It is Time To Finally End Medical Patenting

[pathtofreedom]

Medical patenting as an industry practice creates several problems for the industry as a whole and should be ended. The most obvious effect of medical patenting is that due to the grant of exclusivity on a medicine prices go up sharply. There are also unseen effects of medical patenting, for example a drug is patented the drug won't be developed (DCA being an example of this), if medical patents didn't exist then the market would have to change to adapt to this. There is also the practice of creating "me too" drugs where in you create a slightly different version of a drug and then patent to continue on exclusivity. Some claim the huge profit margins of drug companies are necessary for R&D however this is not necessarily a good thing as companies are encouraged to be wasteful and economically inefficient. Generally when a drug becomes a generic companies change their operations and become more efficient and much of the money made from selling drugs isn't spent on R&D either. Finally ending medical patents will help end the "big pharma" empire and lessen their influence over government and medicine as a whole.

 

[XNavyNuke]

Maybe that doesn't go far enough. How about ending all patenting? Perhaps all forms of R&D should be eliminated. A 110% tax on all R&D expenditures. No. The gulag for all innovators and the firing squad for those with genius-level IQ's. it can be a joint task force between the IRS and DHS.

XNN

 

[pathtofreedom]

Maybe that doesn't go far enough. How about ending all patenting? Perhaps all forms of R&D should be eliminated. A 110% tax on all R&D expenditures. No. The gulag for all innovators and the firing squad for those with genius-level IQ's. it can be a joint task force between the IRS and DHS.

XNN

I bring up Medical patents because this forum is called "health freedom" and medical patents create their own unique problems. It is a strawman to argue that ending patents will end R&D and ending patents doesn't tax R&D. More over patents are a form of government regulation. Patents don't really benefit small innovators or those with a high IQ but rather large corporations and as I point out in many cases they discourage innovation.

 

[VIDEODROME]

How often are medical discoveries made by scientists funded by grants from the Federal Government? Or even working for the CDC?

Are those discoveries patented by the scientists? Or does the government possess them?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Maybe that doesn't go far enough. How about ending all patenting? Perhaps all forms of R&D should be eliminated. A 110% tax on all R&D expenditures. No. The gulag for all innovators and the firing squad for those with genius-level IQ's. it can be a joint task force between the IRS and DHS.

XNN

Though you're obviously sarcastic, you're right that patents are harmful and should be eliminated. (see the various threads on IP around RPFs)

 

[LibertyEagle]

Though you're obviously sarcastic, you're right that patents are harmful and should be eliminated. (see the various threads on IP around RPFs)

Yes, indeedy, there are all kinds of folks who would like to steal the efforts of the hard work expended by others and go to great lengths to justify their actions. Some even stooped so low as to steal Ron Paul's brand new books that others copied and posted on the net.

/sarcastic, yes, but true, nonetheless

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, indeedy, there are all kinds of folks who would like to steal the efforts of the hard work expended by others and go to great lengths to justify their actions. Some even stooped so low as to steal Ron Paul's brand new books that others copied and posted on the net.

/sarcastic, yes, but true, nonetheless

You assume incorrectly that copying is theft. This has already been dealt with at length in previous IP threads. Please review them.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You assume incorrectly that copying is theft. This has already been dealt with at length in previous IP threads. Please review them.

ROFLMAO. I saw them when they were posted and I accurately depicted them. They were efforts to justify the theft of someone else's work.

 

[thoughtomator]

Ideas are not naturally possessions. Only by the force and violence of government can they become so. Choose your position on the issue appropriately.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Ideas are not naturally possessions. Only by the force and violence of government can they become so. Choose your position on the issue appropriately.

Indeed.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I bring up Medical patents because this forum is called "health freedom" and medical patents create their own unique problems. It is a strawman to argue that ending patents will end R&D and ending patents doesn't tax R&D. More over patents are a form of government regulation. Patents don't really benefit small innovators or those with a high IQ but rather large corporations and as I point out in many cases they discourage innovation.

Why spend billions developing new drugs if as soon as you have it perfected, every body can rip you off by producing their own version? They have a financial advantaqe over you because they didn't have to spend the R&D money so they can sell at a lower cost than you (assuming the same production costs- you need to include your R&D costs in your price)? How would denying patent procection encourage more innovation? A company will be more profitable if they don't invest in R&D and profits are the goal of businesses.

 

[silverhandorder]

Why spend billions developing new drugs if as soon as you have it perfected, every body can rip you off by producing their own version? They have a financial advantaqe over you because they didn't have to spend the R&D money so they can sell at a lower cost than you (assuming the same production costs- you need to include your R&D costs in your price)? How would denying patent procection encourage more innovation? A company will be more profitable if they don't invest in R&D and profits are the goal of businesses.

1. You can pool for R&D.
2. Have R&D companies that sell their findings to multiple companies.
3. First mover advantage.

Either way you and me know that patents are too profitable to go away. But innovation will not stop.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Why spend billions developing new drugs if as soon as you have it perfected, every body can rip you off by producing their own version? They have a financial advantaqe over you because they didn't have to spend the R&D money so they can sell at a lower cost than you (assuming the same production costs- you need to include your R&D costs in your price)? How would denying patent procection encourage more innovation? A company will be more profitable if they don't invest in R&D and profits are the goal of businesses.

Copying is not "ripping off"-it's just copying. Ideas are not property and cannot be stolen. We dealt with this issue and all the surrounding issues at length in the last few threads on IP. Among the many options aside from the tacit agreement that is IP is a literal contract that must be signed before anyone uses* it.

*UseThe fact of being habitually employed in a certain manner. In real property law, a right held by an individual (called a cestui que use) to take the profits arising from a particular parcel of land that was owned and possessed by another individual.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Use

 

[MelissaWV]

Copying is not "ripping off"-it's just copying. Ideas are not property and cannot be stolen. We dealt with this issue and all the surrounding issues at length in the last few threads on IP. Among the many options aside from the tacit agreement that is IP is a literal contract that must be signed before anyone uses* it.

*UseThe fact of being habitually employed in a certain manner. In real property law, a right held by an individual (called a cestui que use) to take the profits arising from a particular parcel of land that was owned and possessed by another individual.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Use

At the point they become an established formula that results in a product (including any special packaging, administration instructions, etc.) they are a tangible item whose price, at least in part, is meant to compensate the risk and investment the company made in developing it. It's not just R&D.

Also, the "first out of the gate" idea is silly. I can't think of too many times where a company gained a permanent and overwhelming advantage by being first at something. The second or third or fourth or fifth company, in this scenario, can easily copy the basic product without the hindrance of debt (until you sell your widget, the costs to develop that widget are hanging around your neck...). Let's proceed with the notion that this is not stealing and not get stuck there. Company B now has the widget's design, makeup, and vital information as to the cost of manufacturing. Some of these are just "trade secrets" and not IP anyhow. Company B can now create widgets for the same general cost as Company A, but they don't have any residual debt from the R&D and other costs associated with the widgets, not to mention the prior products that never even got this far. Company B could hugely undercut Company A, but in most industries that'd be silly and an unwise use of resources. Instead, Company B invests in product differentiation. Company B is all over the television with heartwarming commercials and clever slogans that attract consumer AND wholesaler interest. Company B becomes the household name associated with the widgets. Company A still sells some, and struggles to get their name out there, but without that extra bit of money to devote to the effort, they drop to 2nd, then 3rd, then finally 4th most popular widget-maker.

This is not to say IP (with the threat of force backing it up) is the way to go, but the idea that it's "just an idea!" is silly. The best decision would be to remain on the sidelines and devote a greater portion of your ongoing resources to recruiting excellent marketers, cultivating relationships with influential people, and being ready to blast off as soon as you can acquire yet another recipe or formula that you can copy for your own company's benefit.

 

[silverhandorder]

At the point they become an established formula that results in a product (including any special packaging, administration instructions, etc.) they are a tangible item whose price, at least in part, is meant to compensate the risk and investment the company made in developing it. It's not just R&D.

Also, the "first out of the gate" idea is silly. I can't think of too many times where a company gained a permanent and overwhelming advantage by being first at something. The second or third or fourth or fifth company, in this scenario, can easily copy the basic product without the hindrance of debt (until you sell your widget, the costs to develop that widget are hanging around your neck...). Let's proceed with the notion that this is not stealing and not get stuck there. Company B now has the widget's design, makeup, and vital information as to the cost of manufacturing. Some of these are just "trade secrets" and not IP anyhow. Company B can now create widgets for the same general cost as Company A, but they don't have any residual debt from the R&D and other costs associated with the widgets, not to mention the prior products that never even got this far. Company B could hugely undercut Company A, but in most industries that'd be silly and an unwise use of resources. Instead, Company B invests in product differentiation. Company B is all over the television with heartwarming commercials and clever slogans that attract consumer AND wholesaler interest. Company B becomes the household name associated with the widgets. Company A still sells some, and struggles to get their name out there, but without that extra bit of money to devote to the effort, they drop to 2nd, then 3rd, then finally 4th most popular widget-maker.

This is not to say IP (with the threat of force backing it up) is the way to go, but the idea that it's "just an idea!" is silly. The best decision would be to remain on the sidelines and devote a greater portion of your ongoing resources to recruiting excellent marketers, cultivating relationships with influential people, and being ready to blast off as soon as you can acquire yet another recipe or formula that you can copy for your own company's benefit.

First mover advantage is not end all be all. However to make a widget you still need to invest in reverse engineering it and build factories that will make it. Plus first company to make the widget has the time to set distribution in place before they have any competition.

 

[MelissaWV]

First mover advantage is not end all be all. However to make a widget you still need to invest in reverse engineering it and build factories that will make it. Plus first company to make the widget has the time to set distribution in place before they have any competition.

"Coming soon! Mega-Widget!"

You don't need to invest in reverse engineering. Since there is no claim to exclusivity, then you can just poach via industrial espionage or questionable (at least they're questionable NOW) hiring practices. Private non-disclosure agreements take some time to sort out, and by then the new company is up and running. They can put it all on the individual and them palm them off with a nice severance.

As for the distribution, that depends on the product.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

At the point they become an established formula that results in a product (including any special packaging, administration instructions, etc.) they are a tangible item whose price, at least in part, is meant to compensate the risk and investment the company made in developing it. It's not just R&D.

A product is an "expression" of an idea (both in theory and in established IP law). They are indeed tangible items. Taking the physical property without permission is theft. Copying is not. Of course there's cost incurred in production. This is reflected in the MSRP. But so what? Value is subjective. My copying Jones idea doesn't take anything from Jones. This nebulous nature of ideas is why IP had to be fabricated in the first place. It doesn't exist in nature and cannot be proven. It owes its existence to diktat.

Also, the "first out of the gate" idea is silly. I can't think of too many times where a company gained a permanent and overwhelming advantage by being first at something. The second or third or fourth or fifth company, in this scenario, can easily copy the basic product without the hindrance of debt (until you sell your widget, the costs to develop that widget are hanging around your neck...). Let's proceed with the notion that this is not stealing and not get stuck there. Company B now has the widget's design, makeup, and vital information as to the cost of manufacturing. Some of these are just "trade secrets" and not IP anyhow. Company B can now create widgets for the same general cost as Company A, but they don't have any residual debt from the R&D and other costs associated with the widgets, not to mention the prior products that never even got this far. Company B could hugely undercut Company A, but in most industries that'd be silly and an unwise use of resources. Instead, Company B invests in product differentiation. Company B is all over the television with heartwarming commercials and clever slogans that attract consumer AND wholesaler interest. Company B becomes the household name associated with the widgets. Company A still sells some, and struggles to get their name out there, but without that extra bit of money to devote to the effort, they drop to 2nd, then 3rd, then finally 4th most popular widget-maker.

Call it "silly" if you wish, but that doesn't make it so. Austrians and non-Austrians alike agree on FMA. (btw, Trade Secrets are IP under IP laws) So what if company B makes a fortune copying the idea? Company A has the incentive to produce better ideas and draw customers away from company B. Such is the nature of reality outside the illusionary matrix of ideas taken for granted by the IP crowd.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"Coming soon! Mega-Widget!"

You don't need to invest in reverse engineering. Since there is no claim to exclusivity, then you can just poach via industrial espionage or questionable (at least they're questionable NOW) hiring practices. Private non-disclosure agreements take some time to sort out, and by then the new company is up and running. They can put it all on the individual and them palm them off with a nice severance.

As for the distribution, that depends on the product.

loaded wods like "poach" assume that ideas are really property, which remains to be proven.

 

[MelissaWV]

loaded wods like "poach" assume that ideas are really property, which remains to be proven.

No, words like "poach" refer to the method used, rather than "politely ask for" and "pay for assistance developing."

2

a : to take (game or fish) by illegal methods

b : to appropriate (something) as one's own

c : to attract (as an employee or customer) away from a competitor

Again, the entire premise you are pushing would work if there were no product differentiation issue. For most products, marketing will decide who winds up with the big share. The ability to develop your product and "who you know" are vital, and with a little extra money in your pocket these days, you can influence perception much more easily.

Or do I have to electrocute an elephant to demonstrate how awful your product is?

 

[pathtofreedom]

As for R&D costs simple downsize and change development patterns, which companies already do when a patents expires. There are also other non ip related advantages to someone developing a product. IF you develop a product you truly know where others don't know it and there is also brand name recognition. Often people will buy non-generic drugs because there is better trust in them. R&D would still happen it would simply be done at lower cost on a smaller scale done by smaller firms. Also consider that patenting creates the need for other government controls like negotiated drug pricing, changing FDA regulations to ban "me-too" drugs or anti-trust laws for breaking up the pharmaceutical industry, if you get rid of patenting none of those other things would need to exist.