The pharma industry seems to prove that having a solid patent system in place doesn't really help make it any better for society. The kinds of drug research the world needs is simply not being done, instead pharma is wasting time on finding chemicals that offer temporary relief (i.e. you have to keep buying it for the rest of your life) for common (and therefore not particularly threatening) ailments; that adds up to being able to sell it by the bucketload, for as long as the patent lets you charge as much as the market will bear.
Any attempt to drop research money on the big ticket items for humanity itself: Cures (as in, you take it for a while and then you're cured), and aid for somewhat rare but absolutely debilitating afflictions, such as cancer, parkinsons, ALS, cancer, cancer, and did I mention cancer? are taking a back seat to Restless Legs Syndrome. Now, I don't think removing patents for the pharma industry is going to change any of this. I'd instead argue for more government involvement here - the free market does not appear to be leading the industry properly. But, we're digressing from the topic at hand: Patents. Give me an industry, any industry, where patents are clearly helping. They exist, but they are a lot more rare than you might think. There certainly aren't any people whose day job is inventing random useful items, and then earning their money by renting these designs out, legally protected from being ripped off by the manufacturer by patent law. That only occurs in movies. Now add that general problem of patent law not actually causing the beneficial socioeconomic effect we're looking for, to the particular problems of software patents, and we've got a real clusterfail in the making. On Sep 5, 3:04 pm, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > When you look into it, the parallels between pharma and fashion are > disturbing: > > The industry spends significantly more on marketing/lobbying than it does on > R&D. > Almost medicine patents are for nearly insignificant changes to an existing > drug. > > Unlike copyright protection, which seems to be eternal nowadays, patents are > still limited to 20 years. > On top of this, medicines must be patented before trials begin (a lengthy > process), so the patented lifespan of a medication is only around a decade. > > As with everything, you have to follow the money to see what's happening, > and it really is all about brand awareness. > One of the things that pharma lobby for is to get medicines made available > OTC around the time their patent expires. > Why? Because under a patent they can charge what they want, knowing that > the threat of lawsuits will cause doctors to give the best treatment > available for any condition, regardless of cost. (this all translates to > higher insurance premiums by the way...) > > Once the patent has expired, they want individuals to shop for brands (i.e. > nurofen instead of paracetamol/acetaminophen). > If the brands are available OTC, then they're more accessible and so more > will be sold. Hospitals/doctors, on the other hand, will begin prescribing > the cheaper generic forms, knowing full well that you can't sue someone for > not favouring a given brand when the chemical composition is identical. > > Given the cost of e.g. patented HIV treatments, I would argue that medicine > patents also represent a net harm to society. If Pharmaceutical companies > had to profit by genuinely innovating instead of patenting trivial changes > and pushing brands, then I believe the world would be a better (and > healthier) place. > > Interestingly, where we have national health insurance in Europe, you'll > almost never see TV adverts or Billboards inviting you to ask your doctor > about a particular medication... > > On 5 September 2010 13:45, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > That argument that fashion is a necessity and thus unpatentable sounds a > > bit broken given a lot/most "modern" medicines are still patented and > > expensive. IMHO I prefer to think that fashion (leaving out clothes with > > extra ordinary functions like fire/waterproofing abilities) is not logical > > and there is nothing to patent, when most year to year fashions merely > > change colour, print or arrangement or recycling of past designs. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > .com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- > Kevin Wright > > mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] > pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright > twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
