated (pharmaceutical and medical devices) by regulatory concerns, providing some additional protection (through patents) to compensate does seem to make sense. But there are a lot of issues with pharma patents, too, like evergreening old drugs by combining two existing about-to-expire into a new drug, or getting approved for a new on-label use, etc. (including really cynical stuff, like initially patenting a drug for use in one patient population (say, white people?) and then doing a new study and re-patenting for another specific population (asians, etc.), where there was never any reason to suspect the drug, disease, method of action, etc. would be different.

nova 14y ago
Pharma and medical devices should be directly funded by the State (just the research part I mean), just as we do with military research. And the cost could be shared among the developed countries. And we could direct research towards causes and cures, instead of just treatments. Drugs get made, researchers paid, companies compete on merit and enjoy a steady income instead on gambling on the next Viagra, we stop killing people in poor countries who can't afford monopolistic prices, and there is one less reason for having patents at all.
- rdl 14y ago
  Medical devices are far more loosely regulated than pharma, and IMO a lot more innovative (maybe as a result of shorter development/trials cycle, easier testing, and thus lower capital requirements). You literally have hobbyists, garage entrepreneurs, etc. still, which is amazing (and a huge Israeli contribution). Medical device development is so interdisciplinary that I have zero confidence in the government being able to staff/grant/etc. its development. The only people in government likely to create medical devices would be end users who happen to be hackers, or government employees (at places like NIST) who are technical, need the product personally, and end up developing it on their own as a side project. Government-funded R&D might work for NIH style long term research which is very structured and well understood, but I think it would be horrible for "hacking", which is what medical device creation largely is. What is really needed for devices is a bunch of bootcamp type programs for non-biomedical engineers to learn about the process, and clinicians posting to the Internet with their problems with current systems. I think today one of the main ways developers find out is when they or a family member/friend goes in for a procedure and they see a need.