161–170 of 227 posts
Does anyone else find it appalling that the American government and American companies have the gall to complain about intellectual property violations in developing countries like China and India? Until the late 1800s, American IP law explicitly excluded foreigners from IP rights. That's right, forget about lax enforcement (like you often see in developing nations nowadays) - you could violate foreign IP rights in p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read his post about the patent cliff? The majority of blockbuster drugs are about to go off of patent protection. This is where the majority (if not all) of the profit in the industry comes from, as well as a huge chunk of the rests of their costs. It's an interesting time in the industry but the patent cliff is real and the industry is going to change quite a bit more in the next few years. The model is abso…
Why would we want to sustain the current model again? What's to say that whatever new model crops up in its place won't be better? I can't really think of any industry that had their business model collapse that didn't come out of it better than they had been. Individual players, technologies and processes may disappear, but it's not like demand will, and so long as there is demand, there is a potential market.
But ultimately I agree, we may be in for a rough transitory period as far as drug research goes, but what arises from the ashes will likely be a far leaner and more effective beast. It's not like scientists care who is paying the bills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read his post about the patent cliff? The majority of blockbuster drugs are about to go off of patent protection. This is where the majority (if not all) of the profit in the industry comes from, as well as a huge chunk of the rests of their costs. It's an interesting time in the industry but the patent cliff is real and the industry is going to change quite a bit more in the next few years. The model is abso…
Why would we want to sustain the current model again? What's to say that whatever new model crops up in its place won't be better? I can't really think of any industry that had their business model collapse that didn't come out of it better than they had been. Individual players, technologies and processes may disappear, but it's not like demand will, and so long as there is demand, there is a potential market.
But ultimately I agree, we may be in for a rough transitory period as far as drug research goes, but what arises from the ashes will likely be a far leaner and more effective beast. It's not like scientists care who is paying the bills.
And on the flip side of intellectual property, the US is able to extradite a kid over piracy of TV shows? (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3699325)
Neither seems right to me. Maybe they aren't the same thing, but if ThePirateBay was sending the MPAA checks for 6% of what they made on the site, and saying "This should make it right, you weren't cheap enough so we distributed it ourselves" then the US would be trying to seize and detain people involved.
Hasn't India signed some intellectual property treaty with... well pretty much the rest of the world? How in the world can they do this?
And totally on the flip side- props to India for sticking it to the man. Kinda...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm honestly gobsmacked that our model of health and physiology is so primitive that it doesn't use the most widely available treatment as a first line approach, which, as you point out, is the placebo effect. Why are so many resources being wasted on developing new chemicals when the brain can seemingly perform the same functions with nothing? I get that for a lot of things you need a physical intervention, but shou…
The placebo effect only really changes self-reported symptoms. It makes people feel much better and that shouldn't be discounted, but it doesn't change things you can make objective measurements of - like whether the patient is alive or dead.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/cannabinoids-place...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm honestly gobsmacked that our model of health and physiology is so primitive that it doesn't use the most widely available treatment as a first line approach, which, as you point out, is the placebo effect. Why are so many resources being wasted on developing new chemicals when the brain can seemingly perform the same functions with nothing? I get that for a lot of things you need a physical intervention, but shou…
Because people will find out it's a placebo, and it will stop working.
i.e. if they see they got better on the placebo they won't care when they find out - they have clear evidence that it does work.
Does anyone else find it appalling that the American government and American companies have the gall to complain about intellectual property violations in developing countries like China and India? Until the late 1800s, American IP law explicitly excluded foreigners from IP rights. That's right, forget about lax enforcement (like you often see in developing nations nowadays) - you could violate foreign IP rights in p…
[deleted]
The US approved IP protection for foreigners when Americans wanted to start having their copyrights protected in other countries - something that happened when it reached developed nation status. Now, the US is criticizing developing nations for taking the same approach for their own devlopment, and not respecting IP rights until they can afford to.
Not to mention that equating IP rights violations with acts such as enslaving people or not allowing them to vote is the epitome of absurdity.
Does anyone else find it appalling that the American government and American companies have the gall to complain about intellectual property violations in developing countries like China and India? Until the late 1800s, American IP law explicitly excluded foreigners from IP rights. That's right, forget about lax enforcement (like you often see in developing nations nowadays) - you could violate foreign IP rights in p…
It is a bit appalling that you expect nothing to change in 200 years though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You don't need to be an industry expert to grok that those numbers are wildly unsustainable. Tell you what. When these companies stop being the most profitable in America, or even just when their EPS starts declining, I'll believe you.
Take a closer look at the post, and you'll see that what JunkDNA just said is that is going to happen, and hard . Right now they run about a 17% profit margin [1]. If they lose their cash cows en masse , that's going to go negative, fast. That's not that great a profit margin from that point of view. What are they going to do then? The only thing they really can, slash costs. It seems unlikely the all the slashing is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somewhere out there, a business model is waiting to be found. I hope so, because the current one isn't working for consumers. Even with the billions spent on R&D, it turns out that many of the drugs Big Pharma turns out are no better than placebos. It's not hard to see why: a big company spends X amount on each failure and needs a 10X hit to offset the costs. If one doesn't materialize, it's not hard to rig the stati…
Actually it's almost impossible to rig the statistics. And every drug on the market has shown efficacy compared to placebo in large tests calle phase 3 clinical trials.
Pretty sure the opposite has been proven, e.g. GSK's shenanigans with paroxetine.