Moderator: Community Team
King Doctor wrote:Phatscotty wrote:and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...
Yeah, a rigorous system of Intellectual Property protection is precisely what is holding back medical innovation in the US...
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.
King Doctor wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.
But would that not also have the effect of deincentivizing the actual research itself? Given that health companies shell out millions of dollars on research, they need to have some kind of profit incentive at the end of it to make it worthwhile. Sure, reducing patent restrictions would make it a lot easier for smaller players to tinker with existing treatments in order to refine them, but I'd argue that it would also massively reduce the amount of research being done on actual new treatments.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:King Doctor wrote:Phatscotty wrote:and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...
Yeah, a rigorous system of Intellectual Property protection is precisely what is holding back medical innovation in the US...
This is true. Not just in the USA, but worldwide. Absurdly long patents on pretty much anything that can be conceived of is a major reason for why new companies are effectively unable of gaining a foothold on the market, they're sued from here to kingdom come for infringing on other's "intellectual property" if they try. Meanwhile, the established players make use of patent pools to and divide the proverbial cake between themselves with only a token amount of bickering so as not to appear like they have a de facto monopoly to the casual observer.
Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.
Phatscotty wrote:The public option is in? Looks like democrats are planning their lame-duck strategy a wee-bit-early...
PLAYER57832 wrote:MeDeFe wrote:King Doctor wrote:Phatscotty wrote:and with the cost of just the application for a new pharm patent starting at 500 million, I would open the case the the gov't actually stands in the way of innovation...
Yeah, a rigorous system of Intellectual Property protection is precisely what is holding back medical innovation in the US...
This is true. Not just in the USA, but worldwide. Absurdly long patents on pretty much anything that can be conceived of is a major reason for why new companies are effectively unable of gaining a foothold on the market, they're sued from here to kingdom come for infringing on other's "intellectual property" if they try. Meanwhile, the established players make use of patent pools to and divide the proverbial cake between themselves with only a token amount of bickering so as not to appear like they have a de facto monopoly to the casual observer.
Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.
In the U.S. this is made worse because the government does most of the really ground-breaking research, the fundamental stuff that spurs on the money-making ideas. HOWEVER, the give all those patents/information away to the companies that already hold the most patents in that particular area. So, basically,its like we taxpayers fund the research into Aspirin, making pills and perhaps even creating a sugar coating, but the companies are then allowed to put it all together, and take all the profits. They are ALSO, (as you noted) allowed to limit the use of this technology by others.
MeDeFe wrote:King Doctor wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.
But would that not also have the effect of deincentivizing the actual research itself? Given that health companies shell out millions of dollars on research, they need to have some kind of profit incentive at the end of it to make it worthwhile. Sure, reducing patent restrictions would make it a lot easier for smaller players to tinker with existing treatments in order to refine them, but I'd argue that it would also massively reduce the amount of research being done on actual new treatments.
History would appear to disagree. Both the USA and the UK had introduced patents early on, but up until roughly 1980, continental Europe was the globally leading region of inventing and developing new drugs and medical products. France only introduced limited patents in 1966 and completely lifted the ban on patents in 1978. Switzerland allowed patents on processes in 1954 and on products in 1977. Pharmaceutical patents were only allowed in 1978 in Italy, which was the 5th largest producer of pharmaceuticals worldwide at that time.
Since then, the percentage of newly developed drugs has been dropping in the region compared against the rest of the world.
Patents as an incentive sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't take into account that much of research is derivative and builds on what's already extant. This leads to the perverse situation that a patent holder can keep a new innovation that is based on one of their older ones but made by someone else from entering the market until their patent runs out. By then they may have developed and patented a similar product themselves. And when there's a new development, it's not going to be released before the old patent runs out and the product or products protected by it need to be replaced. There is no good economical reason to pull something off the market and replace it before it's been milked completely.
thegreekdog wrote:I'm genuinely asking this question because I do not know the answer (although obviously I have ulterior motives): If a drug is developed in France, Switzerland or Italy, and is to be released in the United States, is the European-located pharmaceutical company required to apply for a US patent? Furthermore, is there any evidence that pharmaceuticals developed by pharmaceutical companies in those countries is cheaper in the United States?
Night Strike wrote:\:D/ W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.
thegreekdog wrote:MeDeFe wrote:King Doctor wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Greatly reducing the duration of patents and outlawing patents on things like methods of production, genes and processes would go a long way in making the pharmaceutical market more competitive and accessible for newcomers.
But would that not also have the effect of deincentivizing the actual research itself? Given that health companies shell out millions of dollars on research, they need to have some kind of profit incentive at the end of it to make it worthwhile. Sure, reducing patent restrictions would make it a lot easier for smaller players to tinker with existing treatments in order to refine them, but I'd argue that it would also massively reduce the amount of research being done on actual new treatments.
History would appear to disagree. Both the USA and the UK had introduced patents early on, but up until roughly 1980, continental Europe was the globally leading region of inventing and developing new drugs and medical products. France only introduced limited patents in 1966 and completely lifted the ban on patents in 1978. Switzerland allowed patents on processes in 1954 and on products in 1977. Pharmaceutical patents were only allowed in 1978 in Italy, which was the 5th largest producer of pharmaceuticals worldwide at that time.
Since then, the percentage of newly developed drugs has been dropping in the region compared against the rest of the world.
Patents as an incentive sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't take into account that much of research is derivative and builds on what's already extant. This leads to the perverse situation that a patent holder can keep a new innovation that is based on one of their older ones but made by someone else from entering the market until their patent runs out. By then they may have developed and patented a similar product themselves. And when there's a new development, it's not going to be released before the old patent runs out and the product or products protected by it need to be replaced. There is no good economical reason to pull something off the market and replace it before it's been milked completely.
I'm genuinely asking this question because I do not know the answer (although obviously I have ulterior motives): If a drug is developed in France, Switzerland or Italy, and is to be released in the United States, is the European-located pharmaceutical company required to apply for a US patent? Furthermore, is there any evidence that pharmaceuticals developed by pharmaceutical companies in those countries is cheaper in the United States?
Night Strike wrote:\:D/ W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.
heavycola wrote:Night Strike wrote:\:D/ W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.
w0000t! Nowe maybe all those poor people will hurry up and die instead of asking me for loose change!
PS it's 'bellwether'
Night Strike wrote:\:D/ W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.
Night Strike wrote:\:D/ W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote:Night Strike wrote:\:D/ W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.
LOL! There was a hotly contested Republican primary, and virtually no Democratic voters bothered going to the polls to vote in a meaningless primary! This actually means nothing, and given that (as I recall) the leader of the anti-nullification movement was a 20 year old fast-food employee, getting 29% of the vote with no competitive Democratic races on the ballot is something of an accomplishment!
Lootifer wrote:I earn well above average income for my area, i'm educated and I support left wing politics.
jbrettlip wrote:You live in New Zealand. We will call you when we need to make another Hobbit movie.
bradleybadly wrote:spurgistan wrote:Night Strike wrote:\:D/ W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.
LOL! There was a hotly contested Republican primary, and virtually no Democratic voters bothered going to the polls to vote in a meaningless primary! This actually means nothing, and given that (as I recall) the leader of the anti-nullification movement was a 20 year old fast-food employee, getting 29% of the vote with no competitive Democratic races on the ballot is something of an accomplishment!
Kinda reminds me of that meaningless Senate race in Massachusetts back in January.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote:No, no, it doesn't. Fine, I was wrong once. If Brown v Coakley had been a toothless non-binding referendum with very important and contested races on the Republican ticket and no cool Democratic initatives to draw out voters, then yeah, those would be comparable. Also, Missouri is a red-leaning swing state, whereas Massachusetts is dyed blue. Also, Missouri sucks.
Lootifer wrote:I earn well above average income for my area, i'm educated and I support left wing politics.
jbrettlip wrote:You live in New Zealand. We will call you when we need to make another Hobbit movie.
spurgistan wrote:Night Strike wrote:\:D/ W00T! With approximately 71% of the vote, my state of Missouri overwhelmingly denounced the individual mandate to purchase health care. In a state that McCain won by only 4,000 votes, this is a HUGE swing in disapproval for Obama's policies in a bell-weather state.
LOL! There was a hotly contested Republican primary, and virtually no Democratic voters bothered going to the polls to vote in a meaningless primary! This actually means nothing, and given that (as I recall) the leader of the anti-nullification movement was a 20 year old fast-food employee, getting 29% of the vote with no competitive Democratic races on the ballot is something of an accomplishment!
Woodruff wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I'm genuinely asking this question because I do not know the answer (although obviously I have ulterior motives): If a drug is developed in France, Switzerland or Italy, and is to be released in the United States, is the European-located pharmaceutical company required to apply for a US patent? Furthermore, is there any evidence that pharmaceuticals developed by pharmaceutical companies in those countries is cheaper in the United States?
Good questions. I have no idea.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users