Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the fighting-against-the-tide-is-tiring dept.

TechDirt reports

[...] The past few USPTO directors had been cut from the "more patents is always a good thing" mold, whereas Lee actually recognized that bad patents harmed innovation. And even though the last time the Patent Office got concerned about bad patents it allowed the patent approval backlog to fill up, under Lee the backlog has reached its lowest point in a decade.[paywall]

[...] For all the craziness going on in the government right now, having competent leadership at the USPTO would be one less thing to worry about. But... now it's being reported that Lee has suddenly resigned and sent a goodbye email to staff. That's bad news on the patent front.

Of course, it may be ages before any new director is appointed. As I type this, of the 559 key positions requiring Senate confirmation, Trump hasn't even named a nominee for 431 of them. [...] Adding the new USPTO director to that pile may mean no new USPTO director for.... who the hell knows how long.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:55PM (24 children)

    by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:55PM (#521990)

    Yeah... you do realise patents are how they make money, right?

    Without patents to protect new drugs, all companies are allowed to manufacture all drugs (cloning drugs isn't hard), and whoever is stupid enough to invest in research gets no benefit from doing so.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:57PM (1 child)

    by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:57PM (#521994) Journal

    Then try declaring a holiday on for-profit health care research in the first place.

    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:59PM

      by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:59PM (#521997)

      Have you completely forgotten that the invention of new drugs is a good thing?

      No more drug patents would mean no more for-profit drug research, which would pretty much mean no more drug research.

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:20PM (11 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:20PM (#522013) Journal

    whoever is stupid enough to invest in research gets no benefit from doing so.

    You mean like the NIH that invests in the research while big pharma invests in advertising. Well, also clinical trials, which aren't cheap. But still. Research? Really? I mean basic research on drugs, not on how to make them more addictive, or package them, determine minimum effective doses, etc.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:30PM (8 children)

      by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:30PM (#522029)

      Sure, there are perverse incentives, and big pharma misbehaves all the damn time. More than just about any other industry. The fact remains: kill their incentive to do research, and you kill for-profit research. Do that, and you've just about killed drugs research completely in your country. (Which, considering we're talking about the USA, is a big deal.)

      But still. Research? Really?

      Yes. Obviously. Where exactly do you think new drugs come from?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:43PM (7 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:43PM (#522043) Journal

        Which is worse?
        1. Can't get a drug because it is unaffordable
        2. Can't get a drug because it was not developed
        Suffer either way.

        I remain unconvinced that the extreme and rapid rise of drug prices reflects the cost of research.

        Why do people in neighboring countries get the exact same drug for much less?

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:57PM (5 children)

          by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:57PM (#522059)

          Suffer either way.

          Reminder: patents expire. That's central to the whole market model. Without patents, the drugs would simply never have been discovered in the first place. So no, your two options aren't even close to equivalent.

          unconvinced that the extreme and rapid rise of drug prices reflects the cost of research.

          They don't. Good thing I never said they did. The drugs companies are exploitative. They charge what they can and spend much of their money on advertising, much of that on the sort of advertising that essentially every country but the USA has made illegal (i.e. advertising directly to potential patients).

          My point remains: without patents, the drugs would never have been discovered. This is a knock-down argument. All your points are just detail.

          Why do people in neighboring countries get the exact same drug for much less?

          I imagine it's something to do with market failure in the USA, and possibly regulatory capture of the FDA. Few countries ignore drug patents though. (But it does happen.)

          • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:09PM (1 child)

            by NewNic (6420) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:09PM (#522143) Journal

            Reminder: patents expire. That's central to the whole market model. Without patents, the drugs would simply never have been discovered in the first place. So no, your two options aren't even close to equivalent.

            I have one name for you:
            Turing Pharmaceuticals

            If you don't remember, then try this name:
            Martin Shkreli

            Also: epipens.

            The drugs they are selling are off-patent, but the companies are still able to make monopoly profits from them.

            --
            lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:42PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:42PM (#522160)

              The parent did not say that companies could not make profits off of generics.

              There is generic epinephrine available, but the EpiPen brand has convinced people that it is worth paying a premium for.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @08:16PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @08:16PM (#522188)

            My point remains: without patents, the drugs would never have been discovered.

            One word: USSR. They did discover some number of drugs there, all without anything resembling USA-style patents.

            This is a knock-down argument.

            Yeah. Also known as "a blatant lie".

            • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:28AM (1 child)

              by Wootery (2341) on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:28AM (#522516)

              We're discussing market forces' impact on for-profit drugs-research, and you mention the USSR? Really?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @04:21PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @04:21PM (#522650)

                Interesting fight here. It's like half strawman on one side against half bailey-vs-motte on the other.

                Carry on.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:49PM (#522092)

          Which is worse?

          With limited resources, there will always be some patients that will not have access. Patents provide a limited-time monopoly to the party responsible for the discovery in order to give them a chance to overcome their investment costs (including their failed drug programs) and turn a profit (market incentive to develop new medicine) before their discovery is available for all to exploit (competitive market forcing a price drop). Suffering from #1 should be temporary (unless you can afford the treatments), while suffering from #2 would be permanent.

          extreme and rapid rise of drug prices reflects the cost of research

          You are right to remain unconvinced because drug prices are not reflecting the cost of research alone. The companies are setting their prices as high as the market will bear - this is one of the reasons why prices are lower on non-US markets and why HMOs pay different rates. Generic drug prices will reflect the prices competitors are willing to sell the drugs for (plus how much their marketing departments can convince people to pay a premium for).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:31PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:31PM (#522032)

      The NIH supports a lot of basic science, but the vast majority of drugs are discovered by pharmaceutical companies.

      http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/02/02/drugs-purely-from-academia [sciencemag.org]
      http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v9/n11/abs/nrd3251.html [nature.com]

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:48PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:48PM (#522050) Journal

        Thanks

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:13PM (6 children)

    by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:13PM (#522068) Journal

    How exactly are the drug company profits funding research at taxpayer supported universities?

    Or is it like when I was getting my comp sci degree where they bring in a bunch of companies and make you pay thousands of dollars to spend six months writing code for a private corporation after which they require you to transfer to the company for free all rights and ownership of that code?

    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:25PM (5 children)

      by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:25PM (#522077)

      What? Pharma companies invest in research. I'm not talking about the small amount of drugs research that's funded by the government.

      Or is it like when I was getting my comp sci degree

      Nope.

      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:44PM (4 children)

        by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:44PM (#522090) Journal

        What? Pharma companies invest in research. I'm not talking about the small amount of drugs research that's funded by the government.

        Most of the actual research is financed by government through agencies like the NIH and DARPA, among others. After government research identifies potentially useful drugs, THEN the pharma companies step in and finance the costs to get it approved. That's not research, it's development. The research part is mostly done with public funds.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/ [nih.gov]

        So yeah it sounds exactly like that comp sci program...the university students get everything started for the private corporations free of charge, then once the corporations determine that the publicly funded research has identified something profitable, they step in to take those profits.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @09:26PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @09:26PM (#522226)

          Academic drug discoveries from 1998-2007:

          14 out of 117 “standard” small molecules that don’t have drug-company fingerprints on their original discovery

          and

          [17 out of] 98 NMEs that were approved via priority review

          A lot of research is funded through government grants, but pharmaceutical companies seem to be responsible for the majority of drugs. Also, many companies do not trust the reliability of academic research enough due to the reproducibility problems associated with it.

          http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/02/02/drugs-purely-from-academia [sciencemag.org]
          http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v9/n11/abs/nrd3251.html [nature.com]
          http://www.nature.com/news/biotech-giant-publishes-failures-to-confirm-high-profile-science-1.19269 [nature.com]

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday June 08 2017, @01:09AM (2 children)

            by Immerman (3985) on Thursday June 08 2017, @01:09AM (#522365)

            I wonder though how those numbers would look if you removed all the minor modifications of existing drug in order to get fresh patent protection...

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @03:54AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @03:54AM (#522428)

              Those numbers are for new molecular entities (not different formulations). In terms of close similarities with existing drugs, Dr. Lowe points out that a substantial portion of the academic discoveries fall under this category.

              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday June 10 2017, @01:08PM

                by Immerman (3985) on Saturday June 10 2017, @01:08PM (#523476)

                My understanding is a substantial portion of all new drugs fall into that category - and most offer no new benefits beyond fresh patentability.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:56PM (#522130)

    Yeah... you do realise patents are how they make money, right?

    No. Patents are how they protect their revenue stream. But unless they are selling the patents, patents do not make them any money.

    That might sound like an meaningless distinction, but it is in fact HUGE. If they can come up with another method to protect their revenue, then they do not need patents.

    One option might be the "ransom model" which is essentially a form of crowd-funding. Collect pre-payments in escrow, when the drug is released to the public domain, the company receives all the prepayments. That's terribly over-simplified, especially given the stages of development for a modern drug. But those are details that can all be tailored for specific markets. One enormous benefit of the ransom model is zero sales uncertainty - the bean counters will know up front exactly how much money they can expect to make, which means it is possible for a company to never lose money.

  • (Score: 1) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday June 09 2017, @06:58PM (1 child)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday June 09 2017, @06:58PM (#523211) Journal

    Oh yes, there would never again be any research invested in drugs. Companies would just keep to the same old-same old, and there would never be another new drug that would replace an old one because it is more efficacious. Of course that would happen. Drug companies could never again profit from research, and they never would form consortiums to share the R&D costs on promising new therapies with an eye towards, "we're first with it as a group, we capitalize the P/R and use our network of sycophants, er, marketing reps, to hit every physican to make sure they're using Brand X label Placeboquin.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday June 12 2017, @09:22AM

      by Wootery (2341) on Monday June 12 2017, @09:22AM (#524227)

      I don't see that happening. It's far too easy to copy someone's drug formula and start manufacturing a low-priced generic clone without paying for the research that went into it.

      The fact that it's possible to buy off physicians might help, but I don't see this kind of corruption as likely to save the day. Patents remain vital.