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

Reforming the Patent System Toward a Minimalist System

becker-posner-blog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Reforming the Patent System Toward a Minimalist System

#41

Post by loup-vaillant »

pinaceae wrote: post #33
loup-vaillant wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have problem A, which is alleviated by crutch B. Therefore, do not remove the crutch. No. If there is a problem with the FDA approval system, let's fix that. Unless it's even more hopeless than reforming (or abolishing) the patent system? > the whole patent system was invented for a reason. Yes, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. What matters is what the patent system actually does, and the consequences of re…

I don't get your point. The FDA approval system is not the problem. It is scientific and one of the toughest approval processes worldwide. It has improved dramatically in the last 15 years. Speeding up the process would be dangerous as it is about human health and side effects take time to surface. You want to be really sure before you approve a new molecule. Contergan showed what can go wrong. And the FDA process be…

Okay, if we can't help it, let's have an expensive approval procedure. I'm willing to accept this cost is a necessary evil. That doesn't mean however that patents are the only solution. There are other forms of government interventions.

We could make a Manhattan project dedicated at lengthening healthy life expectancy, for instance (who wouldn't like to live a few more healthy decades?). Or we could grant more money to private parties making promising claims. Or we could grant prizes for achieving particular goals (like finding a cure or a vaccine for such and such disease).

> Transparency is important. Just like openly documented patent claims.

The document is a good thing. The monopoly that goes with it is another matter. Promising a monopoly over inventions speed inventors up, but granting one such monopoly slows everyone else down. Plus the costs induced by the patent approval system, and litigations. I doubt this is a good trade-off.

Re: Reforming the Patent System Toward a Minimalist System

#42

Post by loup-vaillant »

btilly wrote: post #38
loup-vaillant wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have problem A, which is alleviated by crutch B. Therefore, do not remove the crutch. No. If there is a problem with the FDA approval system, let's fix that. Unless it's even more hopeless than reforming (or abolishing) the patent system? > the whole patent system was invented for a reason. Yes, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. What matters is what the patent system actually does, and the consequences of re…

What problem do you want to fix? If we do not want babies born with flippers in this country, then we need expensive approval tests. (Those who don't get the reference should look up thalidomide - which the FDA kept out of the USA.) Those currently cost an average of something like $150 million per drug. The temporary monopoly provided by patents lets us get those costs recouped. That said I don't think that pharmace…

I thought the FDA approval system where too big, inefficient, and didn't always addresses the right problems. I also thought solving this would significantly reduce costs, and therefore work towards removing the need for government intervention like patents.

The other comments around here show that I was probably mistaken. We probably need the FDA as it is now (or close to that), and we probably need something else to compensate for FDA's unavoidable flaws, and the sheer difficulty of doing research.

It just doesn't need to be patents.

Re: Reforming the Patent System Toward a Minimalist System

#43

Post by khmel »

danielweber wrote: post #37
khmel wrote: post #2

Patents bring the following trade-off: inventor monopoly defendence vs. block of progress\future use cases utilizing patent. So patents both are enforcing and slowing innovation. This could be fixed with with the following solution that will maximize public good. There're no good reason for 20 years patent periods in some industries with short cycle of product development, like software, mobile, cloud etc. Cleraly, a…

The 2-3 year wait on getting a patent issued can be an eternity in software while a competitor has ripped you off soon after you released. Anyone who has been in that case would gladly trade a term of half the length for a granting that took place twice as quickly. I think software needs a new kind of protection, that issues faster, makes it easier for other people to search, and expires sooner.

I agree

Re: Reforming the Patent System Toward a Minimalist System

#44

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #14
jaekwon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any big company can pour any large amount of money to "innovate", which will probably help them bring the product to market sooner, but that isn't justification for a temporary monopoly grant. "Cheap to copy" sounds like something to be embraced.

The issue is that in economic terms, the amount of money required to innovate is absolutely relevant. There is no need for any incentive if the company can recoup that figure before competitors copy the invention.

[deleted]

Re: Reforming the Patent System Toward a Minimalist System

#45

Post by jaekwon »

rayiner wrote: post #11
jaekwon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'd probably have better and cheaper drugs without the patent system. If more companies can make and sell the same drug, more companies can also fund research. Patents should be categorically banned.

Think of this in more precise economic terms. Say it takes $X to develop an invention that produces $Y of social benefit. If the invention is cheaply and easily copyable, people won't invest the $X unless they can recoup at least $X + some profit out of the $Y of social benefit. It's a classic free-rider problem. It's the economic reason why we have government-funded defense instead of private defense.

You're assuming that there exists some finite $X to develop some invention, as if you simply pour enough money into a problem, a solution will be found.

This is faulty logic. There is no direct correlation between money spent to develop, and outcome of desired invention/solution. Name one disease that needs to be treated/cured, and how much more money needs to be spent on R&D to find the solution. Nobody can do that. Ergo, your math does not apply.

When you let free-riding happen, (e.g. ban patents and allow copying of inventions, not to be confused with copying of brand), you let grass-roots innovation happen. More people get to understand the problem domain, more cheaply than any monopoly can manage.

Re: Reforming the Patent System Toward a Minimalist System

#46

Post by [deleted] »

pinaceae wrote: post #9
jaekwon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'd probably have better and cheaper drugs without the patent system. If more companies can make and sell the same drug, more companies can also fund research. Patents should be categorically banned.

no. the upfront costs for pharma development are prohibitive. the chances of a new molecule making it through clinical trials is really small. the economic crisis has put a lot of emphasis on efficacy for inclusion on various formulary schemes, be it private ones like in the US or state-run ones like in EU. now you need an approved product that is also not only marginally better than existing stuff. just takes away s…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN