Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue • Hacker News Board

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#191

Post by Guvante » Fri, Jan 31, 2014, 4:31 PM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #176

Guvante wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pharmaceuticals would be devastated. While there are externalities that need to be solved around our production of drugs, the patent system is a good thing overall for them. No one spends $1 billion to make a drug if anyone can copy it simply. Additionally there are international problems related to abolishing patents.

Why everyone think of drugs only? it required research. Just like a car required crash tests, etc.

If you prefer you can think of software. However software is protected by Copyright quite sufficiently so doesn't come up when talking about patents (well in this way).

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#192

Post by zanny » Fri, Jan 31, 2014, 6:14 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #164

greyfade wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But even in situations where pharmaceutical companies don't have patent protection, just providing a better product at lower prices to a larger, poorer market has proven to recoup costs just as well as charging $10,000 per dose on a patent drug. (I saw quotes yesterday from the founders or presidents(?) of Merck and Bayer, which espoused both philosophies, and both claimed successes.) I'm not entirely convinced that…

Let's stay: I am a pharmaceutical company, and you're a competing pharmaceutical company. I invented miracle-drug and can now produce miracle-drug at 0.04$ per pill, can you can produce miracle-drug at 0.06$ per pill. You would think I should win because I can product the pill cheaper, but the full story is your very first miracle-drug pill costs you 0.06$ and my very first miracle-drug pill cost 1.5 billion dollars.…

Yet you don't lose, because you can recoup that investment.

The alternative is to not make any money at all. As long as that drug produces you a net profit in the long run, which I imagine would fund additional research after recouping anyone investing in the project, then the fact someone else can also make money is irrelevant.

Think of it from the alt-companies perspective: X is sold at $0.06 a pill, but I could sell it for $0.04! There is demand, I can create supply, and everyone benefits except X.

But I don't buy that selfish interests wouldn't still invest heavily in medicine even if it is a risky investment - nobody considers the emotional fact that rich people do get sick, and are likely (in the absence of big pharma research) to directly invest to see the diseases they suffer or are concerned about cured or abated. Think of how kickstarter works - you throw money at a project that may or may not succeed, but it happens all the time because people want the outcomes regardless of the financial risk associated. Same could easily happen with pharma.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#193

Post by SpaceRaccoon » Fri, Jan 31, 2014, 6:53 PM UTC

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #185

SpaceRaccoon wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if manual work is required to produce this intellectual property? And isn't the intent that the rights belong to the inventor or creator?

Yes, it is. But that is not the point. The point is, that the manual labor gets less and less earnings, but the possession of the properties. How many creative products with high value are in the hands of their creators? In reality, the high earnings are not made by the inventors or creators of things, but by those that have acquired them in any way. In corporations, it is normal, that inventors just get some small f…

Makes sense.

So what is the alternative? Reformation of patent laws, or no patent laws in general?