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

Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#21

Post by einhverfr »

joshAg wrote: post #14
marshray wrote: post #3

I wonder if they would consider CPR to be patentable. Truly Dr. Heimlich missed an opportunity when he failed to patent his "trademark" maneuver. In the future, perhaps we'll be expected to wear bracelets (or microchips) that tell the paramedics on which life-saving techniques we're up-to-date on our licensing payments.

I think it's more reasonable that doctors or health care providers or health insurance companies will be the ones that actually have to license any patents because that's where the money is. It's not like consumers need to keep a bracelet or file of all the patents they've licensed so they know which software and hardware they can buy. Can you imagine not being able to get a cast because your hmo didn't license the p…

Here's a good example though. Serafem is basically prosac, but it's approved for treating severe PMS basically. They license the patent for that correlation from MIT.

A doctor prescribing generic prosac instead would then be violating MIT's patent.

Unfortunately here medical patents are already here. I don't think the Supreme Court is going to switch course either. What we really need is for Congress to act and impose compulsatory licensing on all patents if the end technology is a medical one. This is also what is needed to bring medical costs down in this country. Unfortunately Congress is in the hands of big business so they will probably run the other direction....

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#22

Post by _delirium »

leot wrote: post #19
wtn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be interested to hear about the Ticketmaster class action settlement I learned I was a party to in my email this morning. Lawyers get $16 million, members of the class get coupons on future Ticketmaster purchases.

It's amazing that so many entrepreneurs seem to hate the large payments that class action lawyers are awarded. Class action lawyers perform the same kind of high-risk high-reward gamble that startups engage in. While tech startups create value by making something useful, these lawyers create value by keeping powerful interests honest. The idea that they are unnecessary or should be capped because consumers will just…

I think the main source of dislike is that the lawyers appear to be the only ones profiting: they receive substantial payouts, the lead plaintiffs they talk to receive payments, but the bulk of the class they supposedly represent receives worthless coupons. The suspicion is that they're negotiating primarily for themselves, willing to sell out the class with a shitty settlement, as long as they themselves get a good payout from it.

I've been reasonably happy with class-action lawyers when they've negotiated actual, non-trivial cash-money payments for their class. But Ticketmaster store credit, so they can take home money while failing to get anything for the class they supposedly represent? Fuck off. I filed an objection to the proposed settlement when I received that offensive proposal. If all they can negotiate is $1.50 in store credit, then I think we can safely say that they failed in their lawsuit, and shouldn't get any payment.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#23

Post by beedogs »

wtn wrote: post #12
Mediocrity wrote: post #2

At this point I might just change careers. Lawyer sounds like a pretty good gig right now.

You might be interested to hear about the Ticketmaster class action settlement I learned I was a party to in my email this morning. Lawyers get $16 million, members of the class get coupons on future Ticketmaster purchases.

It's even funnier than that. The coupons are for $1.50 each, and you're allowed a maximum of 17 of them, no matter how many tickets you actually purchased over the years. Thanks, Ticketmaster!

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#25

Post by jm4 »

The Supreme Court does not "legalize" anything. They interpret existing laws and decide on their legality. They can't shoot it down just because it sucks. Their decision is based on whether or not the law runs afoul of the Constitution. Don't like the law? Blame the a-holes who wrote it. Better yet, try to get it changed.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#26

Post by ireadzalot »

shadowfiend wrote: post #11

This is an extremely foolish title, and the tone of the article is likewise foolish. It's highly unlikely the Supreme Court has not read the amicus briefs, and almost impossible that they will not before passing judgement. These are not 9 people picked off the street and thrown on the bench to judge what the application of law is, and they don't mess around. Reading pretty much any Supreme Court decision will show yo…

To add to your point about the justices, Chief Justice Roberts is on the record for saying that it is not unusual for him to go through 20-25 drafts before he signs off his opinion on a case. You can watch him saying that here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/286078-1

His says this around 42:45 min into the video.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#27

Post by scarmig »

jm4 wrote: post #25

The Supreme Court does not "legalize" anything. They interpret existing laws and decide on their legality. They can't shoot it down just because it sucks. Their decision is based on whether or not the law runs afoul of the Constitution. Don't like the law? Blame the a-holes who wrote it. Better yet, try to get it changed.

It's very... sanguine of you to think the Supreme Court is full of bloodless rationalists, computers that read statutes and, via sheer force of deductive reasoning, come to a conclusion.

In reality, the Supreme Court is supremely political, and they regularly do shoot down a law because they think it sucks or approve a law because shooting it down would make people angry.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#28

Post by waterlesscloud »

scarmig wrote: post #27
jm4 wrote: post #25

The Supreme Court does not "legalize" anything. They interpret existing laws and decide on their legality. They can't shoot it down just because it sucks. Their decision is based on whether or not the law runs afoul of the Constitution. Don't like the law? Blame the a-holes who wrote it. Better yet, try to get it changed.

It's very... sanguine of you to think the Supreme Court is full of bloodless rationalists, computers that read statutes and, via sheer force of deductive reasoning, come to a conclusion. In reality, the Supreme Court is supremely political, and they regularly do shoot down a law because they think it sucks or approve a law because shooting it down would make people angry.

Please provide examples of both assertions.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#29

Post by austenallred »

I just hope medical patents are as easy to patent as some technical patents. That way I'll snake the "cure for cancer" patent right now and then troll anyone who tries to use it later.

I have no problem with patents if you are patenting an actual, working, viable product, when when you can patent an "idea" the entire purpose of a patent turns into a market full of arbitrage.

Re: Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

#30

Post by leot »

_delirium wrote: post #22
leot wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing that so many entrepreneurs seem to hate the large payments that class action lawyers are awarded. Class action lawyers perform the same kind of high-risk high-reward gamble that startups engage in. While tech startups create value by making something useful, these lawyers create value by keeping powerful interests honest. The idea that they are unnecessary or should be capped because consumers will just…

I think the main source of dislike is that the lawyers appear to be the only ones profiting: they receive substantial payouts, the lead plaintiffs they talk to receive payments, but the bulk of the class they supposedly represent receives worthless coupons. The suspicion is that they're negotiating primarily for themselves, willing to sell out the class with a shitty settlement, as long as they themselves get a good…

Sounds like a problem of the selection of legal representation. It seems there needs to be some, ah, website that helps to put together groups of plaintiffs and organizes the process of selecting a good legal team to represent them ...

... if the website got 0.25% of every settlement, it could be pretty lucrative.

Post reply on HN