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: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:30PM (8 children)
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.)
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)
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?
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, @04:57PM (5 children)
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.
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.
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)
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
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)
One word: USSR. They did discover some number of drugs there, all without anything resembling USA-style patents.
Yeah. Also known as "a blatant lie".
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:28AM (1 child)
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
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
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.
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).