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

Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#71

Post by chimeracoder »

JackFr wrote: post #70
netcan wrote: post #69

Patent systems are definitely broken. I think that’s the conclusion of most neutral observers starting fresh and that digging past the purely abstract or ideological level. The reason it’s hard to do something about is that patents are property and the legal setup for property is foundational to an economy. Patents are absolutely fundamental to the way medical research works today, especially the search for new treat…

I am not an expert on the economics of pharmaceuticals, however based on work of an expert I have come to believe that patents are not essential to the way medical research works today. Patents are essential to the current business model of pharmaceutical companies -- they are necessary to guarantee a return on investment, but the portion of the investment devoted to R&D and clinical trials is dwarfed by the marketin…

> I have come to believe that patents are not essential to the way medical research works today.

> Patents are essential to the current business model of pharmaceutical companies -- they are necessary to guarantee a return on investment, but the portion of the investment devoted to R&D and clinical trials is dwarfed by the marketing.

Your comment contradicts itself.

If, as you say, patents are "necessary to guarantee a return on investment", then it doesn't matter if the R&D is the largest cost or not, because the company won't produce a profit (and therefore won't produce new drugs) without the patent.

In fact, it's quite reasonable to think that both massive marketing and time-limited protection from competition are necessary to ensure enough of a return to guarantee continued investment into the industry. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#72

Post by netcan »

JackFr wrote: post #70
netcan wrote: post #69

Patent systems are definitely broken. I think that’s the conclusion of most neutral observers starting fresh and that digging past the purely abstract or ideological level. The reason it’s hard to do something about is that patents are property and the legal setup for property is foundational to an economy. Patents are absolutely fundamental to the way medical research works today, especially the search for new treat…

I am not an expert on the economics of pharmaceuticals, however based on work of an expert I have come to believe that patents are not essential to the way medical research works today. Patents are essential to the current business model of pharmaceutical companies -- they are necessary to guarantee a return on investment, but the portion of the investment devoted to R&D and clinical trials is dwarfed by the marketin…

That's not an unreasonable perspective. But is the dynamic he describes predictable, is it the only dynamic or at least the dominant one? I assume he is not suggesting that the only effect will be minor adjustments to the way these industries work. If patents disappeared tomorrow, a tornado would run through the pharmaceutical world.

That doesn't mean that there aren't gains to be had from a moderate version of that approach. I just don't think there is a theoretical framework capable of telling us the right answer in economics. Economics is at its best more similar to zoology than physics. Zoology will not accurately predict the way species and populations will react to a reduction in available water sources or the introduction of new species. On the rare occasions that it's feasible, repeating the experiment will rarely yield the same result.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#73

Post by belorn »

netcan wrote: post #69

Patent systems are definitely broken. I think that’s the conclusion of most neutral observers starting fresh and that digging past the purely abstract or ideological level. The reason it’s hard to do something about is that patents are property and the legal setup for property is foundational to an economy. Patents are absolutely fundamental to the way medical research works today, especially the search for new treat…

> the legal setup for property is foundational to an economy.

I would agree on that had we not recently had a massive change away from products and property and into service and contracts. Citizens do not own cars, coffee machines, or books. They house devices which they have a licensed permission to use, and it is contract law that rules and not property law.

Patents could also easily be redefined as a contract between state and inventor, where inventor provide knowledge in return for privilege and protection. It doesn't change anything for the economy, but it would remove the need to talk about property and it would imply that the contract could be changed in the future.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#74

Post by dragonwriter »

belorn wrote: post #73
netcan wrote: post #69

Patent systems are definitely broken. I think that’s the conclusion of most neutral observers starting fresh and that digging past the purely abstract or ideological level. The reason it’s hard to do something about is that patents are property and the legal setup for property is foundational to an economy. Patents are absolutely fundamental to the way medical research works today, especially the search for new treat…

> the legal setup for property is foundational to an economy. I would agree on that had we not recently had a massive change away from products and property and into service and contracts. Citizens do not own cars, coffee machines, or books. They house devices which they have a licensed permission to use, and it is contract law that rules and not property law. Patents could also easily be redefined as a contract betw…

Contract-derived interests rely on the parties to the contract having underlying property interests that can be exchanged via contact, so, no, contracts don't get you it off dealing with property law, since they depend on it.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#75

Post by belorn »

dragonwriter wrote: post #74
belorn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the legal setup for property is foundational to an economy. I would agree on that had we not recently had a massive change away from products and property and into service and contracts. Citizens do not own cars, coffee machines, or books. They house devices which they have a licensed permission to use, and it is contract law that rules and not property law. Patents could also easily be redefined as a contract betw…

Contract-derived interests rely on the parties to the contract having underlying property interests that can be exchanged via contact, so, no, contracts don't get you it off dealing with property law, since they depend on it.

Currently, contract law do not dictate if it can be exchanged. E-books might or might not be transferable, and its currently up to the e-book seller to decide if that is the case. Property law, as far as e-books are property, do not come into effect unless e-book is made to be governed by property rules.

Could you explain how property law comes into effect in this case? If it does not, why could patents not be treated in the exact same and equal way.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#76

Post by JackFr »

chimeracoder wrote: post #71
JackFr wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not an expert on the economics of pharmaceuticals, however based on work of an expert I have come to believe that patents are not essential to the way medical research works today. Patents are essential to the current business model of pharmaceutical companies -- they are necessary to guarantee a return on investment, but the portion of the investment devoted to R&D and clinical trials is dwarfed by the marketin…

> I have come to believe that patents are not essential to the way medical research works today. > Patents are essential to the current business model of pharmaceutical companies -- they are necessary to guarantee a return on investment, but the portion of the investment devoted to R&D and clinical trials is dwarfed by the marketing. Your comment contradicts itself. If, as you say, patents are "necessary to guarantee…

You're right -- it was not carefully written. My point is that the current pharma business model is not essential to medical research in general (rather than research today).

Patent protection for drugs (and chemicals in general) was weak or non-existent in Europe until the 1970's, and despite that there was research and development of drugs.

I think the system we have today is largely driven by the patent mechanism, and while not terrible, could be made better by tweaking the patent system.

The government sponsored monopoly is supposed to guarantee a return on the R&D, not guarantee the return on Superbowl ads for another erectile dysfunction drug.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#77

Post by dragonwriter »

belorn wrote: post #75
dragonwriter wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contract-derived interests rely on the parties to the contract having underlying property interests that can be exchanged via contact, so, no, contracts don't get you it off dealing with property law, since they depend on it.

Currently, contract law do not dictate if it can be exchanged. E-books might or might not be transferable, and its currently up to the e-book seller to decide if that is the case. Property law, as far as e-books are property, do not come into effect unless e-book is made to be governed by property rules. Could you explain how property law comes into effect in this case? If it does not, why could patents not be treate…

Property law is what provides the rights that are then sold by contract; in the case of ebooks, the rights specifically originate in copyright law. That's why the eBook seller had the choice of what rights (including whether or not they are transferable) to include in the contracts by which it transfers some rights to consumers.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#78

Post by aylons »

icebraining wrote: post #68
aylons wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, both the urge and the power to lobby against the interest of the people come from the private and profitable nature of their interests. It was not a punctual failing of the moralities of the companies, it is a consequence of a system that stimulates them to do it and given them the power to do it successfully.

But what actually hurt the people wasn't the lobbying, it was the actual banning of the CFCs in medicinal applications, which wasn't made by company with private and profitable interests, but by the government!

What I believe you're missing is that the government is not an isolated entity in a vacuum. Its made of people and groups that make their case and express their interests.

In this case the interests of the private company prevailed. Notice that the proposal of not banning CFCs in medicinal applications was also a decision to be made by the government, but the pressure from the other side was simply not enough.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#79

Post by alphapapa »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #51
alphapapa wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents. We are all poorer--as a society--when some people profit at others' suffering. You are demonstrating precisely the problem mentality that I am pointing out. Please wake up.

> That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents. What do you propose to measure it in then? There are situations where you can save X number of lives by doing Y hours of labor, and there are cases where Y is so much larger than X that you have to say no, we aren't going to do that. How do you propose to make that kind of decision without using some c…

Your comparison is a bit apples-and-oranges. I'm talking about a situation in which a corporation can decide to either a) do something, make more profit, but harm other people in the process; or b) not do that something, make less profit, and leave others unharmed.

In such a situation, the choice should be made without metrics and comparisons--it's a matter of right vs. wrong. That is what is missing from the decision-making process: morality.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#80

Post by alphapapa »

angersock wrote: post #49
alphapapa wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously "we" have not agreed that that is the case. > Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can. And that attitude is why we can't have nice things. That would be what's known as "enabling." How about, "It's unreasonable to expect a beer company to do anything other than sell as much alcohol as they can, however they can, to whomever they can.…

And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live. Unless the destruction occurs outside of the realm (spatial or temporal) of the shareholders, in which case the destruction can rightfully be modeled as an externality and ignored. I don't know where this idea that "companies are required or expected to mak…

> Unless the destruction occurs outside of the realm (spatial or temporal) of the shareholders, in which case the destruction can rightfully be modeled as an externality and ignored. ... It's more dangerous to assume that corporations can be held to task than it is to assume that they are amoral profit-seeking entities. Only in the former case are you unpleasantly surprised if you're wrong.

You are missing the point just as the gp did. I never said that corporations can be held to task for such things.

I'm talking about what they _should_ do, i.e. right vs. wrong, i.e. morality. And such hypothetical destruction cannot _rightfully_ be ignored, because to do so is _morally wrong._

_That_ is the point. By continuing to miss it you are further illustrating the problem. Please wake up.

Post reply on HN