Sanders wants to take a bite out of drug patent laws!

[RJ Liberty]

There is absolutely nothing that Bernie would change about U.S. foreign policy. Nothing.

Not only do Sanders' official positions disagree with you, so does Reason: "In fact, on foreign policy issues—and civil liberties that pertain to them—Sanders is significantly better than Hillary Clinton or any of the Republicans." Sanders gets a final grade of B on the scorecard, a better grade from a Libertarian point of view than any of the main candidates.

 

[puppetmaster]

Exactly. That way the profit incentive is taken entirely out of the equation, and people can finally get busy working for the Common Good.

it would be nice because there would no new drugs brought to market since there is no reason to spend millions on developing and testing. Less drugs more health.

 

[nobody's_hero]

This^^
I can't believe people here have forgotten the last 2 major IP threads already. SMH.

I don't think they forgot them, they just weren't swayed by them.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't think they forgot them, they just weren't swayed by them.

That would be even more disappointing and sad.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

im ok with IP... we dont have many or maybe any edisons and teslas anymore.. but at least theres still an opportunity for somebody to step up and become one.

for the record, I think Edison once said that he felt he never got any real protection from patents.

 

[otherone]

However, patent protections are Constitutional. So here we have Bernie threatening to take away a Constitutional right.

sounds like a positive right.

 

[Krugminator2]

I'm very open to the idea of being against patents.

I've never heard a compelling argument to completely do away with them. I think there is a good argument that they are abused and patent protection goes overboard. I have watched Stephen Kinsella talks and interviews. I'm never very impressed. I never come away convinced that getting rid of patents won't hurt innovation.

The FDA approval process is the biggest expense in creating drugs. Eliminating the FDA seems like the logical answer. Drugs would still be expensive to develop. It seems like eliminating patents would eliminate the thousands of little biotechs that are busy trying to innovate.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Drugs would still be expensive to develop. It seems like eliminating patents would eliminate the thousands of little biotechs that are busy trying to innovate.

How expensive? If it costs a quarter as much to develop a drug, then can they still make a quarter as much money being first to market without patent protection? Besides, lower costs mean a lower barrier to entry, so even if some of those biotechs don't find it to be worth it, others will.

 

[Krugminator2]

How expensive? If it costs a quarter as much to develop a drug, then can they still make a quarter as much money being first to market without patent protection? Besides, lower costs mean a lower barrier to entry, so even if some of those biotechs don't find it to be worth it, others will.

It costs a lot to produce a drug.. Depending whose numbers you use, it is between $1billion and $14billion to bring a drug to market http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthew...ing-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/#663bae1f4477

Even if you use $1billion as the current cost and eliminating the FDA reduced the cost by 80%, the drug maker would still have to sell $200 million of product to break-even. Developing a drug for a small biotech is a huge risk. The rewards have to be huge or else no one would put up the capital. If there is no patent protection, I don't understand why someone would take the risk when it is so easy to copy the formula for a drug.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It costs a lot to produce a drug.. Depending whose numbers you use, it is between $1billion and $14billion to bring a drug to market http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthew...ing-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/#663bae1f4477

Even if you use $1billion as the current cost and eliminating the FDA reduced the cost by 80%, the drug maker would still have to sell $200 million of product to break-even. Developing a drug for a small biotech is a huge risk. The rewards have to be huge or else no one would put up the capital. If there is no patent protection, I don't understand why someone would take the risk when it is so easy to copy the formula for a drug.

Of course you don't. No one can know what or why market actors will do in a laissez-faire economy. We do know from the research of Kinsella, Vaidhyanathan, et al that the cost of IP is greater than its benefit.

 

[farreri]

I'm very open to the idea of being against patents.

I've never heard a compelling argument to completely do away with them. I think there is a good argument that they are abused and patent protection goes overboard. I have watched Stephen Kinsella talks and interviews. I'm never very impressed. I never come away convinced that getting rid of patents won't hurt innovation.

The FDA approval process is the biggest expense in creating drugs. Eliminating the FDA seems like the logical answer. Drugs would still be expensive to develop. It seems like eliminating patents would eliminate the thousands of little biotechs that are busy trying to innovate.

There's a video on youtube where a guy (I think from the Cato Institute) documents all these patent and licensing laws were spurred by big business.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Of course you don't. No one can know what or why market actors will do in a laissez-faire economy. We do know from the research of Kinsella, Vaidhyanathan, et al that the cost of IP is greater than its benefit.

You can reasonably predict that if the risk outweighs the reward, fewer people will take risks. That's pretty common to any laissez-faire economy.

It's the reason why socialism doesn't work. Once you realize other people will just mooch off of your labor, you stop working.

 

[familydog]

However, patent protections are Constitutional. So here we have Bernie threatening to take away a Constitutional right. COuple that with his position on CItizens United, and this is trouble.

If patents are a right, why do they expire?

 

[presence]

Historical evidence suggests that in countries with patent laws the majority of innovations occur outside of the patent system. Countries without patent laws have produced as many innovations as countries with patent laws during some time periods, and their innovations have been of comparable quality. Even in countries with relatively modern patent laws, such as the mid-19th century United States, most inventors avoided patents and relied on alternative mechanisms when these were feasible. Secrecy emerged as a key mechanism to protect intellectual property; its effectiveness relative to patents varies with the technological characteristics of innovations across industries and over time. In industries where secrecy was effective, inventors were less likely to use patents. Advances in scientific analysis, which lowered the effectiveness of secrecy, increased inventors’ dependency on patents.​

​

The paper is here, and it is a very accessible read.

 

[farreri]

If patents are a right, why do they expire?

Oh, great line!