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

61–70 of 145 posts

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

#61

Post by 6stringmerc »

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.

This is an interesting postulation and one I can support in theory.

My reaction though is tempered in the same way when I hear a US Federal Government person (ex: Secretary of Health) claim that a system of "Patient Empowerment and Patient Choice" is an ideal situation. I disagree. Looking at Health Statistics Reality (cough) a large portion of the US Population has made categorically bad decisions. Obesity. Heart Disease by way of contributing factors.

I get the rationale behind empowerment and allowing patients to find the "best" care around, but trusting Average Health Consumer to make Medical choices when they can't even get Dietary choices right is problematic.

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

#62

Post by 6stringmerc »

throwawaykf09 wrote: post #30
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while this may be, when it comes to the EFF I give them some latitude. I think they're fighting the good fight in general and if they get more exposure then I'm ok with that.

They do this everytime. Pretty much any EFF post that makes it to the top of HN, I see a comment pointing out how the post is flawed and clickbaity.

Time and time again the EFF articles throw so many coats of fear mongering and "Chicken Little" doom over worthwhile subjects and causes for Review / Reform / Revision that they become an art of self-parody. If they'd drop the National Enquirer song and dance of extrapolating one to three case examples into an epidemic it would be to their benefit, in my opinion. They're free to behave as they please and raise funds if it works for them, and I'm fortunate enough to live in a place where I can criticize openly, because I do share some guiding principles I'm certain.

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

#63

Post by Thriptic »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #46
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 dr…

The government does not pay for development, they pay for a portion of basic research across all research areas (and it's nowhere near 50% of all research funds or drug research funds). The entire NIH budget is about 32 billion. Large pharma companies spent around 50 billion on R&D in 2010: http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v9/n3/full/nrd3078.html

The incredibly expensive pharma and device development costs are shouldered by industry. The government does not have the risk tolerance or patience for development.

Right now a significant portion of the patent lifetime is spent with the drug in clinical trials unable to be sold. Shortening the patent lifetime would increase prices until the drug went generic, not decrease them,as companies would have less time to get ROI.

The industry is much more complicated than you are making it out to be, and trying to make it unprofitable would not help innovation.

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

#64

Post by zebrafish »

clarkmoody wrote: post #51
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…

R&D is ultra-expensive in-part because of government regulation. So the government is playing both sides of the ball: + Pile up mountains of red tape through the FDA + Provide patent protections for those with enough money to wade through the red tape + Give R&D grants to companies with taxpayer money to take up the slack in their budget So since R&D is so expensive, only large companies can afford it, which is just…

I think some regulation is needed though. I can't look at a generic white pill and tell whether it's oxycodone or acetaminophen. Also, I don't want to take your acetaminophen if it hasn't been proven that whatever is in it won't cause other more serious issues or that I've at least been adequately informed of those side-effects on the front-end.

R&D is also in-part expensive because of the success rate of drug trials and the expertise necessary to conduct the experiments. I'm mostly a free-market proponent, but when a corporations own interests collide with the larger market's interests by killing or otherwise removing a large portion of the productive population from the workforce, I believe there should be regulation.

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

#65

Post by kristopolous »

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.

> patents haven't savaged the printer marketplace

I'd _agree_ with you if the EFF claimed that, but they didn't in the article linked. The EFF here isn't making broad brush claims about market structures, except maybe for this section:

> "Courts and legal scholars have long acknowledged that such restrictions impair the purchasers’ personal autonomy, interfere with efficient use of property, create confusion in markets, and increase information costs"

But even here I argue that's the wrong reading. When taken in the context of the rest of the article, this appears to be a traditional consumer advocacy approach taken from the Ralph Nader playbook.

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

#66

Post by Someone1234 »

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 is almost impossible for new competition to enter the printer market because it is so patent encumbered. That's why you can only buy a printer from Canon (inc. HP brand), Epson, Lexmark (inc. Dell brand), Samsung, and Brother.

Anyone trying to start a new printer company will get sued into the ground or blocked by a US court from even importing their printers. That's why countries without strong patent protections have a local printer brand that costs half as much or less.

It is also why we witnessed such a strong 3D printer marketplace for a while, different companies entering an unencumbered market and trying to establish a monopoly via IP protections.

Printer innovation is non-existent (outside of innovate ways to make more money, like subscriptions). That's because there's no threat to their position, nobody can go near printers and they know it.

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

#67

Post by danielweber »

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…

When I was at a start-up and had someone literally rip-off our product (including typos), we would have really liked some faster protection than the patent, which took around 2 years to issue.

As a business matter, we would have happily accepted a shorter lifespan in return for a quicker decision.

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

#68

Post by [deleted] »

Someone1234 wrote: post #66
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.

It is almost impossible for new competition to enter the printer market because it is so patent encumbered. That's why you can only buy a printer from Canon (inc. HP brand), Epson, Lexmark (inc. Dell brand), Samsung, and Brother. Anyone trying to start a new printer company will get sued into the ground or blocked by a US court from even importing their printers. That's why countries without strong patent protections…

[deleted]

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

#69

Post by zebrafish »

ue_ wrote: post #60
zebrafish wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not opposed to a different system for different industries. I'm just saying that, for example, I don't think we would've discovered a hep-c drug without the incentive of exclusive rights to sell the drug. I think the individual researchers are probably motivated by their desire to help people, but corporations don't run on altruism.

It would be nice if the tools and means of production were owned by the individual researchers, then.

So you would be a proponent of all drug companies being employee-owned partnerships?

Where does the money come from for large capital expenditures like a research facility or production line?

Post reply on HN