4 ms·

Not necessarily opposed, but there are a couple areas where this might be a net loss absent other adjustments. Pharmaceuticals would be the obvious one -- they

Not necessarily opposed, but there are a couple areas where this might be a net loss absent other adjustments. Pharmaceuticals would be the obvious one -- they require a large upfront research cost, copying is trivial, and the FDA approval process erodes first-to-market advantages.

Guvante 13y ago
Pharmaceuticals would be devastated. While there are externalities that need to be solved around our production of drugs, the patent system is a good thing overall for them. No one spends $1 billion to make a drug if anyone can copy it simply. Additionally there are international problems related to abolishing patents.
- gcb0 13y ago
  Why everyone think of drugs only? it required research. Just like a car required crash tests, etc.
  - andrewfong 13y ago
    Ease of copying. It takes some effort to reverse engineer a car, and things like manufacturing processes are difficult to ascertain by just looking at the final product. In contrast, many pharmaceuticals are relatively simple to copy and manufacture once you know the chemical composition of a product.
  - Guvante 13y ago
    If you prefer you can think of software. However software is protected by Copyright quite sufficiently so doesn't come up when talking about patents (well in this way).
greyfade 13y ago
But even in situations where pharmaceutical companies don't have patent protection, just providing a better product at lower prices to a larger, poorer market has proven to recoup costs just as well as charging $10,000 per dose on a patent drug. (I saw quotes yesterday from the founders or presidents(?) of Merck and Bayer, which espoused both philosophies, and both claimed successes.) I'm not entirely convinced that patents are necessary to ford the research and regulatory approval. Even in a market where generics are relatively trivial, there are ample opportunities for profit.
- Buttons840 13y ago
  Let's stay: I am a pharmaceutical company, and you're a competing pharmaceutical company. I invented miracle-drug and can now produce miracle-drug at 0.04$ per pill, can you can produce miracle-drug at 0.06$ per pill. You would think I should win because I can product the pill cheaper, but the full story is your very first miracle-drug pill costs you 0.06$ and my very first miracle-drug pill cost 1.5 billion dollars. I lose because I invented.
  - zanny 13y ago
    Yet you don't lose, because you can recoup that investment. The alternative is to not make any money at all. As long as that drug produces you a net profit in the long run, which I imagine would fund additional research after recouping anyone investing in the project, then the fact someone else can also make money is irrelevant. Think of it from the alt-companies perspective: X is sold at $0.06 a pill, but I could sell it for $0.04! There is demand, I can create supply, and everyone benefits except X. But I don't buy that selfish interests wouldn't still invest heavily in medicine even if it is a risky investment - nobody considers the emotional fact that rich people do get sick, and are likely (in the absence of big pharma research) to directly invest to see the diseases they suffer or are concerned about cured or abated. Think of how kickstarter works - you throw money at a project that may or may not succeed, but it happens all the time because people want the outcomes regardless of the financial risk associated. Same could easily happen with pharma.
- ama729 13y ago
  > just providing a better product at lower prices to a larger, poorer market has proven to recoup costs just as well as charging $10,000 per dose on a patent drug. Unfortunately, it's not alway possible, there are sometimes very few people in the first place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug

Guvante 13y ago

Pharmaceuticals would be devastated. While there are externalities that need to be solved around our production of drugs, the patent system is a good thing overall for them. No one spends $1 billion to make a drug if anyone can copy it simply. Additionally there are international problems related to abolishing patents.

gcb0 13y ago
Why everyone think of drugs only? it required research. Just like a car required crash tests, etc.
- andrewfong 13y ago
  Ease of copying. It takes some effort to reverse engineer a car, and things like manufacturing processes are difficult to ascertain by just looking at the final product. In contrast, many pharmaceuticals are relatively simple to copy and manufacture once you know the chemical composition of a product.
- Guvante 13y ago
  If you prefer you can think of software. However software is protected by Copyright quite sufficiently so doesn't come up when talking about patents (well in this way).

greyfade 13y ago

But even in situations where pharmaceutical companies don't have patent protection, just providing a better product at lower prices to a larger, poorer market has proven to recoup costs just as well as charging $10,000 per dose on a patent drug. (I saw quotes yesterday from the founders or presidents(?) of Merck and Bayer, which espoused both philosophies, and both claimed successes.) I'm not entirely convinced that patents are necessary to ford the research and regulatory approval. Even in a market where generics are relatively trivial, there are ample opportunities for profit.

Buttons840 13y ago
Let's stay: I am a pharmaceutical company, and you're a competing pharmaceutical company. I invented miracle-drug and can now produce miracle-drug at 0.04$ per pill, can you can produce miracle-drug at 0.06$ per pill. You would think I should win because I can product the pill cheaper, but the full story is your very first miracle-drug pill costs you 0.06$ and my very first miracle-drug pill cost 1.5 billion dollars. I lose because I invented.
- zanny 13y ago
  Yet you don't lose, because you can recoup that investment. The alternative is to not make any money at all. As long as that drug produces you a net profit in the long run, which I imagine would fund additional research after recouping anyone investing in the project, then the fact someone else can also make money is irrelevant. Think of it from the alt-companies perspective: X is sold at $0.06 a pill, but I could sell it for $0.04! There is demand, I can create supply, and everyone benefits except X. But I don't buy that selfish interests wouldn't still invest heavily in medicine even if it is a risky investment - nobody considers the emotional fact that rich people do get sick, and are likely (in the absence of big pharma research) to directly invest to see the diseases they suffer or are concerned about cured or abated. Think of how kickstarter works - you throw money at a project that may or may not succeed, but it happens all the time because people want the outcomes regardless of the financial risk associated. Same could easily happen with pharma.
ama729 13y ago
> just providing a better product at lower prices to a larger, poorer market has proven to recoup costs just as well as charging $10,000 per dose on a patent drug. Unfortunately, it's not alway possible, there are sometimes very few people in the first place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug