5 ms·

Actually in medicine we have both the good and bad of patents. For any drug to be brought to market in the U.S. there is, by necessity, a long and expensive pro

Actually in medicine we have both the good and bad of patents. For any drug to be brought to market in the U.S. there is, by necessity, a long and expensive process to ensure a drug does more benefit than harm. This process can cost millions of dollars but producing the formula + manufacturing is often not nearly as expensive. Hence, a patent, because of the legal framework for which these inventions are conceived within, granting a monopoly for a short period of time is the only thing that promotes or gives companys an incentive to continue on with FDA approval. This, by the way, is no means or excuse for some of the shenanigans drug manufacturers take part in. It merely is one illustration of why a patent system should exist.

codeflo 13y ago
In medicine, patents are a government-granted benefit to inventors that sort of counteracts the government-imposed penalty of having to go through FDA approval. There's a nice symmetry here. If we look at industries with less regulation, like software, the necessity for a patent system is a lot less clear.
- zanny 13y ago
  > like software, the necessity for a patent system is a lot less clear. Software is a terrible example, since every story such as this one demonstrates how absurd and stupid software patents are. It is plain as day.
felipeko 13y ago
No it's not. It's a illustration of a need for some kind of regulation on the field. Patents are much more 'powerful' than needed for pharma industry. They hinder good research by universities and other NGOs.
belorn 13y ago
The parent post ask for "research proving patents do more good than harm", not for a theoretical problem which patents might do some good, regardless of the potential harm it might do at the same time. The big elephant in the room problem with patents on medicine, is that government trade the life of some poor people for the incentive that some people might be more willing to invest in medicine research with patents rather than without it. We don't even ask if there is an alternative ways for the government to intervene, and use an 200 year old approach which creates value by excluding people who can't afford to pay to get access to medicine. When people builds nuclear reactors, we ask what the potential good vs the potential harm there is. If we don't people die, which is why there is regulations. With patents, we have chosen the path of causing deaths, and we don't even ask if the price tag is worth it.
bborud 13y ago
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of who pays for what in the development of a needed drug. For instance, how big are the tax credits for R&D? How much of the testing is subsidised or outright paid for by taxpayers? And of course: what proportion of drug development is to replace high earning drugs for which the patent protection is expiring. (ie "solved problems"). I am not convinced that the drug industry needs patent protection. I have a gnawing suspicion that we have reached a point where it might be a better idea to just remove patents and see where the chips fall.

codeflo 13y ago

In medicine, patents are a government-granted benefit to inventors that sort of counteracts the government-imposed penalty of having to go through FDA approval. There's a nice symmetry here. If we look at industries with less regulation, like software, the necessity for a patent system is a lot less clear.

zanny 13y ago
> like software, the necessity for a patent system is a lot less clear. Software is a terrible example, since every story such as this one demonstrates how absurd and stupid software patents are. It is plain as day.

felipeko 13y ago

No it's not. It's a illustration of a need for some kind of regulation on the field. Patents are much more 'powerful' than needed for pharma industry. They hinder good research by universities and other NGOs.

belorn 13y ago

The parent post ask for "research proving patents do more good than harm", not for a theoretical problem which patents might do some good, regardless of the potential harm it might do at the same time. The big elephant in the room problem with patents on medicine, is that government trade the life of some poor people for the incentive that some people might be more willing to invest in medicine research with patents rather than without it. We don't even ask if there is an alternative ways for the government to intervene, and use an 200 year old approach which creates value by excluding people who can't afford to pay to get access to medicine. When people builds nuclear reactors, we ask what the potential good vs the potential harm there is. If we don't people die, which is why there is regulations. With patents, we have chosen the path of causing deaths, and we don't even ask if the price tag is worth it.

bborud 13y ago

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of who pays for what in the development of a needed drug. For instance, how big are the tax credits for R&D? How much of the testing is subsidised or outright paid for by taxpayers? And of course: what proportion of drug development is to replace high earning drugs for which the patent protection is expiring. (ie "solved problems"). I am not convinced that the drug industry needs patent protection. I have a gnawing suspicion that we have reached a point where it might be a better idea to just remove patents and see where the chips fall.