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

The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

m.theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 124 posts

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#21

Post by refurb »

alexqgb wrote: post #18
rauljara wrote: post #4

> The poster child for strong patent protection is usually the pharmaceutical industry, as drugs are easily copied and can cost upwards of a billion dollars to develop. Here, Boldrin and Levine admit that the government would likely need to step in. But rather than giving companies a legal monopoly over their formulas, the authors suggest we should modify the drug approval process to let makers start recouping their…

I'm always astonished by the idea that, were it not for patents and the profits they promise, "no motivation to develop drugs would exist". At one point I worked with a group that raised money to finance medical research for patients with lupus. These were folks who were seen as too few, and suffering from something too complex, to be profitable. For the most part they were relying on some pretty toxic treatments tha…

Tens of millions of dollars won't get a drug to market. Will it fund research that could find useful leads that could produce a drug? Of course.

So how do you incentive private organizations to fork over the $100 million(1) or so it takes to get a drug to market? You provide a mechanism to regain your capital plus something more. It's a system that works pretty well.

(1) That's if everything works the first time. Since only 1 out of 10 drugs that are tested on humans get to market, it's closer to $1 billion on average.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#22

Post by olliesaunders »

The pharmaceuticals industry could never have grown so big without patents. That kind of drug research would have had to been done by publicly-funded bodies, such as universities. I kind of feel like this is an argument in favor of this article. It also explains why it will never happen. Now that we have big-pharma how are we doing to disassemble the thing that keeps it alive?

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#24

Post by 1veteran »

1. Software costs next to nothing to produce. Why is it so easy to have startups in this sector? What is the overhead of a software/web company? It is almost all intellectual. Ask Microsoft. Pure profit.

2. It is difficult for examiners to find prior art because there is no "official" channel for "publishing" software research that they recognise. There is much know-how that is common knowledge among developers but is never published in any paper, textbook, standard, RFC, etc. The "database" for searching all these sources may end being a web search engine. That is not ideal.

1. Drugs are very expensive to produce. Not only the research, the equipment, the staff, but compliance with the regulatory regime. There are no protections against bad software to protect users (developers operate in a wild west type atmosphere), but we have many rules about medicines. These are designed to protect patients. Can you imagine an unregulated pharma industry? Profits take precedence over safety. It would be very dangerous for patients.

2. There is a littany of journals that public chemical, biological and medical research and they can all be searched easily in combined databases, to which most all pharmaceutical patent owners subscribe. It is not too difficult for examiners to find prior art and establish publication dates.

These are my thoughts.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#25

Post by y1426i »

Thinking about this, the reverse might also work. Automate the process of granting patents such that patents are granted solely based on algorithms and prior art automated search. That way every one can get every patent immediately.

The work of the patent office then would be to validate the patents when there is a conflict, as a pre-requisite for a lawsuit. The office would have less work to do relatively I would think and hopefully would have more time to review the patents when they come to their desks that way.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#26

Post by rayiner »

savrajsingh wrote: post #3

It's an interesting thought experiment. If all patents disappeared tomorrow, what would you do differently at your startup? Probably nothing?

The startup I worked at would've closed up shop.

Most HN-ers work on web startups where $100k is a lot of capital and time to market is everything. I don't think they have a good grasp on the mechanics of industries where you can burn through $100k in a few weeks and where a usable product might take 3-5 years or more to make it to market.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#27

Post by tetomb »

rustynails77 wrote: post #19
panabee wrote: post #6

The patent system somehow has morphed from shield to sword. Protecting inventors is one path toward innovation, but it should be a byproduct of maximizing innovation and not the end state. If the objective of the patent system is to foster innovation, then it should grant patents only if they are necessary for innovation, i.e., innovation wouldn't reasonably occur otherwise. Amazon's one-click patent versus drug pate…

I like that idea, and I believe it rings true with most responsible people. However, it's difficult to measure. As an example, in the recent Apple v/s Samsung, if it weren't for Apple, we would still be dealing with shitty Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson phones with crap OSes, no decent applications, and the phones would be anything but smart - because there was no need to improve. Once Apple made everyone lift thei…

"Would the innovation have happened if Apple hadn't driven it? Not any time soon."

I am fascinated by this statement. What evidence do you have to support it?

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#28

Post by seanalltogether »

panabee wrote: post #6

The patent system somehow has morphed from shield to sword. Protecting inventors is one path toward innovation, but it should be a byproduct of maximizing innovation and not the end state. If the objective of the patent system is to foster innovation, then it should grant patents only if they are necessary for innovation, i.e., innovation wouldn't reasonably occur otherwise. Amazon's one-click patent versus drug pate…

It seems we could solve this by adding some conditions around lifetime and protections offered by a patent. if you are a small company you are afforded maximum protections on your patent. If you're large scale company that has delivered products based on features you've patented, your patent stops being valid after 3 or 4 years. If you aren't actively trying to develop or sell a product based on a patented feature, the lifetime of the patent also is significantly reduced.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#29

Post by marshray »

olliesaunders wrote: post #22

The pharmaceuticals industry could never have grown so big without patents. That kind of drug research would have had to been done by publicly-funded bodies, such as universities. I kind of feel like this is an argument in favor of this article. It also explains why it will never happen. Now that we have big-pharma how are we doing to disassemble the thing that keeps it alive?

Simple, recognize that pharaceuticals are a highly special case and develop a custom set of protections/incentives. There is already a mountain of custom regulation for that industry.

It's absurd to think that the same age-of-steam monopoly grant system that currently sorta benefits the pharmaceutical industry should also apply to software, websites, business methods, and exercising one's cat.

It's completely retarded. In the literal sense, i.e., holding progress back. End the retardedness now!

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#30

Post by nitrogen »

dfc wrote: post #11
rauljara wrote: post #4

> The poster child for strong patent protection is usually the pharmaceutical industry, as drugs are easily copied and can cost upwards of a billion dollars to develop. Here, Boldrin and Levine admit that the government would likely need to step in. But rather than giving companies a legal monopoly over their formulas, the authors suggest we should modify the drug approval process to let makers start recouping their…

I was struck by how little effort the author put into describing the proposed solution for "the poster child for patents." Is the Atlantic going downhill? How do you let drug companies recoup costs quicker without reducing the oversight that goes into drug approval? I am also a little curious about the free market implications. Instead of the invisible hand guiding drug development we will be relying on government au…

I don't see (har har) an invisible hand guiding commercial pharmaceutical development. I see an oligopoly of pharmaceutical corporations acting out of unenlightened self interest. From my layman's perspective, it seems that curing diseases is largely done by government- and university-funded research, while treating symptoms for profit is the domain of corporate R&D.
Post reply on HN