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 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.