Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
More ammunition why patents are EVIL
rjbull:
With the proviso that my experience was related to the ink industry, and people here may be thinking too much of US practice/malpractice, and of software patents:
#1: "Open source" the patent review process. Anyone can submit a patent and once submitted they have first chance at being granted one, but like any patent their application must be reviewed for prior art, uniqueness of the invention, etc. This should be judged by the population at large, not by a relatively few patent evaluators who couldn't possibly individually have the education necessary to properly evaluate evey patent.-JavaJones (July 11, 2010, 04:04 PM)
--- End quote ---
It already is, at least in Europe/UK. That is, as soon as an application is made, anyone can inspect the details. When I was at work, we used to take Derwent patent bulletins which listed both applications and granted patents in most countries of the world. I've been to libraries to read the originals, though nowadays you'd just download and read a PDF. The Japanese Patent Office even has a quite good (if slow) on-the-fly translation system.
90% of patents would probably be thrown out within a week, either because there is significant prior art out there (nothing is better at finding prior art than "the crowd"), or because the invention is obvious and can be demonstrated to be so.
--- End quote ---
The usual phrase is "obvious to those skilled in the art", i.e. it doesn't have to be obvious to the man in the street as long as it's obvious to people in the industry.
#2: Incentivize the *application* of patented ideas. Or, to look at it another way, discourage or penalize those who patent something and don't actually implement it in a product or service.
--- End quote ---
I believe that UK law expects the holder to "work the patent."
#4: Patent term reform. [...]I think anything more than 2 or 3 years of market *exclusivity* is unnecessary. If you figure the development of very complex technology may take 3 or 4 years to bring to market, and then add on 2-3 years for sales exclusivity, then perhaps 6-8 years makes more sense. I'd be OK seeing 10.
--- End quote ---
Big Pharma would be very unhappy with that. They would contend that the cost of developing and fully testing a new drug is so enormous that they absolutely must have a long term to recover their investment.
Renegade:
#4: Patent term reform. [...]I think anything more than 2 or 3 years of market *exclusivity* is unnecessary. If you figure the development of very complex technology may take 3 or 4 years to bring to market, and then add on 2-3 years for sales exclusivity, then perhaps 6-8 years makes more sense. I'd be OK seeing 10.
--- End quote ---
Big Pharma would be very unhappy with that. They would contend that the cost of developing and fully testing a new drug is so enormous that they absolutely must have a long term to recover their investment.
-rjbull (July 06, 2011, 08:23 AM)
--- End quote ---
Then again Big Pharma are notoriously evil. Their own records demonstrate that they are disgusting liers.
e.g.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110626/17115214866/priced-out-your-medication-must-be-all-that-expensive-big-pharma-rd.shtml
A few months ago, the pharmaceutical industry was throwing around careless numbers to justify the exorbitant price of its products. The "industry standard" of $800 million to develop a new drug had inflated to $1.3 billion (presumably thanks to non-existent inflation), but some digging around in the very same dataset produced a completely different number: $35 million. Sure, that's not exactly "walking around" money, but it's a lot easier to recoup your investment if you don't overstate it by $1.26 billion.
--- End quote ---
That's a lie of overstating costs by about 37x.
There needs to be some good-faith, and Big Pharma doesn't have any of it. If you read on the topic, it only gets worse... Much worse... The above is merely the tip of the iceberg.
How can anyone have faith in a system that is so blatantly abused? It is little different than Animal Farmw.
When it comes to medicine, one has to wonder just how genuine the "we want to help people" thing is. I simply can't stomach it. e.g. http://burzynskimovie.com/ - A very scary thing there... One has to wonder what kind of motivations are behind the FDA's attempts to stamp out a single doctor. Big Pharma with patent concerns? It's hard to see much in the way of other motivations.
But that's an extension from patents to the market, and how things can go horribly wrong in the process there.
tomos:
Pretty off-topic but just a quick comment on the above -
The other side of the coin is that you get a lot of pretty crazy conspiracy theories.
Which is why I avoid the term "Big Pharma"...
Of course,
I wouldnt trust any big corporation with anything else, so I especially wouldnt trust them with my health.
40hz:
Pretty off-topic but just a quick comment on the above -
The other side of the coin is that you get a lot of pretty crazy conspiracy theories.
Which is why I avoid the term "Big Pharma"...
Of course,
I wouldnt trust any big corporation with anything else, so I especially wouldnt trust them with my health.
-tomos (July 06, 2011, 04:47 PM)
--- End quote ---
Which works great until you need a brand name "new medicine" prescription . ;D
-/------
+1 w/tomos on dissing the "everything is a conspiracy" argument. I'm tired of conspiracy theories about everything from the gospels to the NASA moon landing. I'm not saying there has never been a conspiracy or that some aren't operating as we speak. But to hear some people argue (with the laughable "proofs" they product) about how virtually every bad outcome on this planet is the direct result of a well orchestrated conspiracy...well...I just have to shake my head in amazement at the levels to which the human imagination can soar.
rjbull:
Then again Big Pharma are notoriously evil. Their own records demonstrate that they are disgusting liers. -Renegade (July 06, 2011, 03:02 PM)
--- End quote ---
I have heard this before, and have no reason to plead their case.
How can anyone have faith in a system that is so blatantly abused?
--- End quote ---
By ensuring the system isn't abused? Isn't that part of what governments are supposed to be for? That is, I don't think the fundamental problem is having a patent system, it's lackadaisical enforcement and any abuse.
When it comes to medicine, one has to wonder just how genuine the "we want to help people" thing is. [...] But that's an extension from patents to the market, and how things can go horribly wrong in the process there.
--- End quote ---
Capitalism is very successful in making rich people richer, but almost completely blind to the needs of the sick, most especially if they're poor.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version