SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:57PM (24 children)
So you're going with Screw them, they're rich. I don't care if we sacrifice medical advancement?
Or do you too fail to realise that patents are what incentivise drug research?
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:58PM (10 children)
How does the continuing price hike in EpiPen and Daraprim products after their patents have expired reflect the cost of research?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:01PM (7 children)
If they're no longer under patent-protection, why is no-one else manufacturing them at a lower price?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:22PM (4 children)
Actually a good question. Why do out of patent drugs, maybe not this one, but others get price hiked to extraordinary levels once a new use is found for the same old drug?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:32PM (1 child)
I forget, does the US allow a new patent for a new use of an existing drug? If so, that's pretty messed up.
The other possible reason is market failure, but that's not something you'd fix by wiping out patents.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:13PM
No, you can't "re-patent" the same drug. You *can* make modifications to that drug and/or the manufacturing process and patent that. Biologics are particularly prone to this sort of manipulation. For devices (such as EpiPens), you can also patent new modifications to the device.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:08PM (1 child)
(1) Greed.
(2) Broken market, particularly with various middlemen (insurers, pharmacies, etc.) negotiating prices rather than consumers comparing them.
(3) Issues with generic approval (ensuring quality control for generics, additional testing required by FDA in some circumstances, etc.).
(4) For less common drugs, manufacturing a generic may not scale well. So after patent expiration you may still be looking at the original manufacturer or maybe one primary generic manufacturer who can manipulate price.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:26AM
Market failure and regulatory capture, then.
Not reasons to oppose the existence of drug patents.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Pino P on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:43PM (1 child)
Getting a generic medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as bioequivalent to the brand name requires certain red tape that Mylan (EpiPen) and Turing (Daraprim) are deliberately obstructing. From Wikipedia's article about the active ingredient in Daraprim [wikipedia.org] (internal citations omitted):
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:49PM
Then you have a "regulatory capture" problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:45PM (1 child)
From just the other day:
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:23AM
So, like I said: If they're no longer under patent-protection, why is no-one else manufacturing them at a lower price?
(Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:24PM (11 children)
You have not convinced us medical advancement would cease or even slow.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:27PM (7 children)
Which part are you failing to grasp?
The temporary monopoly granted by patents are what incentivise expensive research into new drugs. If there are no patents, all drugs companies can manufacture all drugs equally well, and there's no incentive for anyone to pour money into research: if you do, everyone starts manufacturing the new drug, but you're the only one who paid for the research.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by julian on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:47PM (4 children)
I hear you making an argument for public financing of research.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:00PM (1 child)
My understanding is that there isn't a good history of that getting results. I'm not opposed to the idea in principle though.
I also support charitable drug-research. The Cancer Research UK charity does this, for instance. (I'm not certain of the details or how they manage patent issues.)
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:15AM
CSL [wikipedia.org], until it was privatised for no good reason.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:55PM
You and I both know that a much better argument would be necessary to convince the American people to pay for this.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday June 07 2017, @10:43PM
Show me where that works long term. Look at the pathetic husk of NASA if you want a vivid counter factual. You might be too young to remember when they weren't pathetic losers, when they really were steely eyed missile men. But that was long ago and few remember; and their exploits now seem so improbable that large numbers believe they faked the moon landings. But no, they really were real men, the sort who made the wonder weapons that won WWII and the heroes who used them, then but something happened. And that something happens every time to a large government machine, it quickly turns to shit.
So if you want to assemble a vast government R&D team to solve a specific problem it might work, but the price is that it will obey the basic law of government. There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Meaning it will waste resources decades beyond the time it is capable of actually accomplishing anything remotely useful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:19PM (1 child)
But most would be forbidden to sell them in the USA through other bureaucratic mechanisms, would they not? Those ludicrous 1000%+ price hikes on ancient long-ago-out-of-patent drugs are easy to remember, you know.
The drug companies are already having their cake AND eating it too, thanks to much-too-helpful government. And do not forget the newly-invented "rights" written by them into the TPP; if not for Trump, they would be happily abusing those right now, as well.
They broke the social contract, long ago, in the name of greed. And it is likely that cheaper access to the already invented stuff will keep more people alive and healthy, than would their developing a few more updated cash-cow compounds.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:15AM
Sure, that should be fixed. There's plenty wrong with the way drugs are treated by the US government. The whole point is that the monopoly granted by patents has a limited term, after all.
Abolishing drug patents completely, though, remains a stupid idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:21PM (2 children)
Many companies do all they can to prevent their drugs from going generic because it eats at their profit. Less profit means less ROI, which means less investment/R&D.
Lack of patent protection would make most companies drop their small molecule programs (that are easily copied) because they will not be able to recoup their costs once they get approval.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @06:06PM (1 child)
So, Big Pharma drops their R&D. We still have the universities. Even if the big corporations just cease and desist from all research and development, said R&D won't simply stop, for all time. No, it won't be the end of life as we know it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @04:07AM
Academic discoveries (R&D) only account for ~15% of new drugs (link above). Development (R&D) is basically entirely done by companies.
The world won't end, but someone would have to pay the very large development bill if we want new therapies.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:09AM
More like "screw them, they've been screwing us long enough".
Like research in adding a methyl group to create a "new, improved" wonder drug that behaves in exactly the same way as the out of patent one?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.