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, @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.