4 ms·

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

by 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)
- dhimes 14y ago
  Not only would you not have the medicine, but you wouldn't have delivery vehicles (devices, forms) either. It's because USA and Europe require such substantial testing, at various stages, to prove (1) efficacy, and (2) safety. These are not binary-outcome experiments. They are expensive (gotta pay people to take your dope and you gotta pay - and train - docs to keep an eye on them. Remember- the outcomes are not binary). Some percentage of your population aren't going to feel well while in the trial. Is is the fault of your medicine? You better be absolutely sure. Oh wait, you can't. Can you find anybody who might be able to help you decide? So before VCs will give you $5M, they are going to be sure that Walmart can't knock off a copy once you have the proof. That's where the money goes, and why you won't get any unless you can arrange some exclusive sales. And, like everything else, you have to make sure that there is a paying market (meaning docs will use it and insurers will pay for it).
belorn 14y ago
>Often, the same researcher then spins out the company that tries to commercialize the research. It seems to me that you imply that there is some added value from the commercialization. But commercialization does not cause added value in itself. Sometimes, commercialization just mean marketing and profit center. However the real question is, what does commercialization of an already founded and paid invention has to do with patents. Why should research which is paid with tax money (through NIH) be patentable, and how does that benefit society?
- dhimes 14y ago
  There is often substantial risk turning a research result (molecule X inhibits virus Y) into a safe medicine. You have to do significant, expensive testing. That is where the money is spent because that is where commercialization fails.
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    Also, pharmaceutical drugs don't just pop out of Wonka-like machines in a manner similar to the Everlasting Gobstopper. The production process has to be efficient. Efficiency is a function of the cost to research, design, construct and operate the production facilities and QA, and the expected returns.
    - belorn 14y ago
      Well, if you want efficiency, thats were all the factories with generics lives. They use capitalism, that is competition to produce the best product for the lowest price. As for testing (the above comment), thats where FDA approved monopolies comes in. FDA want to incentivize testing and producing of products, even once they fall out of patent protection, so FDA themselves gives out limited timed monopolies after a drug gone through all the testing. Thats a monopoly on top of regular patents for most drugs. FDA don't assume patents to cover the cost beyond the initial research. They consider that more incentives are needed, targeted for testing and producing of products.
      - 14y ago
DougBTX 14y ago
and eventually it gets cheaper on average for everybody. Sometimes cheap drugs get more expensive, so that's at least not a universal truth. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/questcor-finds-profit-for-acthar-drug-at-28000-a-vial.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/questcor-finds-pr...

by dhimes 14y ago

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)

dhimes 14y ago
Not only would you not have the medicine, but you wouldn't have delivery vehicles (devices, forms) either. It's because USA and Europe require such substantial testing, at various stages, to prove (1) efficacy, and (2) safety. These are not binary-outcome experiments. They are expensive (gotta pay people to take your dope and you gotta pay - and train - docs to keep an eye on them. Remember- the outcomes are not binary). Some percentage of your population aren't going to feel well while in the trial. Is is the fault of your medicine? You better be absolutely sure. Oh wait, you can't. Can you find anybody who might be able to help you decide? So before VCs will give you $5M, they are going to be sure that Walmart can't knock off a copy once you have the proof. That's where the money goes, and why you won't get any unless you can arrange some exclusive sales. And, like everything else, you have to make sure that there is a paying market (meaning docs will use it and insurers will pay for it).

belorn 14y ago

>Often, the same researcher then spins out the company that tries to commercialize the research. It seems to me that you imply that there is some added value from the commercialization. But commercialization does not cause added value in itself. Sometimes, commercialization just mean marketing and profit center. However the real question is, what does commercialization of an already founded and paid invention has to do with patents. Why should research which is paid with tax money (through NIH) be patentable, and how does that benefit society?

dhimes 14y ago
There is often substantial risk turning a research result (molecule X inhibits virus Y) into a safe medicine. You have to do significant, expensive testing. That is where the money is spent because that is where commercialization fails.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Also, pharmaceutical drugs don't just pop out of Wonka-like machines in a manner similar to the Everlasting Gobstopper. The production process has to be efficient. Efficiency is a function of the cost to research, design, construct and operate the production facilities and QA, and the expected returns.
  - belorn 14y ago
    Well, if you want efficiency, thats were all the factories with generics lives. They use capitalism, that is competition to produce the best product for the lowest price. As for testing (the above comment), thats where FDA approved monopolies comes in. FDA want to incentivize testing and producing of products, even once they fall out of patent protection, so FDA themselves gives out limited timed monopolies after a drug gone through all the testing. Thats a monopoly on top of regular patents for most drugs. FDA don't assume patents to cover the cost beyond the initial research. They consider that more incentives are needed, targeted for testing and producing of products.
    - 14y ago

DougBTX 14y ago

and eventually it gets cheaper on average for everybody. Sometimes cheap drugs get more expensive, so that's at least not a universal truth. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/questcor-finds-profit-for-acthar-drug-at-28000-a-vial.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/questcor-finds-pr...