Apple wins patent victory over HTC

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is just plain wrong. R&D costs for drugs are astronomical, and the only reason that the drugs companies can afford to spend those sums is because patent law gives them the right to exclusivity for a limited period, thus allowing them a reasonable return on investment. If you think that that R&D could continue in the absence of patent protection, you're living in a fantasy world.

Evidence? And are they astronomical in spite of patent law or _because_ of patent law? And are those astronomical costs distributed evenly across the industry or concentrated in certain areas, some of which may not be of any major consequence to the majority of people? As a matter of perspective if the governments of the world can afford to engage in space exploration, build particle accelerators, etc., what would prevent them from taking on R and D costs for medical research into vital areas? The rise in taxes could be compensated by the lower cost of pharmaceutical products.

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Where would be the incentive for drugs companies to spend billions on developing new drugs, if there was no patent protection, and their rivals could just copy and manufacture the drugs for pennies?

Please do explain your ideas!

It is actually quite easy. If the company has spent billions in developing a new drug then it deserves patent protection for certain period.

The greatest value of a new drug is regulatory approval. To receive this approval it has to do very costly and lengthy clinical trials. The drug formula and even the manufacturing process are cheap by comparison. Even if Indians can legally produce the same drug cheaper because the formula is not protected by their patent law, no regulatory agency will approve this drug in the EU because no clinical trials have been run.

The new system would require more transparency. If Apple can prove that it has justifiably spent millions of dollars on inventing a better hyperlink/design etc., it deserves patent protection. But simple aha moments should not count because they happen by chance or are based on the totality of previous knowledge.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Evidence? And are they astronomical in spite of patent law or _because_ of patent law? And are those astronomical costs distributed evenly across the industry or concentrated in certain areas, some of which may not be of any major consequence to the majority of people?

The reason for the high costs is that 9 out of 10 new drugs don't work. The 1 in 10 that does has to fund all the research costs for the ones that fail.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is just plain wrong. R&D costs for drugs are astronomical, and the only reason that the drugs companies can afford to spend those sums is because patent law gives them the right to exclusivity for a limited period, thus allowing them a reasonable return on investment. If you think that that R&D could continue in the absence of patent protection, you're living in a fantasy world.

I suggest reading the following:

http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf

It's the chapter from Boldrine and Levine's "Against Intellectual Monopoly" that deals with patents in the pharmaceutical industry. Note that the authors are not radical leftist like myself. They are strident Free Marketeers, as far as I can tell and Levine himself once "held the Armen Alchian Chair in Economic Theory" according to his website, so he's hardly a novice.

[HarryT]

Hmmm. Do you think that a paper entitled "Against Intellectual Monopoly" is going to give a fair and balanced view, or that it perhaps might start out with an entrenched position on the subject?

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Hmmm. Do you think that a paper entitled "Against Intellectual Monopoly" is going to give a fair and balanced view, or that it perhaps might start out with an entrenched position on the subject?

Irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not the arguments sound/cogent. If the relevant facts are being fabricated or twisted such that the truth value of the premises of the arguments become false then that is relevant (but we do not start with that assumption). If the conclusions do not in fact follow from the premises (whether on the basis of probability or deduction) then that is relevant. The fact that the authors have used the conclusion of their arguments as their title is not relevant, though it probably makes for good marketing in this case. This a discussion about a divisive issue, not a survey course in economics. I don't see how 'fair and balanced' is an applicable criterion.


To put it another way: if we were discussing Ma Teresa and I were to reference Chris Hitchens' expose of her, it would not do to say "But Hitchens is biased!" Of course he is. But that is not the question. The question is whether the facts about Ma Teresa are as he states them and whether his conclusions follow from these facts.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Hmmm. Do you think that a paper entitled "Against Intellectual Monopoly" is going to give a fair and balanced view, or that it perhaps might start out with an entrenched position on the subject?

At this point, I don't think there's any position that's not entrenched.

[leebase]

Apple didn't steal ideas from Xerox, Apple paid Xerox (in the form of allowing Xerox to buy preIPO Apple stock).

Just this year Apple had to pay half a billion to Nokia for violating Nokia patents. Google just ignored all the patent implications when it bought Android and started copying Apple as closely as they could. That's why Msft, Oracle, British Telecom and Apple are having a field day suing them.

Lee

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

As a matter of perspective if the governments of the world can afford to engage in space exploration, build particle accelerators, etc., what would prevent them from taking on R and D costs for medical research into vital areas? The rise in taxes could be compensated by the lower cost of pharmaceutical products.

Excellent point!

[Pookeysgirl]

Originally Posted by afa

I don't know when other phones implemented this, but my 3-year old Nokia E71 had the ability to recognize phone numbers in text messages and allow you to call/sms etc. directly from there by clicking it.

I'm surprised that Apple has the patent for this. Were they really the first to implement this? And why sue HTC but not Nokia?

My Blackberry Curve 8330 does this too.

[barkndog]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

I suggest reading the following:

http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf

It's the chapter from Boldrine and Levine's "Against Intellectual Monopoly" that deals with patents in the pharmaceutical industry. Note that the authors are not radical leftist like myself. They are strident Free Marketeers, as far as I can tell and Levine himself once "held the Armen Alchian Chair in Economic Theory" according to his website, so he's hardly a novice.

Also check out this link, it also exposes the R&D argument of big pharma. A lot of pharmaceutical companies are using university and government research for free.

On topic of the thread, I like my iPhone and Apple but I'm disappointed that they are engaging in these legal battles. This is a minor feature, and I don't think it will convince a significant number of people to purchase a device one way or the other.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may not think so, but the fact is that no Smartphone did this until Apple came up with the idea. Sometimes the best ideas are obvious in hindsight, but it still takes someone to come up with them in the first place, and the law (at least in the US) says that the person who comes up with the idea has certain rights to it, and that other people can't copy it without their permission.

I worked for a tiny mobile phone company where we had this feature. It was not a smartphone, it was a feature phone. It was pre-2005.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is just plain wrong. R&D costs for drugs are astronomical, and the only reason that the drugs companies can afford to spend those sums is because patent law gives them the right to exclusivity for a limited period, thus allowing them a reasonable return on investment. If you think that that R&D could continue in the absence of patent protection, you're living in a fantasy world.

This is incorrect. The Pharmaceutical industry spends twice as much on advertising as it does on research and development. It is estimated that of the 235 billion dollars in annual US pharmaceutical sales in 2004, 13.4%, or about 32 billion dollars, was spent on research and development. That is the same amount of money the National Institute of Health spends on research. In contrast, the pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4%, or about 58 billion dollars, on advertising.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0105140107.htm

Thus, the study’s findings supports the position that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is marketing-driven and challenges the perception of a research-driven, life-saving, pharmaceutical industry, while arguing in favour of a change in the industry’s priorities in the direction of less promotion, according to Gagnon and Lexchin.

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

As a matter of perspective if the governments of the world can afford to engage in space exploration, build particle accelerators, etc., what would prevent them from taking on R and D costs for medical research into vital areas? The rise in taxes could be compensated by the lower cost of pharmaceutical products.

Economist Dean Baker has proposed that instead of patents (for medicine) the US government awards prizes (a one time payout) and put the information in the public domain.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by barkndog

A lot of pharmaceutical companies are using university and government research for free.

This is true for most industries. In a way it is a form of double taxation. The public pays taxes for the research and development done at universities, then it pays again when that research is patented by a private company.

[stonetools]

The curent system of intellectual property protection is the worst system for promoting innovation in science and the arts-except for all the other systems which have been tried and failed.
Don't compare the current system with some abstract ideal-compare it with what has been tried and shown not to work.