9 ms·

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://

by 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.
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        > That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents. What do you propose to measure it in then? There are situations where you can save X number of lives by doing Y hours of labor, and there are cases where Y is so much larger than X that you have to say no, we aren't going to do that. How do you propose to make that kind of decision without using some comparable measure of value? Nobody can claim that the current situation is optimal. It's kind of terrible. But it isn't because we measure things using money.
        alphapapa 12y ago
        Your comparison is a bit apples-and-oranges. I'm talking about a situation in which a corporation can decide to either a) do something, make more profit, but harm other people in the process; or b) not do that something, make less profit, and leave others unharmed. In such a situation, the choice should be made without metrics and comparisons--it's a matter of right vs. wrong. That is what is missing from the decision-making process: morality.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Isn't it interesting that despite the ban on CFCs, and the lack of an exception for medicine, being something imposed by the government, your response is to blame the companies? Don't get me wrong, I completely agree their lobbying is against the general interest of society, but it was the government that was elected to protect the interests of the public, and failed.
  - aylons 12y ago
    The point is, both the urge and the power to lobby against the interest of the people come from the private and profitable nature of their interests. It was not a punctual failing of the moralities of the companies, it is a consequence of a system that stimulates them to do it and given them the power to do it successfully.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      But what actually hurt the people wasn't the lobbying, it was the actual banning of the CFCs in medicinal applications, which wasn't made by company with private and profitable interests, but by the government!
      - aylons 12y ago
        What I believe you're missing is that the government is not an isolated entity in a vacuum. Its made of people and groups that make their case and express their interests. In this case the interests of the private company prevailed. Notice that the proposal of not banning CFCs in medicinal applications was also a decision to be made by the government, but the pressure from the other side was simply not enough.

by jobu 12y ago

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.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      > That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents. What do you propose to measure it in then? There are situations where you can save X number of lives by doing Y hours of labor, and there are cases where Y is so much larger than X that you have to say no, we aren't going to do that. How do you propose to make that kind of decision without using some comparable measure of value? Nobody can claim that the current situation is optimal. It's kind of terrible. But it isn't because we measure things using money.
      - alphapapa 12y ago
        Your comparison is a bit apples-and-oranges. I'm talking about a situation in which a corporation can decide to either a) do something, make more profit, but harm other people in the process; or b) not do that something, make less profit, and leave others unharmed. In such a situation, the choice should be made without metrics and comparisons--it's a matter of right vs. wrong. That is what is missing from the decision-making process: morality.
icebraining 12y ago
Isn't it interesting that despite the ban on CFCs, and the lack of an exception for medicine, being something imposed by the government, your response is to blame the companies? Don't get me wrong, I completely agree their lobbying is against the general interest of society, but it was the government that was elected to protect the interests of the public, and failed.
- aylons 12y ago
  The point is, both the urge and the power to lobby against the interest of the people come from the private and profitable nature of their interests. It was not a punctual failing of the moralities of the companies, it is a consequence of a system that stimulates them to do it and given them the power to do it successfully.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    But what actually hurt the people wasn't the lobbying, it was the actual banning of the CFCs in medicinal applications, which wasn't made by company with private and profitable interests, but by the government!
    - aylons 12y ago
      What I believe you're missing is that the government is not an isolated entity in a vacuum. Its made of people and groups that make their case and express their interests. In this case the interests of the private company prevailed. Notice that the proposal of not banning CFCs in medicinal applications was also a decision to be made by the government, but the pressure from the other side was simply not enough.