6 ms·

Planet Money did a great episode on this patent, using it to talk about the state of the patent system in general: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/05/31/187

by scott_s 12y ago

Planet Money did a great episode on this patent, using it to talk about the state of the patent system in general: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/05/31/187374157/episode-462-when-patents-hit-the-podcast http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/05/31/187374157/episode-... It has interviews with the patent holder, and it's amazing to hear his perspective. (Which I do not agree with.)

jobu 12y ago
They've also done two other great episodes on patents: 412 - http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/23/163480928/episode-412-how-to-fix-the-patent-mess http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/23/163480928/episode-... 551 - http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/07/09/329895088/episode-551-the-case-against-patents http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/07/09/329895088/episode-... Side topic, but I really wish Planet Money would look into medical re-patenting. Growing up I needed albuterol inhalers occasionally and I remember them costing less than $10, but recently my kid needed one and it was $60 with copay (over $100 without insurance). That's when I found this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/the-soaring-cost-of-a-simple-breath.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131013&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/the-soaring-cost-of-a-s... TL;DR - Inhalers use CFC's (ozone hole making), but scientists and environmentalists recommended an exception for them when banning CFC's because the amounts were so tiny and the medical benefits so huge. The pharmaceutical industry decided to lobby against the exception so they could reformulate the inhaler and introduce a new patent - and make billions on a 30+ year old drug.
- click170 12y ago
  Frankly this leaves me wondering why we leave medicine to private companies when we have agreed as a society that public health is the governments concern. Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can.
  - alphapapa 12y ago
    Obviously "we" have not agreed that that is the case. > Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can. And that attitude is why we can't have nice things. That would be what's known as "enabling." How about, "It's unreasonable to expect a beer company to do anything other than sell as much alcohol as they can, however they can, to whomever they can." Or, "It's unreasonable to expect an oil company to do anything other than ship and sell as much oil as they can as cheaply as they can." No. Companies, publicly traded or not, are not mindless automatons, inhumanly calculating the optimal methods to extract as much profit as possible, even though they do seem that way. Companies are comprised of people, people who are a part of the society in which their company does business. Therefore they have--should have--the responsibility to behave ethically to society, not merely their shareholders. And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live. I don't know where this idea that "companies are required or expected to make as much profit as legally possible" came from, but it's 1) untrue, and 2) morally and ethically wrong, regardless of #1. Please stop enabling this behavior by spreading this incorrect and just plain wrong idea.
    - cma 12y ago
      >And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live. They can be. Say there are 1000 equal shareholders in a company, and they make up .01% of society. If they do $10,000,000 in damage to society they discount that by .01%, and just need to earn $1,000 as a company, one dollar each, in exchange in order for it to be "rational".
      - alphapapa 12y ago
        That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents. We are all poorer--as a society--when some people profit at others' suffering. You are demonstrating precisely the problem mentality that I am pointing out. Please wake up.

by scott_s 12y ago

jobu 12y ago

They've also done two other great episodes on patents: 412 - http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/23/163480928/episode-412-how-to-fix-the-patent-mess http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/23/163480928/episode-... 551 - http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/07/09/329895088/episode-551-the-case-against-patents http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/07/09/329895088/episode-... Side topic, but I really wish Planet Money would look into medical re-patenting. Growing up I needed albuterol inhalers occasionally and I remember them costing less than $10, but recently my kid needed one and it was $60 with copay (over $100 without insurance). That's when I found this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/the-soaring-cost-of-a-simple-breath.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131013&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/the-soaring-cost-of-a-s... TL;DR - Inhalers use CFC's (ozone hole making), but scientists and environmentalists recommended an exception for them when banning CFC's because the amounts were so tiny and the medical benefits so huge. The pharmaceutical industry decided to lobby against the exception so they could reformulate the inhaler and introduce a new patent - and make billions on a 30+ year old drug.

click170 12y ago
Frankly this leaves me wondering why we leave medicine to private companies when we have agreed as a society that public health is the governments concern. Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can.
- alphapapa 12y ago
  Obviously "we" have not agreed that that is the case. > Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can. And that attitude is why we can't have nice things. That would be what's known as "enabling." How about, "It's unreasonable to expect a beer company to do anything other than sell as much alcohol as they can, however they can, to whomever they can." Or, "It's unreasonable to expect an oil company to do anything other than ship and sell as much oil as they can as cheaply as they can." No. Companies, publicly traded or not, are not mindless automatons, inhumanly calculating the optimal methods to extract as much profit as possible, even though they do seem that way. Companies are comprised of people, people who are a part of the society in which their company does business. Therefore they have--should have--the responsibility to behave ethically to society, not merely their shareholders. And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live. I don't know where this idea that "companies are required or expected to make as much profit as legally possible" came from, but it's 1) untrue, and 2) morally and ethically wrong, regardless of #1. Please stop enabling this behavior by spreading this incorrect and just plain wrong idea.
  - cma 12y ago
    >And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live. They can be. Say there are 1000 equal shareholders in a company, and they make up .01% of society. If they do $10,000,000 in damage to society they discount that by .01%, and just need to earn $1,000 as a company, one dollar each, in exchange in order for it to be "rational".
    - alphapapa 12y ago
      That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents. We are all poorer--as a society--when some people profit at others' suffering. You are demonstrating precisely the problem mentality that I am pointing out. Please wake up.