81–90 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cars, then?
No analogies. It is what it is. Markush groups, as GP mentioned, are there specifically for chemical patents. So that's what's shaped the patent law, not software or cars.
Maybe they can add a third clause to be “safe, effective, and accessible”? The history of the FDA is pretty interesting and disappointing to say the least. Especially with the supplement craze.
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-chief-approved-oxycontin...
Also if it’s patented it cannot be made generic, if expired it can. What’s the point of using the orange book?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only bogus, but if you get a hit on a scaffold you can combinatorially modify that scaffold and file it with the patent. This effectively blocks the small permutation space around the drug from further investigation or development. There's lot of promising science that can't be done because incumbents are so adversarial about patent space for structures they don't even care about. To make matters worse, patent da…
It's not bizarre at all. Early hits are step 0.1 in bringing a drug to market. You patent a large space that gives you room to optimize the structure in terms of safety, efficacy, Pk, metabolites, etc. Very rarely would you ever get 1 hit in a huge combinatorial screen. You'd likely get a few dozen. But you have no idea which ones would the best. The company will usually nominate 5 or 6 hits (across the scaffold spac…
I don’t really understand this argument. Patent law is just another moat. If it doesn’t exist for all competitors, it’s just different baseline for calculations. The market is still big and attractive, so all those who give up will open space for those who figured out how to survive without patents. Likely this will lead to a bigger concentration of capital, because in the absence of patent protections you may need to spend more on security. But it is happening anyway for other reasons, so we have to deal with monopolies anyway.
I've been taking the "blockbuster drug", Humira/Adalimumab, for more than 10 years. Humira alone is estimated to have generated US$200 billion in profits for a single company. Its history, its legal and commercial maneuvers are appalling and possibly the poster child for what is wrong with the patent system. And how public money originally funds much of the research into these drugs. This year I finally started takin…
I have been taking Humira for close to 7 years now. What disgusted me was not just the antics of AbbVie in patent protecting Humira, but how my brother (who works at AbbVie) began justifying their acrimonious practices. Although, thankfully now there are a bunch of biosimilars coming onto the market, so we can expect to see further price decreases. For a manufacturing project, we contracted out a study recently on th…
They can occasionally do some good things, but the large companies are no more ethical than Comcast. The small companies vary, but often have little real goals other than making the C-suite a few extra million no matter what.
The last small pharma I left discontinued all of their RNA sequencing experiments because they were worried about the data existing and it causing issues with FDA clearance down-the-line. Basically, don’t study it because it could show bad side-effects…but all of these PhD’s are making the world a better place, good job! Make sure to get married so you can afford a crappy townhome.
Gross.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, if the argument is PTO should be better resources so that patents can undergo more rigorous evaluation, you won't get an argument from me. You're not supposed to patent anything you haven't actually made, however, there is no validation of that and as a result patent applicants are incentivized to patent as broad a space as possible. However, if we did move to a "single molecule, single patent" approach, the…
There is an easy solution, you already can't patent cooking recipes. So why allow chemical recipes? To those that say that would stifle innovation, well historic evidence is inconclusive at best, e.g. the development of the pharmaceutical industries in the US, Germany and Switzerland saw thr biggest industry develop in Switzerland who did not have any patent protection followed by Germany, where only processes not ch…
And considering the pharma industry never really took off until the mid-century I’m not sure your claim of “saw the biggest industry develop” before the parents we have today holds any weight.
If they were serious then they would put the CEOs in jail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not bizarre at all. Early hits are step 0.1 in bringing a drug to market. You patent a large space that gives you room to optimize the structure in terms of safety, efficacy, Pk, metabolites, etc. Very rarely would you ever get 1 hit in a huge combinatorial screen. You'd likely get a few dozen. But you have no idea which ones would the best. The company will usually nominate 5 or 6 hits (across the scaffold spac…
> not both[er] developing the drug further unless they were 100% certain it was the right one (which I've never seen) I don’t really understand this argument. Patent law is just another moat. If it doesn’t exist for all competitors, it’s just different baseline for calculations. The market is still big and attractive, so all those who give up will open space for those who figured out how to survive without patents. L…
Financially it makes zero sense.
And if the logic is - well the government can fund the research (which is a huge stretch since Pharma R&D is several multiple of gov't funding today), ok, but then you end up paying for the medicine through taxes instead.
If they were serious then they would put the CEOs in jail.
The point of a CEO is as a fall guy. Only going after the CEO means nothing is solved, the hydra remains. Instead you have to decapitate the company’s leading structure, such as investors and high management, then hope for a systemic change which may or may not come.