Drugs and the patent system

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Steerpike, Oct 26, 2009.

  1. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
  2. JD_2B
    Offline

    JD_2B Little Vixen

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,092
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nunya, Wudjathink
    Ratings:
    +118
    The vast right-wing conspirators are hard at work on this one. No doubt the Republicans will approve it. Its just the Conservative side's way of "proving" how Obama's health care reform devastated the economy, etc, and win back their party.

    Retards. :lol:
     
  3. Charles Stucker
    Offline

    Charles Stucker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,071
    Thanks Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +225
    The source is not as clear as I would prefer, but the concept is defensible.
    If developing a new concept (Drug, energy saving device, what have you) becomes too expensive for the current patent protection to give a net positive return, but the concept is strong enough to be viable, should an effort be made to change the patent laws in these cases?
    I don't see this as having anything to do with Obama or the current economic problems.
    It is an effect of increasingly narrow specialties; the general fields are well developed and getting further into a specialty is increasingly costly.
     
  4. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    I don't think it has anything to do with the current economic problems per se. It will make for an interesting aside in the debate on health care costs, though. These proposals can't go anywhere without Democratic backing, such as that of Democrat Barbara Mikulski, mentioned in the source article. Support for such Bills will provide political fodder for critics.

    That's putting aside whether the idea is good or bad. The problem lies mostly in biotech/pharma. And I agree you want to provide sufficient incentive for innovation in these areas.
     
  5. JD_2B
    Offline

    JD_2B Little Vixen

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,092
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nunya, Wudjathink
    Ratings:
    +118
    Hey, I have nothing against capitalism, whatsoever.. I think that the patent time limits the pharmaceutical companies have on their designs (10 years, I believe, or 5 years, for sure- Cant very well tell if a typo was made on the site). I think those patent timelines are well deserved, considering that the biotech companies deserve to get a fair return on their investments.

    This does come at an interesting time, though, does it not? At the precipice of the health care reform debate? I mean, lets be real here.. Republicans have lately been of the mindset to give to the rich and steal from the poor..

    Examples:


     
  6. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,812
    Thanks Received:
    6,634
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,128
    it should stay at 5 years MAX....regardless of the type of drug, and they should not be allowed to modify it slightly for another 5 years of exclusivity....

    this 12 year plus another 12 is 24 years before a more affordable life saving drug hits the market....

    this is sooooooo wrong, especially when i would bet it is our government grants, our tax dollars, that funded the research.
     
  7. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    I agree re: companies getting a return on their investment as well as providing incentives for research and development.

    I don't think the partisan view on it holds up to scrutiny, however. Democrats are supporting this idea, and the GOP can't do anything like this on their own. The truth is that both parties are heavily laden with corruption and ties to special interests. The Democrats are heavily tied to pharma, with important portions of the industry residing in areas controlled by the Dems. So I think you have to credit both parties (or discredit them both, as the case may be).
     
  8. Charles Stucker
    Offline

    Charles Stucker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,071
    Thanks Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +225
    The timing may be suspicious, but I am unsure if we should allow that suspicion to cripple a modification to the patent system IF it is needed.
    I stress the IF because I am not sure it is needed, though the question is extremely relevant to national prosperity. All the rights forgotten in the Constitution that had to be addressed by the Bill of Rights, but Intellectual property rights were remembered. I am under the impression, from books and papers/articles I have read in the past, that the US patent system has been a major source of wealth for the US as it has encouraged more innovation than occurs where the protection is less. Should this impression prove well founded then failing to address the situation could result in lagging research.

    On the concept that "greedy companies want more money and want to deny life-saving treatment to deserving people." Where would anyone ever get the treatment if the companies/researchers never developed them? If the process is uneconomical then the research won't get done; costs are enormous and the major return is the patent. If the patent were removed entirely it would mean that no new research, save the tiny trickle funded by the government would be done. Thanks, but I'd rather have the drugs available at high cost than unavailable at any cost.
     
  9. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,812
    Thanks Received:
    6,634
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,128
    to let a company, keep a life saving drug off the market in a generic form that is more affordable, for possibly 24 years, is unethical.... I don't care what party is supporting this, it is unethical lunacy.

    They do not have to make their money back on one specific drug to make themselves profitable....it can be spread out to every drug they make , to come in to an acceptable profit margin....
     
  10. JD_2B
    Offline

    JD_2B Little Vixen

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,092
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nunya, Wudjathink
    Ratings:
    +118
    Well, nobody said they want to deny life saving treatment to anyone- but, just like Care4all said, to keep it at such a high cost, and to put that high cost at the hands of the very people who funded the research required, for SO long- is essentially highway robbery..
    Besides, in 24 years- the companies (and the FDA) would have already either found out that the drug is more dangerous than it was thought to have been, OR come up with some other revolutionary treatment that far surpasses the beneficial components of the one that eventually made it to the generic market..

    I ask.. Where do we draw the line between capitalism and greed, really? Because that line MUST be drawn, to ensure the welfare and stability AND, yes- the economic prosperity of this country.

    See- Point 1: The more people you have that are spending 500 dollars a month (instead of 50) on a name brand pharmaceutical, then it stands to reason that the fewer people there are spending the remaining 450 dollars on other goods and services. This only diminishes the economy, especially since these same people are generally taxpayers and have already spent a significant amount of money towards the grants and what not that funded this research and forward progress in pharma to begin with. That is double-charging, and, while biotech companies should of course be encouraged to strive for a profit margin, this should not come as an expense to Americans. Let them export their products and charge full price elsewhere, to people who did not fund their findings.

    Point 2: If we are in what can easily be defined as an economic depression, or even on the brink, then it also stands to reason that the majority of Americans simply CANT afford to pay for these drugs. This, in turn, leads to them dying for lack of available (affordable) treatment, which leads to earlier death than would be expected, and of course, that leads to people having fewer children. Fewer children leads to our country having less people to spend money in the future. This is a sociological fact.
     

Share This Page