Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 145 posts

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#41

Post by maxerickson »

richthegeek wrote: post #39
maxerickson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is there are printers without the stupid on the market. So the EFF is wrong, patents haven't savaged the printer marketplace, there are nice printers available that are not expensive. And it's wrong that the market will punish shitty products, Lexmark is one of the few survivors in the printer business.

Without (ab)using patents, DMCA, etc to prevent 3rd-party products their business model would not be sustainable. If your business cannot survive without a government-granted monopoly, it's not a free market.

Sure, it's not a free market. What does that have to do with what I said?

My claim is that reasonable printers that are free of bullshit exist for most purposes (prior to Epson switching to reservoir printers, the home color printer market was pretty thin) and yet companies that do use bullshit tactics continue to exist. So the printers exist (patents have not particularly held them back) and for some reason enough people ignore these reasonable printers for companies using abusive tactics to survive.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#42

Post by kortex »

dickbasedregex wrote: post #22
zebrafish wrote: post #17

Without the guarantee of a patented marked up drug, would drug companies waste the same amount of money that they currently do on R&D? I'm of the opinion that we would see a major slow down in drug innovation without patents. R&D is very wasteful and expensive. Patents prevent competition for a short period of time to help the business recoup losses from failed experiments and to deliver profits which serve as an inc…

Why can't patents have a duration? If you're the first to come up with an idea, you get 5 years head start before competitors can use your patent for their own ends. If you never have the resources to materialize your idea or can't find a seat in the market, that's unfortunate but oh well. We can't keep allowing battery technology to be held back because Exxon bought up all the patents years ago. I don't believe pate…

A big part of the high price of drugs is that the pharmaceutical companies have essentially a mad dash to recoup the (m/b)illions of dollars spent on R&D and clinical trials. Patent process has to begin once the target is discovered (e.g. assayed). Now you have to do further assays (0.5-1y), non-clinical safety studies (0.5-2y), route scouting and scale up (a few months), several years of clinical trials, then scale up the process to manufacturing. You've just burned 5-8 years of your patent protection. You have 15 years or less to recoup the cost of not only this drug, but all others that failed to get through the pipeline (which can be as much as 5-to-1).

Once it goes off patent, 80% of the sales of brand name can vanish [1]. Getting a generic approved is a fraction of the time and cost as getting the original through the pipeline. It's like P vs NP, since the FDA approval means publishing pretty much a how-to guide (synthesis route) and much of the safety data. You just have to demonstrate "our stuff is the same as the proven stuff".

I've long been a proponent of "15 years from FDA approval" - this gives a reliable, predictable cushion, without having to predict clinical failure rates. More time can be spent on safety studies (NCSS) and less costly Phase I and II trials, ideally leading to safer and more effective drugs. There is still pressure to move quick, because as soon as the clinical trials start, other companies have access to the leads you are looking at, and can simulate the structure and look for similar leads.

[1]https://www.forbes.com/2002/05/02/0502patents.html

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#43

Post by Someone1234 »

I don't think patents are inherently evil; and I also believe that "obvious" patents will get less common with time (relatively speaking we're still in the early days of patent law for many areas).

That being said, I think the big issue we're seeing these days is that some patent categories simply last too long. Technology moves a mile a minute, a patent system with a duration of 20 years is absurd, something that was innovative in 1997 doesn't continue to provide the same level of value in 2007 let alone 2017.

At absolute MOST the patent duration for technology patents should be halved. Ten years is still too long but at least there's a chance the entire industry doesn't overtake the patent too much, five years would be better but realistically patents are fairly expensive to file so the whole system might collapse.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#44

Post by maxerickson »

lordnacho wrote: post #31
moomin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug development is an interesting case, because the costs aren't associated with the research: they're associated with the safety testing. This has horribly distorting effects.

If that's the case, there's an obvious answer. Don't have patents, have certificates of safety. That way anyone can make a drug, and show consumers that it's been tested safe.

That was basically the case for the drug that made Martin Shkreli famous.

(the drug was long out of patent, his company bought the FDA approved production line and such)

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#45

Post by cust0m »

zebrafish wrote: post #17

Without the guarantee of a patented marked up drug, would drug companies waste the same amount of money that they currently do on R&D? I'm of the opinion that we would see a major slow down in drug innovation without patents. R&D is very wasteful and expensive. Patents prevent competition for a short period of time to help the business recoup losses from failed experiments and to deliver profits which serve as an inc…

A good part of R&D are not made with the companies money but with the taxpayers money, the company work on the 50% final part after the government took most of the risks.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#46

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

zebrafish wrote: post #17

Without the guarantee of a patented marked up drug, would drug companies waste the same amount of money that they currently do on R&D? I'm of the opinion that we would see a major slow down in drug innovation without patents. R&D is very wasteful and expensive. Patents prevent competition for a short period of time to help the business recoup losses from failed experiments and to deliver profits which serve as an inc…

We just need shorter patents. For example drug companies spend far more on marketing than they do on R&D and a substantial amount of the research that generates new drugs comes from government funded research (>50%). Also, it's been demonstrated that taxpayer funded research drives private R&D up. So if I was dictator, I'd make it illegal to advertise drugs on tv/radio/web, double the current government budget for drug development R&D and make medical patents expire much more quickly. (And maybe something to allow Americans to buy drugs from overseas markets? Not sure on that one yet)

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#47

Post by kortex »

wtetzner wrote: post #20
zebrafish wrote: post #17

Without the guarantee of a patented marked up drug, would drug companies waste the same amount of money that they currently do on R&D? I'm of the opinion that we would see a major slow down in drug innovation without patents. R&D is very wasteful and expensive. Patents prevent competition for a short period of time to help the business recoup losses from failed experiments and to deliver profits which serve as an inc…

> Patents prevent competition for a short period of time to help the business recoup losses from failed experiments and to deliver profits which serve as an incentive for more innovation. Is 20 years a short period of time? It seems like we'd get most of the benefits with fewer drawbacks by just shortening the time patents are granted for.

See my other comment. 20 years may be too long for some industries (software), but may not be long enough/ structured properly for R&D heavy industries like pharmaceuticals and biosciences.

Biologics (all the -mab drugs, monoclonal antibodies, adalimumab Humira) are a treat because you have to share your methodology, but you do not have to share your cell culture line. Since the cell line itself needs to be approved, the me-too's have to go through ALL the trouble themselves.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#48

Post by mirimir »

maxerickson wrote: post #25
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #6

It's interesting to note Lexmark tried to (ab)use other kinds of so-called "intelectual property" laws earlier: the copyright law and DMCA. When they failed, they decided to use patents instead. And all this for what purpose? To prevent people from using cartridges manufactured by other companies, i.e. blocking competition and acting against free market and user rights. If this isn't abuse, I don't know what it is. I…

The thing is there are printers without the stupid on the market. So the EFF is wrong, patents haven't savaged the printer marketplace, there are nice printers available that are not expensive. And it's wrong that the market will punish shitty products, Lexmark is one of the few survivors in the printer business.

It's arguable that Lexmark is misapplying patent protection in defense of its stupid business model. I mean, it's pretty obvious.

And yet, if Lexmark were successful here, what would stop competitors from using that against them? As in, "Only fools buy Lexmark printers."

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#49

Post by psyc »

Someone1234 wrote: post #43

I don't think patents are inherently evil; and I also believe that "obvious" patents will get less common with time (relatively speaking we're still in the early days of patent law for many areas). That being said, I think the big issue we're seeing these days is that some patent categories simply last too long. Technology moves a mile a minute, a patent system with a duration of 20 years is absurd, something that wa…

I'm personally against patents, but even if I were to assume they do provide the common good used to justify them, the #1 problem with patents is that the people who grant them appear to be either completely unqualified, or under too great a workload. Or both.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#50

Post by ryandrake »

koonsolo wrote: post #19
zebrafish wrote: post #17

Without the guarantee of a patented marked up drug, would drug companies waste the same amount of money that they currently do on R&D? I'm of the opinion that we would see a major slow down in drug innovation without patents. R&D is very wasteful and expensive. Patents prevent competition for a short period of time to help the business recoup losses from failed experiments and to deliver profits which serve as an inc…

You are correct, for R&D that takes years, patents are stimulating innovation. For ideas that take a week to "invent", patents are probably stifling innovation instead of promoting it. Most software patents (if not all) fall into the 2nd category. That's why in Europe we don't have software patents, and rightly so. So it indeed depends on whether you are able to recover your R&D costs after going to market.

Maybe tie the patent duration to some measure of how long the invention took to develop? An algorithm that took a day from napkin to filing for the patent? You get a day of protection. A drug that took 10 years to develop? You get 10 years.

The difficulty there preventing companies from exaggerating about the time it took to develop. I suppose it's not too much to ask companies to show written evidence of the date that a specific invention process commenced.

Post reply on HN