2 ms·

The recipe for Coca Cola, the most popular soft drink in the world by far, has been a trade secret for over 100 years. And I'd wager a guess that it's slightly

The recipe for Coca Cola, the most popular soft drink in the world by far, has been a trade secret for over 100 years. And I'd wager a guess that it's slightly simpler to make then most medicines. So I don't see any reason whatsoever to assume that drugs would be easily reverse engineered. Instead, I'd say that the assertion that today's drug making is hard to reverse engineer is hard even knowing the exact formula, substance, and dosage of every drug is unlikely to be true - is there any example of any drug that generics companies are not producing more cheaply than the original inventor, once the patent has expired?

bit-anarchist 4mo ago
I don't think Coca Cola is a good counterpoint due to a couple of reasons: 1) there was a recent attempt to find the formula [1], but the primary reason that was infeasible is that, allegedly by the ingredient list, they use coca extract and, IIRC, only one company provides that in the US, due to FDA regulations. Even if they were find the formula behind, it wouldn't help much, so they're are trying to replicate the flavor instead. 2) Coca Cola is, before anything, a brand. It's not comparable to generic medications because people in general don't buy it for the formula specifically, but the expectation of flavor and taste associated with the brand. Even if you were to find the current formula, the Coca Cola Company can just change it. In regards to the last point, there probably is one (likely in heavily subsidized prices case), but, regardless, I don't see how your point shows patents are the reason anymore than a increase in competition, which we are proposing would happen if patents were abolished. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDkH3EbWTYc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDkH3EbWTYc
- simiones 4mo ago
  My point is this: assume a world where free market maximalists win and patents (for drugs) get abolished, in the hope of reduced prices from increased competition. Since the reasoning is free market maximalism, this society will almost certainly not force companies to publish their drug formulas, it will allow them to keep these formulae a secret. My contention is that in this case, the hoped for market competition would not materialize, drug prices would stay roughly the same for novel medicine normally covered by patents today. I admit that this may only be true for some drugs, not for all - some drugs may indeed be very easy to reverse engineer, and those would benefit from such a change. For example, the use of lithium to treat bipolar disorder would probably be easily reverse engineered and transformed and generic alternatives would quickly appear. What I was pointing out with the generics part is that the formula publication requirement of patents is in practice having a significant positive impact today - all drugs that are off patent are being successfully synthesized and sold much more cheaply by generics drug manufacturers. This only happens for drugs that are far too old, so I'm not a fan of this system, but I think there is a real risk that even this small thing will get lost if we replaced patents with trade secrets.
  - bit-anarchist 4mo ago
    I tried to show that that Coca Cola is an "exception" that proves the rule. With medications, people are really after the formula. If there's something preventing access to the source materials, like in Coca Cola, going after that particular formula isn't good either, as you won't be able to do much with it even after finding it out. My contention with your position on patents is that, although they make companies publish the recipe, while in effect, they not only keep the formulas secret in practice, but also create a monopoly, preventing reverse engineering altogether. If you cut the duration of patents, the incentives of releasing as patents goes down as well, increasing the push for trade secrets. In the end, I posit that cutting the duration of patents will have similar practical effects to removing patents altogether. Finally, I think your contention is exaggerated. Unless the drug is very niche, there's going to be a significant demand for them. This demand creates an incentive for better reverse engineering efforts. Patents make them illegal, almost nullifying this.

bit-anarchist 4mo ago

I don't think Coca Cola is a good counterpoint due to a couple of reasons: 1) there was a recent attempt to find the formula [1], but the primary reason that was infeasible is that, allegedly by the ingredient list, they use coca extract and, IIRC, only one company provides that in the US, due to FDA regulations. Even if they were find the formula behind, it wouldn't help much, so they're are trying to replicate the flavor instead. 2) Coca Cola is, before anything, a brand. It's not comparable to generic medications because people in general don't buy it for the formula specifically, but the expectation of flavor and taste associated with the brand. Even if you were to find the current formula, the Coca Cola Company can just change it. In regards to the last point, there probably is one (likely in heavily subsidized prices case), but, regardless, I don't see how your point shows patents are the reason anymore than a increase in competition, which we are proposing would happen if patents were abolished. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDkH3EbWTYc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDkH3EbWTYc

simiones 4mo ago
My point is this: assume a world where free market maximalists win and patents (for drugs) get abolished, in the hope of reduced prices from increased competition. Since the reasoning is free market maximalism, this society will almost certainly not force companies to publish their drug formulas, it will allow them to keep these formulae a secret. My contention is that in this case, the hoped for market competition would not materialize, drug prices would stay roughly the same for novel medicine normally covered by patents today. I admit that this may only be true for some drugs, not for all - some drugs may indeed be very easy to reverse engineer, and those would benefit from such a change. For example, the use of lithium to treat bipolar disorder would probably be easily reverse engineered and transformed and generic alternatives would quickly appear. What I was pointing out with the generics part is that the formula publication requirement of patents is in practice having a significant positive impact today - all drugs that are off patent are being successfully synthesized and sold much more cheaply by generics drug manufacturers. This only happens for drugs that are far too old, so I'm not a fan of this system, but I think there is a real risk that even this small thing will get lost if we replaced patents with trade secrets.
- bit-anarchist 4mo ago
  I tried to show that that Coca Cola is an "exception" that proves the rule. With medications, people are really after the formula. If there's something preventing access to the source materials, like in Coca Cola, going after that particular formula isn't good either, as you won't be able to do much with it even after finding it out. My contention with your position on patents is that, although they make companies publish the recipe, while in effect, they not only keep the formulas secret in practice, but also create a monopoly, preventing reverse engineering altogether. If you cut the duration of patents, the incentives of releasing as patents goes down as well, increasing the push for trade secrets. In the end, I posit that cutting the duration of patents will have similar practical effects to removing patents altogether. Finally, I think your contention is exaggerated. Unless the drug is very niche, there's going to be a significant demand for them. This demand creates an incentive for better reverse engineering efforts. Patents make them illegal, almost nullifying this.