8 ms·

> Destroying the patent system completely would most certainly have a negative effect Why are you so sure of this? Government granted monopoly is not the only

> Destroying the patent system completely would most certainly have a negative effect Why are you so sure of this? Government granted monopoly is not the only incentive to create something, but there are definitely countless examples of how patents have been used to squash innovation and disruption. I grant that patents have had some positive effects, but I would not assume they are net-positive. Also, they were primarily designed in a time when there were fewer ideas and getting things into production was much more expensive (this applies to physical things, let along software with zero marginal cost), and it was much easier for an incumbent to steal an idea and crush a startup simply by the barriers to entry to manufacturing and distribution. Since then lobbying efforts have only pushed intellectual property rights in one direction. Even medical research patents which are often held up as necessary create perverse incentives that tie up R&D dollars in unproven new drugs, and making arbitrary tweaks to existing newish medicines in order to secure patent protection, making research into natural or public domain compounds come to a standstill regardless of efficacy. Obviously I'm biased since I work in software, but I think we'd be fine without patents. Trademark and copyright address much more important issues in my opinion.

wheaties 14y ago
Medical treatments, vaccines, and drugs cost enormous amounts of money to bring to market due to all the regulations and requirements we've created ensuring a pill is not fatal. Why would any company in their right mind develop any sort of drug if it cost $100m and anyone after them could take the idea free of cost? Patents are good/needed to promote the quality of medicine. There they're good.
- nasmorn 14y ago
  Actually many of these requirements were created so the cost of creating new drugs is sufficiently high to keep out new companies. The FDA is big pharmas moat.
- dasil003 14y ago
  You're just reciting the standard line which I already acknowledged in my comment. My point was that some of the most promising avenues of research are ignored because of the lack of patentability. How do you address that point?
  - astine 14y ago
    Would they be addressed if patents didn't exist? I doubt it.
    - dhimes 14y ago
      That's exactly GP's point: If you can't patent it, it won't get made.
- krickle 14y ago
  Or we could take the money those pills cost, give it directly to researchers, and open source the results. Lower costs, same results, money left over for plenty of other things. I mean you do know the US has the worst cost/lifespan ratio of the western world, right?
  - dhimes 14y ago
    I mean you do know the US has the worst cost/lifespan ratio of the western world, right? Yup. It also invents the medicine.
    - krichman 14y ago
      I take it by your flippancy that you disagree. Am I correct in assuming that you mean to insinuate that removing the profit incentive for Big Pharma executives (cancel patents) without reducing the salaries of researchers (use the saved cost on research) would render the US incapable of inventing any medicine at all? Because I disagree with that.
      - dhimes 14y ago
        Yes. Here's a quick reason why: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5001897 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5001897 You don't seem to understand where the money goes.
        krichman 14y ago
        You wrote that because research costs money, nobody will fund it without patents, completely disregarding the argument that there are other ways to fund research.
        dhimes 14y ago
        I'm writing about what happens, not what I think should happen. I'm not going to try to defend the status quo. I'm for patent reform also. But I can see where some form of patents may be advantageous. But I'm trying to stay out of that discussion. There are people who know far more sides of the story than I do who are in a better position to suggest models of patent reform.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  That is exactly what the drug companies say. That's funny at is as if you are just reciting back their propaganda. It turns out a lot more money is spent on marketing and lobbying that is spent on research. Also a lot of cutting edge research is actually performed by public universities by professors on that state's (or NIH's) dime. > Patents are good/needed to promote the quality of medicine. There they're good. Well that really is the crux of the argument. I would argue that patents make the medicine worse. Medicine I also consider to be the health and well-being of citizens not profitability of drug companies. I can be convinced that the current patent system help the profitability of drug companies I am not sure if it help the sick people.
  - dhimes 14y ago
    That is exactly what the drug companies say Yeah, there's a reason for that. It turns out a lot more money is spent on marketing and lobbying that is spent on research. Don't confuse pharmaceutical companies with biotech companies. Also a lot of cutting edge research is actually performed by public universities by professors on that state's (or NIH's) dime. Often, the same researcher then spins out the company that tries to commercialize the research. I can be convinced that the current patent system help the profitability of drug companies I am not sure if it help the sick people. Without them you wouldn't have the medicine. Then that won't help the sick people. As it stands, there is a difference between the medicine that rich people can afford and that poor people can afford. That may be morally objectionable- and maybe we should fix it. But at least the medicine exists, and eventually it gets cheaper on average for everybody. I am very much for patent reform, but we have to do it intelligently. Where patents help- keep them. Modify them maybe. Where they are despicable destroy them. At least in some cases in medicine-- as in other high barrier-to-entry endeavors-- I am convinced they are useful. In other cases they are infuriating.
    - linuxhansl 14y ago
      Without them you wouldn't have the medicine. How do you prove that? I disagree. Here my statement: Without patents you would have cheaper medicine (but I cannot prove that either)
- belorn 14y ago
  By going through all the regulations and requirements, drug companies already receive by the FDA a limited monopoly on top of patents. It should also be said that, around 95% of all medical research around life threatening conditions, and base theory, is already being payed by the government (a total of 1/3 of all medical research across all areas (human and pets)). If patents are so good and needed for the promotion of quality of medicine, why is then the US government today paying for most of it in direct funding, some 26.4 billions?
- hexagonc 14y ago
  I think what you're really saying, in so many words, is that research in important medical treatments, vaccines and drugs shouldn't be left in the hands of drug companies at all. Maybe all basic research should be funded by the public and made freely available to all companies that want to utilize it. Sure, companies won't be able monopolize the cure for cancer, but who thinks that's a good outcome anyway? Let them compete on price and marketing the way they already do with aspirin.

wheaties 14y ago

Medical treatments, vaccines, and drugs cost enormous amounts of money to bring to market due to all the regulations and requirements we've created ensuring a pill is not fatal. Why would any company in their right mind develop any sort of drug if it cost $100m and anyone after them could take the idea free of cost? Patents are good/needed to promote the quality of medicine. There they're good.

nasmorn 14y ago
Actually many of these requirements were created so the cost of creating new drugs is sufficiently high to keep out new companies. The FDA is big pharmas moat.
dasil003 14y ago
You're just reciting the standard line which I already acknowledged in my comment. My point was that some of the most promising avenues of research are ignored because of the lack of patentability. How do you address that point?
- astine 14y ago
  Would they be addressed if patents didn't exist? I doubt it.
  - dhimes 14y ago
    That's exactly GP's point: If you can't patent it, it won't get made.
krickle 14y ago
Or we could take the money those pills cost, give it directly to researchers, and open source the results. Lower costs, same results, money left over for plenty of other things. I mean you do know the US has the worst cost/lifespan ratio of the western world, right?
- dhimes 14y ago
  I mean you do know the US has the worst cost/lifespan ratio of the western world, right? Yup. It also invents the medicine.
  - krichman 14y ago
    I take it by your flippancy that you disagree. Am I correct in assuming that you mean to insinuate that removing the profit incentive for Big Pharma executives (cancel patents) without reducing the salaries of researchers (use the saved cost on research) would render the US incapable of inventing any medicine at all? Because I disagree with that.
    - dhimes 14y ago
      Yes. Here's a quick reason why: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5001897 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5001897 You don't seem to understand where the money goes.
      - krichman 14y ago
        You wrote that because research costs money, nobody will fund it without patents, completely disregarding the argument that there are other ways to fund research.
        dhimes 14y ago
        I'm writing about what happens, not what I think should happen. I'm not going to try to defend the status quo. I'm for patent reform also. But I can see where some form of patents may be advantageous. But I'm trying to stay out of that discussion. There are people who know far more sides of the story than I do who are in a better position to suggest models of patent reform.
rdtsc 14y ago
That is exactly what the drug companies say. That's funny at is as if you are just reciting back their propaganda. It turns out a lot more money is spent on marketing and lobbying that is spent on research. Also a lot of cutting edge research is actually performed by public universities by professors on that state's (or NIH's) dime. > Patents are good/needed to promote the quality of medicine. There they're good. Well that really is the crux of the argument. I would argue that patents make the medicine worse. Medicine I also consider to be the health and well-being of citizens not profitability of drug companies. I can be convinced that the current patent system help the profitability of drug companies I am not sure if it help the sick people.
- dhimes 14y ago
  That is exactly what the drug companies say Yeah, there's a reason for that. It turns out a lot more money is spent on marketing and lobbying that is spent on research. Don't confuse pharmaceutical companies with biotech companies. Also a lot of cutting edge research is actually performed by public universities by professors on that state's (or NIH's) dime. Often, the same researcher then spins out the company that tries to commercialize the research. I can be convinced that the current patent system help the profitability of drug companies I am not sure if it help the sick people. Without them you wouldn't have the medicine. Then that won't help the sick people. As it stands, there is a difference between the medicine that rich people can afford and that poor people can afford. That may be morally objectionable- and maybe we should fix it. But at least the medicine exists, and eventually it gets cheaper on average for everybody. I am very much for patent reform, but we have to do it intelligently. Where patents help- keep them. Modify them maybe. Where they are despicable destroy them. At least in some cases in medicine-- as in other high barrier-to-entry endeavors-- I am convinced they are useful. In other cases they are infuriating.
  - linuxhansl 14y ago
    Without them you wouldn't have the medicine. How do you prove that? I disagree. Here my statement: Without patents you would have cheaper medicine (but I cannot prove that either)
belorn 14y ago
By going through all the regulations and requirements, drug companies already receive by the FDA a limited monopoly on top of patents. It should also be said that, around 95% of all medical research around life threatening conditions, and base theory, is already being payed by the government (a total of 1/3 of all medical research across all areas (human and pets)). If patents are so good and needed for the promotion of quality of medicine, why is then the US government today paying for most of it in direct funding, some 26.4 billions?
hexagonc 14y ago
I think what you're really saying, in so many words, is that research in important medical treatments, vaccines and drugs shouldn't be left in the hands of drug companies at all. Maybe all basic research should be funded by the public and made freely available to all companies that want to utilize it. Sure, companies won't be able monopolize the cure for cancer, but who thinks that's a good outcome anyway? Let them compete on price and marketing the way they already do with aspirin.