Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

131–140 of 145 posts

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

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are probably right. We might have to accept less innovation in order to make the products affordable.

We are being asked to make the same hard decisions that each generation before us has made. And we are doing it while being far richer and having a greater repository of knowledge than them. Something's wrong with us if we quit where they preserved in worse conditions.

WHO is far richer, and WHO should pay for it? Are we fine with these companies spending 1/4 of their combined profits and marketing on R & D, as J&J does? At best, this is a remarkably inefficient way to drive innovation.

The largest 10 pharmaceutical companies spent a combined $32.5B more on sales and marketing than R & D. No problem here? People are skipping dosing to stretch their meds further. Some people can't afford meds at all.

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

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question is what would competitors find more lucrative, calling out Lexmark through marketing, or using the precedent set to do the same thing. Unfortunately, I suspect it's the latter.

Good point. So do you think that it's just legal uncertainty that's stopped them?

Given that it's a new tactic, I think previously they didn't consider it or discounted it as not worth pursuing, but now that it's in court they are waiting to see how it goes. It's not like other companies haven't aggressively fought against third party ink refilling in other ways[1].

1: http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202769608088/HP-Sued-Over-Mas...

2: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/hp-printer-drm/

3: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-G4w0dP...

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

#133
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title is a play on the phrase "this is why we can't have nice things." To me, this reminds us that the things we have, we might not own. "Control what you do with your stuff" sounds like the concept of ownership. Yes patents do other things but according to Lexmark their patent means you don't get to do the things you traditionally get to do with the printer you bought.

To me, the phrase has always referred to a scenario where someone misuses a privilege, which is then taken away from everyone. And I don't see what that has to do with this circumstance.

We once had the privilege of refilling our machines with whatever we wanted. Now, because of the misuse of patents, we can't do that.

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

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That hasn't been true for years. HP's original Inkjet patents are long expired. That technology was a major breakthrough. They had to do fluid simulations on a supercomputer to get the ink control to work right. Someone involved once told me that intuition totally fails on that problem - fluid behavior on that scale is not at all like what one might expect.

That doesn't mean that HP wouldn't sue you for violating any number of possibly-applicable patents that are currently valid.

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

#135
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if they did do a better job of reviewing patents in certain countries, people would just shop around until they found the most lenient international patent office and file there. The US Patent office in particular decided many years ago that they simply weren't qualified to review all patents and just left it to the courts to deal with the fallout. Realistically a patent examiner cannot be qualified in all areas…

> The US Patent office in particular decided many years ago that they simply weren't qualified to review all patents and just left it to the courts to deal with the fallout.

Right... but then, in the courts, an issued patent has a presumption of validity! This is arguably the biggest problem. I believe that before a patent can be used in litigation, the patentee should have to show its validity in more depth than the PTO requires, including objective evidence of nonobviousness [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._John_Deere_Co.#The_P...

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

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> >And for most new drugs, patents expire approximately 12 years after market introduction. The length of a drug patent is 20 years, 8 of which by your statement are spent in development. So yes, almost half the patent duration is spent with the drug off the market. This is burden almost no other industry has to deal with. My original statement is completely valid. > Hence why I also consider opening up the drug mark…

* >The length of a drug patent is 20 years, 8 of which by your statement are spent in development. So yes, almost half the patent duration is spent with the drug off the market. This is burden almost no other industry has to deal with. My original statement is completely valid. And yet they seem to be doing just fine, check that stock price chart above. Part of this is because 12 years is already pretty long, they're…

>Nexium illustrates the drug makers’ strategy. Many chemicals come in two versions, each a mirror image of the other: an L-isomer and an R-isomer. (The “L” is for left, the “R” is for right.) Nexium’s predecessor Prilosec is a mixture of both isomers. When Prilosec’s patent expired in 2001, the drug maker was ready with Nexium, which contains only the L-isomer.

And yet, prilosec is an OTC medication which anyone can buy for about 10 dollars, so who gives a shit. So what if a reformulation leads to a new patented product if the old formulation becomes a generic and is readily available? Also, reformulating to reduce dosage requirements to improve adherence is a legitimate product improvement so I don't see why it's problematic at all to seek another patent.

>An internal National Institutes of Health (NIH) document, obtained by Public Citizen through the Freedom of Information Act, shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995. (See Section III)

Yup. I'm a huge proponent of basic research and I think we can do more of it. But saying basic research "leads to" drugs is also misleading. Basic research typically only establishes that a compound has basic efficacy in a cell model or an animal model. There's a lot more work that needs to be done to validate that the compound works in a human.

> American citizens alone bear the cost of R&D for the world because every other country sets price ceilings?

Yes, pretty much. We subsidize drug development for much of the world.

> Also, I'll just once again point out that our drug development industry is not struggling! It's doing great right now, they spend lots of money on dividends and stock buybacks and advertising and still make fantastic profits. They're fine.

The whole stock market is doing great right now. By this logic everyone should drop the price on all goods because their stock prices are going up.

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

#137
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This problem can be solved with a voluntary certification, just don't buy pills, that are not certified by government or some organization you trust.

Do you really think that sick people are in a position to look up who certified the drug they're taking?

I think not taking any drugs that doesn't have "FDA approved" label on a package should be enough?

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

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That hasn't been true for years. HP's original Inkjet patents are long expired. That technology was a major breakthrough. They had to do fluid simulations on a supercomputer to get the ink control to work right. Someone involved once told me that intuition totally fails on that problem - fluid behavior on that scale is not at all like what one might expect.

That doesn't mean that HP wouldn't sue you for violating any number of possibly-applicable patents that are currently valid.

If you make an exact copy of that first inkjet they cannot sue you.

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

#140

Just adding 2 words to the sentence feels more logical. "Patents Are a Big Part of Why We Can’t Own Nice Things for free."

It may feel logical, but it isn't. The Lexmark suit isn't about free products, it's about them being able to restrict what you do with a product AFTER you paid for it. You probably should read the entire article before chiming in.

Not just restrict but total control. It is the direct control over the right to property.

What would happen if lexmark made wood for houses instead of printer cartridges? Would they have control over your home made with wood?

Post reply on HN