3 ms·
I used to buy that argument till I read that they typically spend far more on marketing and sales than R&D.
by g8oz 13y ago
I used to buy that argument till I read that they typically spend far more on marketing and sales than R&D.
- hackinthebochs 13y agoThe difference is that marketing gives you a pretty steady ROI. Once the drug is developed, there is little to no risk involved in spending billions marketing a drug. However, spending billions developing a drug without patent protection is a massive risk since drugs are easy to make but extremely hard to find. It would be trivial for a competitor to make the same drug at zero cost once its found to be effective. In this scenario researching drugs almost certainly has a negative ROI. Patents alter that calculation to make the endeavor worthwhile.
- chrisBob 13y agoThe system isn't bad just because you don't like their business decisions. I think the advertising budget is completely unrelated to the issue of patents. If you want to argue against the fact that patent protection is needed for drugs just show some examples of recently approved drugs that are not patented, or that were brought to market by non-profits. The safety and efficacy studies are both expensive and likely to fail, and I think there should either be public funding or patent protection for the company that bears this cost and risk.