Apple wins patent victory over HTC

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

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.

There is no question that government funds much of the basic research that leads to the development of new pharmacueticals. Thetre is al;so no question that pharma companies mpay big money to develop aand bring to market the drugs that are created from the research. the pharma companies, as Harry T says, also bear the risk of developing the many drugs that dont make it in the marketplace.
This comes from someone who is no fan at all of Biig Pharma, but credit where credit is due.

[Lalilulelo]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

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.

True for the advertising costs. And the research and development of a new molecule is nowhere near the preposterous figure of one billion dollars as they want us to believe.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lalilulelo

True for the advertising costs. And the research and development of a new molecule is nowhere near the preposterous figure of one billion dollars as they want us to believe.

As has been said, though, the revenue from the small proportion of drugs that work has to fund the much larger number that don't. Without patent protection, there would be no new drugs.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by stonetools

There is no question that government funds much of the basic research that leads to the development of new pharmacueticals. Thetre is al;so no question that pharma companies mpay big money to develop aand bring to market the drugs that are created from the research. the pharma companies, as Harry T says, also bear the risk of developing the many drugs that dont make it in the marketplace.
This comes from someone who is no fan at all of Biig Pharma, but credit where credit is due.

Would this be an issue if market forces weren't brought to bear? Why not have the clinical trials be carried out as part of the RD at public institutions?

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As has been said, though, the revenue from the small proportion of drugs that work has to fund the much larger number that don't. Without patent protection, there would be no new drugs.

This is a total non sequitur. It does not follow from the fact that pharma will not be able to charge monopoly prices (because there will no longer a be government guaranteed monopoly) that 'there would be no new drugs.' Research scientists are going to move to mars? Public universities will shutter their doors? I think the over all volume of new drugs may go down but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Although even that is not a foregone conclusion. There could be an even greater incentive to innovate to stay ahead of the competition and establish market dominance.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Research scientists are going to move to mars? Public universities will shutter their doors?

And wouldn't it also be wonderful if drug developments were motivated by need instead of monetary demand, which are frequently not the same thing.

[Rizla]

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?

You were doing well there, Harry. You made some good points, then you showed your bias by unjustly dismissing a valid argument.

[Lalilulelo]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As has been said, though, the revenue from the small proportion of drugs that work has to fund the much larger number that don't. Without patent protection, there would be no new drugs.

I am not particularly against patent protection. What I meant to say without elaboration is that typically the majority of the considered molecules of automated scanning are dropped at the preclinical stages. Most of the remaining molecules go no further than the early phases of the clinical testing of toxicity, therefore only ever tested on a few tens of people. Very few molecules get to the costly and comparatively lengthy large-scale phase 3. And so it is incorrect to assume the pharmaceuticals are incurring equal risk and expenses on thousands of potentially therapeutic molecules and that a very small number (usually 0.01% of those considered) of extensively tested and marketed drugs fund a much larger number of hardly explored ones.

Also, there's less risk and cost when the research is oriented rather than randomised. In any case however, there is no way the average cost of any phase or the entire scientific and administrative procedure would amount to a billion dollars. And if the pharmaceutical companies are willing to defend such preposterous number, they might as well publish detailed R&D costs. One would think some transparency goes without question with the benefits of preferential taxation and other incentives.

[Kevin8or]

Because of the arguing here, I've added Marcia Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It to my wish list. Look what you made me do.

During her two decades at The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell had a front-row seat on the appalling spectacle of the pharmaceutical industry. She watched drug companies stray from their original mission of discovering and manufacturing useful drugs and instead become vast marketing machines with unprecedented control over their own fortunes. She saw them gain nearly limitless influence over medical research, education, and how doctors do their jobs. She sympathized as the American public, particularly the elderly, struggled and increasingly failed to meet spiraling prescription drug prices. Now, in this bold, hard-hitting new book, Dr. Angell exposes the shocking truth of what the pharmaceutical industry has become–and argues for essential, long-overdue change.

Currently Americans spend a staggering $200 billion each year on prescription drugs. As Dr. Angell powerfully demonstrates, claims that high drug prices are necessary to fund research and development are unfounded: The truth is that drug companies funnel the bulk of their resources into the marketing of products of dubious benefit. Meanwhile, as profits soar, the companies brazenly use their wealth and power to push their agenda through Congress, the FDA, and academic medical centers.

<snip>

[emellaich]

To me it boils down to the "non-obvious" test of a patent.

In the case of drugs, it is not obvious that chemical compound X will treat condition Y. Even when we think it may be the case, it takes years of animal and human trials before we accept that it does. Therefore, this deserves a patent.

On the other hand, when I see a phone number, it is not a very big leap of faith that I would want to use that number. Furthermore, there is no technical hurdles that must be solved to use that number -- just pass it to the dialer app.

This is quite different from the corresponding pharma situation. I know that I want to cure heart disease, but how to do it is not obvious. In the case of recognizing and dialing a number any reasonably competent programmer can do it. In the first case, it is to society's benefit to have the drug discovered and to pay for testing and commercialization of the drug. In effect we are paying with limited exclusivity for the pharma company to research and trial the drug. In the latter case, there is no innovation beyond the concept, and that concept is quite obvious. It would be as if we let a pharma company patent the idea that we want to cure heart disease instead of patenting a specific cure.

Similarly for many other software patents. I remember designing a e-commerce shopping cart before I ever heard of Amazon's one-click checkout patent. It was obvious that we wanted to make it as easy on customers as possible. This meant allowing customers to save information (if they wished) and offering them a brief checkout.

So patents=yes as long as we are getting something of value for our offer of exclusivity. And the rule already exists, just start enforcing the non-obvious test on inventions.

[Rizla]

I think Harry T's view of patent is alternately realistic and naive. He makes good points re: the economic practicality of patents while ignoring the abuses of the patent system by powerful groups.

[blue_skies]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Without patent protection, there would be no new drugs.

That would be wonderful! Pharmaceutical drugs are responsible for destroying the health of so many people and wrecking the economy in the process.

They take a natural substance that has been proven to be helpful in actually healing a condition, but they can't patent a natural substance. Instead they create an artificial version so they can patent it and make tons of money, ignoring all the negative side effects. Then they spend their ill-gotten gains trying to stamp out effective natural alternatives.

In the US, the pharmaceutical companies, with their billions in revenue, control the FDA. They get dangerous drugs approved all the time and basically bribe doctors into pushing them on their patients.

I see so many people whose health has been completely ruined by pharmaceutical drugs.

"Here, take this for your symptom"... and then you end up with several side effects and prescriptions for those too over time. The majority of people in the US take a ridiculous amount of prescription drugs every day, and none of them actually heal the cause of their original problems.

Pharmaceutical drugs are even turning up in our water systems now.

So add me to the list of anti-patent people. If getting rid of the patent system helps to stop greedy and evil Big-Pharma... then I am all for it!

[Kevin8or]

Originally Posted by blue_skies

That would be wonderful! Pharmaceutical drugs are responsible for destroying the health of so many people and wrecking the economy in the process. [...] If getting rid of the patent system helps to stop greedy and evil Big-Pharma... then I am all for it!

I don't thinking scrapping patents would end the creation of new drugs. The funding model for R&D would change -- more taxpayer funded research? -- and the overall number of new meds would (I suppose) decrease. The kinds of new medicines created might also change, possibly for the better.

I for one am glad for modern pharmaceuticals. I'd have killed myself years ago without modern drugs, because of severe & constant pain. Or, I'd have had to take "natural" remedies like marijuana or opium, which would leave my mind in a constant fog. So, I say "three cheers" to the chemists.

Over-prescribing is indeed a problem, but it's not a problem inherent to the creation/manufacture of medicines. I'll agree that Big Pharma is "greedy and evil" in many respects, but not because they create new drugs.

[pdurrant]

Moderator Notice

The efficacy of modern pharmaceuticals and the ethics of the firms that produce them are not suitable topics even for the lounge, and certainly not for the news forum.

If you wish to discuss such topics, please take it to the (opt-in) Politics and Religion forum.

Further comments on those topics in this thread will be deleted.

[EscapeVelocity]

Apple the partent troll.