4 ms·

> Drug patents are much more short-lived It doesn't make sense to extend drug patent lengths though because often enough, after the release of a compound, it t

> Drug patents are much more short-lived It doesn't make sense to extend drug patent lengths though because often enough, after the release of a compound, it takes just a few years for a new and updated version of it to be researched. However, the counterpoint can also be made that it should be extended, as the permit process for medical compounds takes years and costs billions, with the short patent lifetime forcing pharma companies to command absurd prices just to recoup the R&D cost. (IMHO: the system on how we research pharmaceuticals and how we fund it must be drastically reformed. The question is, how do we prevent China and India from just taking our research and copying it for free, it's already bad enough)

philipallstar 28d ago
> It doesn't make sense to extend drug patent lengths though because often enough, after the release of a compound, it takes just a few years for a new and updated version of it to be researched. I think this is an inversion of cause and effect.
po1nt 28d ago
Issue of pharma development is not that you need a protection from copycats. You need to pass a mountain of regulations and bureaucracy. Most of the medications are easily copyable but would take years to be able to get to the market. See insulin prices difference in europe vs US
bpavuk 28d ago
> The question is, how do we prevent China and India from just taking our research and copying it for free centralize all chemistry research behind the closed doors, weapon-level export controls on U.S.-made fever drugs simply because they are U.S.-made, severely control international collaboration, and so much more. the problem is that the scientific community will rightfully revolt and the rest of the world will pull ahead of the U.S. in a relatively short amount of time. plus, since open science will have been long dead in the U.S. under such conditions, random breakthroughs at a basement or a non-prestigious university will cease to exist as a concept. China and India piggybacking is the least bad thing to happen. rather, it's an indicator of how open the open science in the U.S. is
- mschuster91 28d ago
  > China and India piggybacking is the least bad thing to happen. So... the US and European tax- and insurance payers are supposed to pay the billions of dollars for R&D and amortization, just for China to copy everything? It's bad enough if China does that for their internal market. But they don't stop there, their clones and fakes flood back into our markets as well, leading to regular warnings such as [1] from government authorities for consumer safety. This is unsustainable on so many levels, it needs to stop. [1] https://www.swissmedic.ch/swissmedic/de/home/humanarzneimittel/marktueberwachung/arzneimittel-aus-dem-internet/drug-safety-current-threats/smc-warnt-vor-glp-1-produkten.html https://www.swissmedic.ch/swissmedic/de/home/humanarzneimitt...
  - sehansen 28d ago
    US and European payers aren't paying for neither R&D nor amortization. They're paying a negotiated price that depends mostly on how much value the drug provides to the patient and the health system. The costs for the producers aren't really a factor.
    - mschuster91 28d ago
      > US and European payers aren't paying for neither R&D nor amortization. Of course we do. A lot of the foundational research happens at universities, funded with taxpayer money in the form of research grants. > They're paying a negotiated price that depends mostly on how much value the drug provides to the patient and the health system. Only partially. The pharma companies roughly know how much it cost them to get the compound past all the trial stages and how many compounds failed along the path. The usual method is that the rich nations pay for R&D amortization and poor countries pay at-cost for manufacture.
      - joquarky 27d ago
        Nearly every convenience of modern civilization is funded with taxpayer money, so that reasoning is without merit.
maxerickson 28d ago
Are you implicitly arguing that derivative art isn't a thing?
- mschuster91 28d ago
  Chinese and Western models on IP are completely different. In our system, the inventor of a Thing gets a period of exclusive rights and everyone who wants to build off of that Thing has to pay license fees to cover the expenses of the original inventor. In China, copying a Thing is seen completely different (well, at least as far as I know, so take it with a bit of a grain of salt) - an appreciation that the original inventor of the Thing did something good. Getting copied is a symbol of honor. Both worldviews are completely valid, but it's obvious IMHO that these two views cannot coexist in one single global capitalist economy framework.
  - maxerickson 28d ago
    I meant more with the timing thing. If a workalike drug undermines the argument for long drug copyright, what are the implications of a copycat plot?
joquarky 27d ago
> the permit process for medical compounds takes years and costs billions Seems like we are coming up on a limit where if they put that much more money into R&D + marketing, then won't be able to afford the product anyway. So this counterpoint is practically moot for all but the most wealthy people.

philipallstar 28d ago

> It doesn't make sense to extend drug patent lengths though because often enough, after the release of a compound, it takes just a few years for a new and updated version of it to be researched. I think this is an inversion of cause and effect.

po1nt 28d ago

Issue of pharma development is not that you need a protection from copycats. You need to pass a mountain of regulations and bureaucracy. Most of the medications are easily copyable but would take years to be able to get to the market. See insulin prices difference in europe vs US

bpavuk 28d ago

> The question is, how do we prevent China and India from just taking our research and copying it for free centralize all chemistry research behind the closed doors, weapon-level export controls on U.S.-made fever drugs simply because they are U.S.-made, severely control international collaboration, and so much more. the problem is that the scientific community will rightfully revolt and the rest of the world will pull ahead of the U.S. in a relatively short amount of time. plus, since open science will have been long dead in the U.S. under such conditions, random breakthroughs at a basement or a non-prestigious university will cease to exist as a concept. China and India piggybacking is the least bad thing to happen. rather, it's an indicator of how open the open science in the U.S. is

mschuster91 28d ago
> China and India piggybacking is the least bad thing to happen. So... the US and European tax- and insurance payers are supposed to pay the billions of dollars for R&D and amortization, just for China to copy everything? It's bad enough if China does that for their internal market. But they don't stop there, their clones and fakes flood back into our markets as well, leading to regular warnings such as [1] from government authorities for consumer safety. This is unsustainable on so many levels, it needs to stop. [1] https://www.swissmedic.ch/swissmedic/de/home/humanarzneimittel/marktueberwachung/arzneimittel-aus-dem-internet/drug-safety-current-threats/smc-warnt-vor-glp-1-produkten.html https://www.swissmedic.ch/swissmedic/de/home/humanarzneimitt...
- sehansen 28d ago
  US and European payers aren't paying for neither R&D nor amortization. They're paying a negotiated price that depends mostly on how much value the drug provides to the patient and the health system. The costs for the producers aren't really a factor.
  - mschuster91 28d ago
    > US and European payers aren't paying for neither R&D nor amortization. Of course we do. A lot of the foundational research happens at universities, funded with taxpayer money in the form of research grants. > They're paying a negotiated price that depends mostly on how much value the drug provides to the patient and the health system. Only partially. The pharma companies roughly know how much it cost them to get the compound past all the trial stages and how many compounds failed along the path. The usual method is that the rich nations pay for R&D amortization and poor countries pay at-cost for manufacture.
    - joquarky 27d ago
      Nearly every convenience of modern civilization is funded with taxpayer money, so that reasoning is without merit.

maxerickson 28d ago

Are you implicitly arguing that derivative art isn't a thing?

mschuster91 28d ago
Chinese and Western models on IP are completely different. In our system, the inventor of a Thing gets a period of exclusive rights and everyone who wants to build off of that Thing has to pay license fees to cover the expenses of the original inventor. In China, copying a Thing is seen completely different (well, at least as far as I know, so take it with a bit of a grain of salt) - an appreciation that the original inventor of the Thing did something good. Getting copied is a symbol of honor. Both worldviews are completely valid, but it's obvious IMHO that these two views cannot coexist in one single global capitalist economy framework.
- maxerickson 28d ago
  I meant more with the timing thing. If a workalike drug undermines the argument for long drug copyright, what are the implications of a copycat plot?

joquarky 27d ago

> the permit process for medical compounds takes years and costs billions Seems like we are coming up on a limit where if they put that much more money into R&D + marketing, then won't be able to afford the product anyway. So this counterpoint is practically moot for all but the most wealthy people.