Want Healthcare Reform That Works? Get Rid Of Patents
from the and-watch-innovation-flow dept
Economist David Levine (author of the book Against Intellectual Monopoly) has a column up at the Huffington Post, where he explains why abolishing pharma patents would be a great way to reform healthcare. He runs through many of the arguments against such a move, and explains why they don't make much sense:But, perhaps, without all those extra monopoly profits we wouldn't have such great new products? The fact is there aren't so many great new products - a well known fact among health economists is that while big pharma's spending has soared the last decade, as patent control has tightened, drug discovery has plummeted. Pharmaceutical innovation is not lower in Europe, despite of big pharma's lower monopoly profits. While the market for pharmaceuticals is now largely a global one, so local rules may not be so important, this was less true in the past. Historically, before pharmaceutical patents were introduced in Italy in 1978, that country accounted for about 8% of new pharmaceutical discoveries worldwide. After the industry was strangled by patents, that percentage dropped to practically zero. Switzerland, a powerhouse in the world drug industry, introduced pharmaceutical patents at about the same time. While Switzerland's fall has not been as dramatic as Italy's, it too is much less of a powerhouse today than it was before 1977.He also goes on to suggest some other ways to lower the costs of "drug development," as well. There's probably not much new in there if you've read his book, but it's a good, straightforward description of the problem with pharma patents. While the writing is a bit flippant, if you go through the related chapter in Levine's book, and then start reading some of the other source material and studies, it's all backed up quite strongly. There's almost no evidence that patents do anything to promote more drug discovery -- and plenty to suggest it makes medicines significantly more expensive. Ditching pharma patents would make a much more efficient market in drugs that would end up saving a lot of lives.
Patents do not seem to lead to the innovation their proponents claim. The list of examples goes on and on: the discovery of the one-dose HIV cocktail that replaced the complicated multi-pill regime? That took place in India a country that at that time did not allow pharmaceutical patents. Of the fifteen great medical milestones recently identified by the British Medical Journal - only two were patented or could be attributed to the "incentive" that patents supposedly provide. Numerous technical studies by economists of the effect of stronger patents on innovation have failed to find any consistent increase. Put it plainly: while the social gains from abolishing patents on drugs are obvious and computable, the losses are dubious and, on the basis of empirical evidence, probably nil.
Pharmaceutical patents and the resulting monopolies have many other corrosive effects, over and above raising the prices of prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies spend far more money promoting their products than on R&D. Some of the giants spend as much as four times on marketing as they do on research and development. How do these companies market their products? Most of the money goes to "scientifically convincing" the medical profession to prescribe patented products. How? Well, for example, by inviting doctors and their families to week-long conferences in exclusive resorts, where two hours are for a marketing presentation (the "medical symposium") and the rest for (all-included) leisure. A spectacular - but hardly unique - example of the level of corruption is the conviction of Pfizer for encouraging doctors to bill the government for drugs they were provided for free. These practices not only raise the cost of drugs, but corrode trust in the medical profession.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: david levine, healthcare, patents, reform
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What's that saying? Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!
The HIV cocktail that he mentioned that was created in India is in fact accurate but it was based off of drugs that were created, tested and commercialized as a result of the patent system. So really it was leaky copyright protection that resulted in this cocktail.
Perhaps his argument should be for leaky copyright protection or shorter patents, either would make more sense than no patent system at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's that saying? Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!
Heh. You should read David's writing. He's about as strongly pro-capitalist as any economist I know... and that's saying a lot.
The HIV cocktail that he mentioned that was created in India is in fact accurate but it was based off of drugs that were created, tested and commercialized as a result of the patent system. So really it was leaky copyright protection that resulted in this cocktail.
I think you mean patents, not copyright, but I think you're overstating the case to claim that they were created *as a result* of the patent system.
Perhaps his argument should be for leaky copyright protection or shorter patents, either would make more sense than no patent system at all!
Again, if you read through the full argument, he explains why that doesn't make much sense either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's that saying? Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!
While a necessary part of that reward is entitlement to personal property, patents are not property; rather, they are a government edict restricting the actions competitors can do with their own property. It seems that a lot of patent supporters are of the idea that restrictive intellectual property laws are synonymous with capitalism and free society when they are anything but.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's that saying? Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's that saying? Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!
Of course, both competitors can win too. It is just that many crony capitalists don't believe they have "won" until there is just them left standing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's that saying? Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's that saying? Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!
The fact is, capitalism cannot work without heavy regulation in large economies. Catch 22 is that with heavy regulation its no longer capitalism ... I guess you could say that it scales poorly. I think were on the verge of finally becoming the victims of our own greed as china starts looking at us with that pimp smile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thoughts
While the abolition of pharma patents would go a long ways to reducing overall costs created by inflated drug prices, corruption of the medical field, and wasteful spending on marketing, I think you'll see major industry opt for a dumbed down version of universal healthcare instead under the notion that at least if they only have to compete or operate within the government they'll be able to control that competition through campaign contributions and/or simply getting their own people, such as former executives or board members, elected.
Unfortunately, instead of having a useful discourse on a variety of options, which would include this as an example, we've been reduced to name calling (the whole "Obama is a Nazi" one is my favorite) and spewed rhetoric from both sides.
There are times when what the general public needs is a series of lectures college-style on what the options are that's out there, along with their potential pros and cons. Sadly, I'm not sure people would "go to class", so to speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thoughts
This is a complete tangent, but do you realize you've basically descibed Newton's 1st law...
In the absence of a net external force, a body either is at rest or moves with constant velocity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thoughts
This is how I see the debate portrayed as by Democrats, but the dichotomy I've noticed has been between supporters of government takeover of the health care sector and its detractors. The struggle is more of a three-way conflict between Big Pharma in one corner, Big Brother in another, and the public in the third; most of the White House's highlighted policy proposals thus far have been overwhelmingly in favor of Big Brother, while the clash comes as the public and the industry each decide how these changes will help or hurt themselves. Big Pharma, for instance, is not opposed to many of the proposals such as mandated insurance, which will only bring the incumbents with hands deep in politicians' pockets that much more money in the long run.
Unfortunately, instead of having a useful discourse on a variety of options, which would include this as an example, we've been reduced to name calling (the whole "Obama is a Nazi" one is my favorite) and spewed rhetoric from both sides.
There are times when what the general public needs is a series of lectures college-style on what the options are that's out there, along with their potential pros and cons. Sadly, I'm not sure people would "go to class", so to speak.
I agree with this for the most part; both sides generally morph their logic to justify their predefined conclusions, which were themselves derived from party doctrine. Republicans mention a lot of reasons for opposition that are mere talking points, dropping buzzwords such as "socialism" and "death panels" left and right; however, though they are often ignorant to some degree or another of precisely why such may be the case, I think their assertions are generally correct, oversensationalized as they may be.
Democrats, in my experience, seem to define "useful discourse" as any debate that ultimately gels with their idealistic normativeness. There are many better fixes for the current state of health care than top-down federal mandates and regulations, at least if your definition of success hinges on the long-term benefit to the greatest number of people. I have read about many great alternatives to improve competition such as eliminating federal incentives for employer-provided insurance, allowing interstate insurance policies, relaxing medical licensing restrictions that curb the supply of care providers, etc. that are not discussed by public option/single payer/government mandate supporters.
I don't think it a series of lectures is gonna do much for anybody, because it all comes down to who teaches the class. Ultimately, that would just devolve into a conflict of interest between party rhetoric. I think what's needed is general education of the underlying methodology from objective and generalized sources, followed by opinions derived independent of political influence. Neither primary side seems to ever make a truly knowledgeable examination of the economics and residual effects, both want wanted and unwanted, intended and unintended. Obviously, I'm for free market solutions because I've read a lot on economics and the success when government is truly isolated from decision-making, so take from this what you will. But I think the decisive impediment to objective debate is not ignorance, which is incidental, but the human tendency to join in groupthink and to warp our logic to support our desired conclusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Thoughts
So then Obama really is a socialist at heart that secretly wants to kill old people? lol!
I agree that both sides are missing many key issues in the debate.
Relaxing medical licensing would make a difference and I am all for it. Many duties that doctors and nurse preform could be done much more cheaply and still be safe. Letting skilled staff do these things would save a lot of money.
Interstate insurance policies... Not unless we make it so they can't deny people. The only thing more scary than big government is big corporation. Could you imagine one insurance company to rule them all? (Shudder)
I think elimination of patents is another logical step in the right direction. Would save money all around and researching could always go the way of non-profit if corporations can't make enough money.
Honestly though why can't we just "adopt" an already successful model from another country. Just pick the one that's the best and copy them. If we can do the incredible things we have I think we can handle a simple copy job. This idea in the US that we have to re-invent the round wheel with the new patented "square wheel" is getting old real fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thoughts
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't make sense
I agree that if tax payers pay for the drug research, drug companies should not be able to patent it and reap all the benefits. But along that vein, why are those companies allowed to make a dime on something they didn't pay to create? He didn't go that far in the article, but it is the logical next step. Drug companies essentially become arms of the gov't, and since they have no skin on the line, why should they benefit?
However, if a company invests 100% of the funds into a project, then they deserve all the benefit, and I can't argue against patents there. I invest money in creating something. The second it's on the market, someone's reverse engineering it so they can sell it for far less money then I can (if I ever want to earn a profit). I would have no incentive to invest or create if I wasn't afforded some protection.
I don't buy the author's argument that patents don't work. I have to agree with the above commenter... when private companies invest 100% of the money, they should be awarded a patent. You can make an argument for shorter patents, but not abolishing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't make sense
Really? How? Reverse-engineering a drug is not easy. A drug is not just its ingredients. Often, a very complicated manufacturing process is used. So, if you have the process in place, you are already way ahead of the competition, with or without a patent. Sure, drug companies won't be able to charge the obscene prices they do now and remain competitive. But, they will still have the first-to-market advantage, and the even bigger advantage that, while others are scrambling to reverse-engineer their work, they can spend their time improving on it to create an even better product. If you do this, you become the brand people trust, regardless of price.
Want proof? Look at Bayer. Why would a person spend four to five times as much as generic for aspirin, one of the most easily-available drugs on the planet? Because they trust a brand name for quality. Outside of pharma, look at companies like Monster, who can sell a product for more than 10x the competition because of a public perception of quality. Neither of those is about patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't make sense
Does this happen? If it does, it not the norm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a GREAT idea....
And it makes absolute sense. Patents are being used to block innovation rather than encourage innovation. And while 20 years might be a reasonable time to wait to get improved snowboarding bindings at a reasonable price, getting life saving drugs at a reasonable price cannot wait so long.
Not to mention how tying up drugs by patents hurts people in poorer countries because the big Pharm doesn't make drugs they need because there is little money in doing so, and uses their patents to insure nobody else does either.
Besides, if you are going to make health care cheaper, you are going to have to make it more competitive. You can't make Pharm more competitive if you keep strong monopoly rights over drugs.
You want a solution, turn Capitalism loose on the problem. Isn't that want Republicans at least claim to want to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a GREAT idea....
As with any politician, what they say and what they do are almost always two completely different things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is for example, in the underneath the, lake dwellings of the early Neolithic that have been dug up in Switzerland we have found poppy-heads, which looks as though people were already using this most ancient and powerful and dangerous of narcotics, even before the days of the rise of agriculture.
So that man was apparently a dope-bag addict before he was a farmer, which is a very curious comment on human nature.
~Aldous Huxley, 1962
However, patents, and the pharmacological processes that have been put in place in modern times has proven very powerful, and profitable, for a select few.
I have doubts, however, that the current expression of today's pharmacological process, inclusive of various enforcement agencies including the FDA have outgrown their original public charter, and instead add additional overhead as a way to ensure the healthcare industry as a whole, such that they do not overtake the power of the layman.
If the public contract and charter was not violated, I have serious doubts that an "industry of care" would exist in it's current form today with it's powerful lobby and roadblocking attempts instead of nicking and diming via methods of pre-existing conditions and denial of their product, "care", in general.
Thusly, it's difficult to reciprocate and have "care" for this industry. In the near term, an option which re-baselines the intangible value of "care" in the interest of the public should be a paramount goal.
But yes, as David Levine points out, in his poignant article, patents and their ability to economically strong-arm a faster, more agile competitor out of the market may be a largely contributing factor to many of the issues we see today... Not just in healthcare.
Our productivity in terms of goods has fallen off a cliff since economic exploitation of other countries has become the de facto method of so many businesses.
Discovery Channel has a great show called "America's Ports" and it's often shown how we have ships coming in from the Pacific Rim filled with toys and other plastic items, yet we so often deadhead the ships back.
As one person on this show said: "We are the largest exporter of air". This in itself is unsustainable. Anything to re-balance the economy such that products and goods can balance out services should be pursued. The current handling of Patents and Copyrights are a major roadblock for many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Societal Benefit
I want the societal benefit of being able freaking build on top of existing research to make new drugs. Why is this not the main argument? Why is this a tangent or irrelevant? This is what's killing people. Not being able to treat a disease with weak drugs is small compared to not be able to cure a disease with new drugs.
From what I read of Grootendorst and Levine, they both gloss over this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Societal Benefit
As pointed out in the column, pharmaceutical research is done by universities using grants that mostly come from your tax dollars, so eliminating patents will not kill off research of new medical discoveries. On the contrary, the lack of patents will mean that inventors won't have to wade through the current patent minefield in order to innovate. It will cost less to develop a new medicine due to not having to worry about paying royalties to umpteen-thousand patent holders. Where the royalties would have been prohibitively costly, it would allow new medicines to come to fruition (with as many ingredients as needed) that would have been impossible before. Overall, your tax dollars would go further and would be able to fund even more research.
This doesn't even take into account the creativity that would be unleashed by loosening restrictions on which research can be built upon and which cannot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Societal Benefit
Here is a question: You talk about innovation without having "to wade through the current patent minefield." Once a medicine is developed, it is either a new medicine, or it is an old medicine. If it is an old medicine, then it is not new, and therefore not innovative.
On the other hand, if it is a new medicine, then there is no "patent minefield."
While there have been some dramatic law suits regarding patents in the medical area, there are relatively few patent suits over medicines. I can only guess why, but one reason is likely that either you have found a new medicine, or not. In either case, it is fairly easy to search the patent database to see if the medicine is new.
When discussing pharmaceuticals, most of the anti-patent people discuss the monopoly cost of having a patent, not lawsuits over patents. The reason is simple: there are relatively few such suits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
----------------
If a "free society" entails devolving the world economy into what amounts to a giant Shanghai flea market than I sincerely hope I never live to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's funny, especially because I think you were serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here is another example
"Now, here is where it gets shady. Someone hid the fact of $3.6 billion in bonuses from the shareholders. That's crooked. The SEC in bonuses and worked on a cozy agreement with Bank of America where the bank was given only a civil fine, and the real culprits, they got off the hook. "
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551262,00.html
The rich and the powerful are held completely unaccountable for their actions no matter how atrocious. WHY DO WE TOLERATE THIS???? This is America, these people should be in JAIL!!!!! Yet they get away with all sorts of atrocities and they get to break the law all they want with NO ACCOUNTABILITY WHATSOEVER!!! How come?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on punks
why don't you find some other topic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here we go, again...
On the other hand, the same studies point to personal lifestyle choices (eating too much, smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, lack of exercise), contributing about 25% toward the cost of healthcare.
Indeed, administration costs account for something in the neighborhood of 20% of healthcare costs.
When someone focuses on a third order effect rather than truly significant effects, I have to wonder what their motivations might be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Health Care too Expensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back-charge attorneys the cost of plaintiffs legal fees if they lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me put this as plainly as I can. You and all of the people that are dancing around your church with rattle snakes should wake up... YOUR BEING DUPED for fucks sake!!!
The tell you tort reform, you stop breathing through your mouth just long enough to nod??? WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT LIMITING YOUR ABILITY TO SUE MULTI NATIONAL PHARMA LOWER THE COST OF HEALTH CARE??? It wont, thats the answer.. it will raise THEIR net at the expense of humanity.. but that seems to be the theme of this century. Big companies have taken over the world, buying politicians out in the open and turning you and your ilk into zombie parakeets....
damn it man, think for yourself!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Imagine this for a moment, you are a radio talk show host and you call your competitor short(he happens to be 5'6"). Well they hear about it and turn around a complain to their network, which happens to be one of those "Big companies" you hate so much. Well since they have lawyers on payroll anyways, they turn around and slap you with a slander lawsuit. So now you have to put up hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend yourself, because the "Big company" can afford to string the obviously frivolous lawsuit along until you are completely broke. Do you think that is fair or right?
That is precisely the type of tort reform we need, to keep situations like that from happening. So don't try to lump all tort reform under "only good for big companies." The same lawsuits you like can be used by the "Big companies"/(anyone with a grudge) against private citizens, including yourself. While there are perfectly good lawsuits, we should protect people from the bad ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents hurt in other ways to.
The problem is Big Pharma has little interest in doing this kind of research as it typically involves drugs that are out of the patent period, so they can't patent them. Thus they are more interested in creating new drugs than trying to find ways to use old drugs more effectively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents hurt in other ways to.
Huh. So what effect would the elimination of patents have on innovating with unpatented drugs? Further, since around 80% or so of ALL drugs are no longer patented, how much opportunity would removal of patents present?
Even better, since several anti-patent articles claim that many newly-patented drugs are hardly better than placebos, it would seem the value of innovating with those drugs is marginal, at best.
Let's not even bother pointing out that the vast majority of moneymakers for the big pharmaceutical companies will expire over the next several years, meaning that the number of currently patented drugs that have a significant effect on price will be nearly negligible by around 2013. It is highly unlikely that the patent system will change significantly between now and then.
More interesting: Some people like to point out that Europe is more innovative than the U.S. Europeans also patent their drugs, both in Europe and the U.S., as well as elsewhere. Of course, they also get just as much government support for their drugs as U.S. companies - and some contend much more, but I am sure someone will figure out why that is irrelevant.
The real problem with American pharmaceutical companies is not patents, it is laziness. These companies had cash cows that kept those companies profitable with less and less real invention. After nearly two decades of living off research that is two and a half decades old, reality is that with or without patents, many of these companies have few new golly-gee-whiz products in the pipeline. Many of those are only marginally better than what is out there.
As with many companies that get fat and live the good life, once the current crop of patents is expired, these companies will have to actually become good again - or fail. It is about to happen - just watch. In the meantime, generic manufacturers like Teva are finding their star rising rapidly as they take over production of dozens of drugs as patents expire - which is NOT innovation, it is just reducing the price of an existing drug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Until Messrs. Levine and Boldrin break out of their "economic shells" and engage in detailed fact finding, or at least begin relying upon the work of someone what has actually done such detailed fact finding, much of their work comes off as little more than a largely superficial treatment of an industry that is much more fact intensive that these authors may have you believe.
I do not doubt their sincerity, just their methodology.
I have chosen to limit my comment to just this one example because of time constraints, so please do not take away from my comment that I am cherry picking just one area and do not find similar fault with other areas in their book.
BTW, it would certainly help if Mr. Levine eschewed his rhetoric and, as Sgt. Friday on Dragnet would say "Just the facts, ma'am." His over-the-top rhetoric takes away much of the persuasive force or his arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure
We can toss out good ideas all we want, but implementing them is another matter.
I want lower health costs, so you have my permission to do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You reform a system by addressing only 15% of the spend?
There were patents back when many blockbuster drugs were discovered. The discovery drought that has been going on for a few years has little if anything to do with patents.
What is the right health care system? I don't know, but I know the one being proposed isn't the answer. Anything that is supported by big pharma and the 3 big insurance companies can't be good for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As noted earlier, it seems like the real reason to focus on patents related to drugs is because someone has a hidden agenda, not because there is a significant affect on healthcare costs due to patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So apparently patents have done little to eliminate marketing spend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seems like there is little reason to correlate patents with advertising and marketing dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any other questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for advertisers, there are numerous lists. The list I looked at last time, which I did not bookmark, was from later 2007 and early 2008. Here is a link to 2009:
http://adage.com/marketertrees09/
On this list, Verizon is #2. Time Warner is #8. Again, minimal numbers of patents for both. Walt Disney is #7, and they have only 123 patents.
The point remains: There are many companies on this list with huge advertising budgets that have few patents. Walmart has been in the top 10 advertisers from time-to-time, and they have 17 patents. Mixed in with big companies with few patents are big companies with lots of patents. Plotting advertising budgets and patents would just give you noise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(and to complete my thought process)
those patented products benefit from Wal Marts advertising and to the extent that they do benefit from such advertising by Wal Mart that is marketing and advertising spent on those patented products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here is a challenge for you. The next time Wal-Mart has a commercial, count the number of patented items that are advertised. I suspect you will find very few, and probably none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So when Verizon does advertise itself, those advertisements do help their patent phones so that is marketing and advertisements that go into patented products. So money is being spent on advertising and marketing patented products, be it the manufacturer of the product or the retailer or whomever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point is that marketing and advertising are spent on patented products so patents have done little to nothing to reduce marketing and advertising costs.
Your counterargument, "It's not the manufacturer paying for the marketing and advertising, it's the retailer." My response, "Who cares."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for your other comment, "who cares," I agree. Who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But of course your response is, "who cares" because it's only poor people that are suffering, as long as the rich people benefit there is nothing wrong with it right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for your comments regarding how Bayer "got away" with selling AIDS tainted blood, your comments verge on being strawman arguments that are completely unrelated to the original topic. However, Wikipedia appears to have a comprehensive article on the subject.
History shows that it took a while to figure out that plasma, not blood as you stated (because that was already known during the time of this incident), could transmit the HIV virus. New techniques were developed to eliminate HIV from plasma, but Bayer's Cutter division continued to sell the old product in Asia after the risk of transmitting HIV became known and after a new product was developed.
The FDA called in the manufacturers, believing they had not kept their promise to pull the products from the market, and told the companies to cease production immediately. The FDA never gave "permission" to any company to sell plasma that could have the HIV virus.
Lastly, not only have there been lawsuits in other countries, there have been lawsuits in the U.S., and hundreds of millions have been paid in the lawsuits and in settlements. So your statement that "no one was held accountable" is imprecise, at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Excellent FACT you have there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The United States Food and Drug Administration helped to keep the news out of the public. In May 1985, the FDA's regulator of blood products, Dr. Harry M. Meyer Jr., believing the companies had broken a voluntary agreement to withdraw the old medicine from the market, called together officials of the companies and ordered them to comply.[3] Cutter's notes from the meeting indicate that Dr. Meyer asked that the issue be "quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public" while another company noted that the FDA wanted the matter solved "quickly and quietly."[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products
So please, don't come here and start making up your own facts without fact checking.
Also, plasma is a component of blood and these were blood products.
Also note, in other countries the people were put in Jail. In the U.S. no one was put in jail and the settlement costs were only for people infected within the U.S. Notice how much the government works for the corporations.
"In early 1995, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago decertified the lawsuit, saying it might bankrupt the industry."
"Individual lawsuits continued to fail because most states had laws shielding blood products from traditional product liability claims.[1]"
"Soon after the settlement, because the New York state statute of limitations required people to file a lawsuit within three years of discovering an illness, New York Governor George Pataki signed a bill allowing people infected by blood products, or their survivors, two years to bring product liability suits against the manufacturers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products
and the fees that were paid were settlement fees, the government pretty much did everything to limit the damages that Bayer had to pay (because the government works for the corporations).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and why is it that everyone else can have a lawsuit filed against them in three years but Bayer got to have it changed for them for two years? Because the laws don't apply to rich and powerful entities like they do to the rest of us. A normal person would be in jail, but the executives who worked for Bayer responsible for intentionally selling Aids tainted blood and the people who worked for the FDA who helped the rich and the powerful by allowing it don't get punished. In other countries those involved were jailed, but not here in the U.S. because the only thing that's required in this nation to get away with all sorts of atrocities is for you to be rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you need help understanding English? Please let me know. I can simplify things for you.
Let us think about this care-ful-ly...
(1) An event took place.
(2) A statute of limitations of three years RAN OUT.
(3) Governor Pataki signed a bill that ADD-ED a two year EX-TEN-SION on the STATUTE of LIMITATIONS so that victims had MORE TIME to FILE A LAW-SUIT.
DO YOU UN-DER-STAND?
Ergo, the governor was helping the "rest of us" be able to file lawsuits against "rich and powerful entities."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one was held accountable. No one went to jail for these atrocities. Stockholders of Bayer had to pay settlement fees and lawsuit fees but those at Bayer responsible for the atrocities were not held accountable.
So if you want to be technical, the wrong people were held accountable. The stockholders, who didn't do anything wrong, were had to pay for the misconduct of Bayer executives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the United States, but then they turned around and said they can sell it overseas and they told them to cover it up.
"The FDA never gave "permission" to any company to sell plasma that could have the HIV virus."
Not true as the sources I have given you already explained.
"So your statement that "no one was held accountable" is imprecise, at best."
This suggests that you actually agree with the "punishment" (or lack of punishment) imposed by those who committed this atrocity. My statement is imprecise at BEST meaning that, if it was imprecise at BEST it suggests that you believe something to the extent of, "those responsible for these atrocities were sufficiently punished for their actions" despite the fact that they weren't punished at all.
To which I must respond, WHAT KINDA MONSTER ARE YOU? It's people like you that are ruining our society. Bayer KNOWINGLY sold Aids tainted blood and NO ONE in the U.S. went to jail for this and the people who ended up paying were the stockholders of Bayer. Those responsible for the atrocities were not jailed, they did not pay any fines out of their personal assets (they delegated the fines to stockholders), and they were NOT held accountable. Yet you seem to be OK with it.
This just goes to show the mentality of intellectual property maximists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the United States, but then they turned around and said they can sell it overseas and they told them to cover it up.
Wrong. They called in the manufacturers and told them to stop selling EVERYWHERE. As for telling them to "cover it up," that is interpretation. They did tell them to stop selling the product and they did tell them to withdraw the product quietly, and they did tell them not to tell congress and the media, but not telling someone is not the same as destroying files and telling people to lie.
"The FDA never gave "permission" to any company to sell plasma that could have the HIV virus."
Not true as the sources I have given you already explained.
Your sources manage to interpret things in a subjective way that verges on lies, and certainly is misinformation. As often as people accuse the government of "lying," the sites you quote seem to be "innovative" over our government's paltry attempts at misleading and confusing. Objective sites point out that the FDA did specifically tell companies that produced plasma to stop selling plasma that had not been subjected to the new heat treatment process, and that is a well-documented FACT. Do you need me to define FACT for you?
"So your statement that "no one was held accountable" is imprecise, at best."
This suggests that you actually agree with the "punishment" (or lack of punishment) imposed by those who committed this atrocity. My statement is imprecise at BEST meaning that, if it was imprecise at BEST it suggests that you believe something to the extent of, "those responsible for these atrocities were sufficiently punished for their actions" despite the fact that they weren't punished at all.
I do not call a settlement that ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars, in addition to other settlements, as a failure to punish. If you do, then obviously you have a really poor definition of "punished." However, given that you also have a failure to understand a simple word such as "fact," as opposed to half-truth, innuendo, and misinformation, I am unsurprised.
To which I must respond, WHAT KINDA MONSTER ARE YOU? It's people like you that are ruining our society. Bayer KNOWINGLY sold Aids tainted blood and NO ONE in the U.S. went to jail for this and the people who ended up paying were the stockholders of Bayer. Those responsible for the atrocities were not jailed, they did not pay any fines out of their personal assets (they delegated the fines to stockholders), and they were NOT held accountable. Yet you seem to be OK with it.
You really are a ad hominem creating lying bag of crap.
(A) Monster - I feel for the people who were sold AIDS-tainted plasma. Read the history. It took several YEARS to realize plasma could contain HIV. Plasma is not BLOOD. You have a real issue with definitions. It was a known FACT that blood could carry HIV. It was several years later when we figured out plasma could carry HIV. Once we had a reasonable suspicion, the FDA directed plasma-producing companies to start rejecting certain donors (which plasma producing companies did not do). Once we had a better option, the FDA ordered plasma producing companies to sell only the heat-treated plasma, but several companies continued to sell OVERSEAS, NOT the United States. I feel for the people infected with HIV, and I certainly think the companies that sold the tainted plasma were wrong. However, there was insufficient evidence of a CRIME for any government to charge anyone with a crime. Of course, you, being the all-powerful genius that you are, are free to form a lynch mob and hang whoever you feel might deserver punishment, regardless of whether you have any facts to back you up. That, of course, would make you a heinous MONSTER.
(B) People like me: I have long been a proponent of the death penalty. I am the kind of person who thinks that people who throw trash out the window should be required to spend 40 hours of community service picking up the highways. Don't even get me started on people who commit capital crimes like rape and murder, much less LYING about others. If anything, it is people with LYNCH-MOB mentalities like yours who are ruining our society.
(C) Jail: I am surprised you have the ignorance to make a statement like this. If a district attorney anywhere thought they could make a case against a pharmaceutical company, I guarantee you that they would have LOVED to have a case like this, because when they won they would be in excellent position for a high profile job. That is the way politics works. The bigger and more powerful the company is, the greater the reputation of the DA that wins - but, they HAVE TO HAVE A CASE FIRST. No one was ever able to prove that ANY of the companies that produced plasma BROKE A LAW. Now, you and your white-hooded lynch mob might have some targets in mind, but before you go off and burn some crosses in people's yards and string a few people up, you might want to remember that the U.S. does not have moral rights laws, so you would be guilty of murder and one more of those people ruining our society.
(D) The individuals were not held accountable. I am not thrilled with that. To say otherwise is essentially an outright lie. However, better to let 10 guilty men go free than to have one innocent man hung by your lynch mob, which is how our society is becoming ruined.
Your statements go to show the mentality of people who want to eliminate the laws and rights that help advance our society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So willfully selling Aids tainted blood is not against the law? Or is it that they would not be able to prove that Aids tainted blood was willfully sold?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fine, a charge that it knowingly sold plasma tainted blood. They did knowingly sell plasma tainted blood and they should be personally punished for this; be it overseas or in America. Their actions should not go unpunished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, Bayer willingly sold Aids tainted blood and no one broke the law? Only in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(1) Bayer did NOT sell AIDS-tainted blood once it was known that blood could be contaminated by HIV. Error on your part.
(2) Bayer, along with several other companies, sold AIDS-tainted PLASMA. However, once it was recognized that plasma could carry HIV, the FDA ordered those companies to stop producing plasma that was not heat-treated. Those companies complied IN THE UNITED STATES.
(3) At least one company sold HIV-tainted plasma overseas, in spite of the FDA's requirement that the plasma be pulled from the market. Pay attention now: Selling the plasma overseas was NOT AGAINST ANY U.S. LAW. Conversely, if China sold HIV-contaminated plasma in the U.S., IT WOULD NOT BREAK ANY CHINESE LAW. Did you catch that? If not, go back and read it again, carefully.
(4) You stated that people overseas went to jail. I would be curious as to how many Bayer employees actually went to jail, and which countries sent them to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The officials involved overseas that allowed for it went to jail. It's in the fox link I gave you. No one in the U.S. went to jail despite the fact that Bayer in the U.S. knowingly sold Aids tainted blood overseas.
"The inventor gets the opportunity to profit from his invention."
Or the inventor gets the opportunity to monopolize obvious ideas that others would have invented without patents but it's just that that specific inventor managed to get to the patent office first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, to the best of my knowledge, Cummins did not spend any of his highly valuable time lobbying anyone, but I do know that he valued the utility of a patent before exposing his invention to potential customers. As for one-sided, society now has unlimited access to his invention forever, so obviously patents are not as one-sided as you state.
But, my earlier "who cares" was in reference to marketing of products, whether they were patented or not, and that question has yet to be answered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Clessie did not apply for patent protection of his invention until more than a year had passed, and then only at the urging of one of the patent attorneys representing the company."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JeS-rGoMZgEC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=Clessie +Cummins+patent&source=bl&ots=7TrCODFyKs&sig=pF3rGiPrdupFB1BP_S6ZA9KjE5U&hl=en&e i=rv6zSqblKoHysgOvg-XRDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=Cles sie%20Cummins%20patent&f=false
Apparently this guy would have invented with or without patents. In fact, patents even seemed to get in his way more than anything.
"The Diesel Odyssey sometime gets bogged down with trivial details, like technical descriptions from patent applications and long passages from business letters."
http://www.cruise-in.com/resource/cisbk02.htm
While the article does subsequently say
"Overall, however, the author creates a lively recounting of the father of the American truck diesel. "
Patents aren't to be credited for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those that want to invent will invent with or without patents because their goal is to advance society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should try inventing something, say, a new combine. After you spend a few million dollars and 5 years of your life on your new inventions, do not bother to patent your inventive new combine. See if you make your investment back. Fat chance with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So then the incentive is more for you to abuse the patent system then to advance society.
"After you spend a few million dollars and 5 years of your life on your new inventions."
If your goal is to make money it's very unlikely you would invest enough money on an invention to justify a 20 year patent being that the present value of the revenue generated twenty years from now from each additional dollar you invest now is very very VERY little.
Also, I think you should be forced to justify the patent to the patent office (which should be ran by ELECTED officials who run up for re election every two years) by giving them receipts and evidence of your costs and expenses on each invention that you want a patent on. If you want a government granted monopoly it should be regulated, if you want free market capitalism then there should be no patents. You shouldn't have it both ways. If an invention really costs enough to justify a patent you should have no problems providing evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And don't complain about a lack of free market capitalism with what I'm saying (since you're the one that wants to restrict free market capitalism with patents), you want a monopoly it should be regulated and you should have to JUSTIFY your request for a lack of free market capitalism (ie: your request for patents).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not against patents per se. Despite the fact that no one has been able to come up with examples of how patents have helped society and we have came up with many many examples of bad patents and how patents have harmed society and despite the overwhelming evidence that patents have caused FAR more harm than good and the complete inability of anyone to refute this or defend patents, I still think that if patents are used correctly they could help society. But the laws shouldn't be so one sided. Patents shouldn't last 20 years; 5 years should be the average, 7 years MAX (being that time beyond that would not justify much more money into R&D since the present values of the future amounts from each additional dollar invested now for R&D would be very marginal after 7 years).
Also, if anyone tries to falsely sue someone for intellectual property infringement when they knew or should have known better they should risk losing about as much money in damages as they have to gain. This would reduce the incentive for bogus lawsuits and patent trolls. $2,500 for fraudulently suing someone for infringement only if intent can be proven yet up to $250,000 and/or five years in jail for copyright infringement is completely one sided and the law should not favor punishing copyright infringement more than it favors punishing fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If we're going to have patent laws we should ensure that the patent laws in place make sense instead of the current ones that invite abuse and cause far more harm than good. I know it's very difficult to justify my position that patents could be good for society if used properly and the incentive to abuse the patent system like it's being abused right now is very high but if we have good laws in place that foster innovation instead of ones that foster abuse, litigation, and monopoly then perhaps patents can cause more harm than good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(1) The inventor reveals his knowledge for the ultimate benefit of society.
(2) Society grants the inventor an EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to his invention for a limited period of time.
Part 1 is the benefit society gains once the exclusive right expires. Part 2 is the benefit the inventor gains for revealing his knowledge. The inventor gets the opportunity to profit from his invention.
I have no idea what you are talking about regarding investment. The fact is that people invests up to BILLIONS of dollars on inventions. Do they recoup that money? Often, but not always. In some cases, one invention is a stepping stone for another invention that costs less. In other cases, while the return on investment is not repaid in 20 years, additional income can be made past 20 years at a lower return rate that eventually justifies the initial investment.
However, perhaps you can explain your position better.
So, if we elected examiners, say grocery store clerks from Kansas City, and paid them less, we would have a better system? You need to explain how that will work.
As for "receipts and evidence of costs and expenses," why? The granting of a patent should be on novelty rather that cost of expenditure. Indeed, some inventions can cost $100 to develop, and yet be incredibly novel. Other inventions can cost $500 million, and be novel, and yet the initial investment may not be repaid in the life of a patent. What is your point?
Actually, there is no such thing as "free market capitalism" and there actually never has been. So you can set up your strawman position, but to no avail. Indeed, one of the biggest arguments among economists is that "free market" systems tend to lead to a less than optimal market efficiency for a variety of reasons - the biggest of which is that there are people involved and there are a lot of imperfections in markets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So please explain to us the criteria for determining if a patent is novel and non obvious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then they should have no problems substantiating those costs to the society if society is to grant them a monopoly (ie: via allowing independent auditors to audit them). Otherwise, what do they have to hide?
"As for "receipts and evidence of costs and expenses," why?"
Because monopolies are bad for society so we should make sure they are justified.
"(1) The inventor reveals his knowledge for the ultimate benefit of society."
Or perhaps many of those novelties can be invented by others without patents. Who are you to say that it's to the benefit of society? Why not society decide what's in its own best interest instead of lobbyists that keep on lobbying the government? Who are you to decide that giving a monopoly on an idea is to the benefit of society? Because you said so? Just because you can assert it it must be true? You know what's better for society moreso than anyone else so you get to dictate what you think is best for society?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Actually, there is no such thing as "free market capitalism" and there actually never has been. So you can set up your strawman position, but to no avail. Indeed, one of the biggest arguments among economists is that "free market" systems tend to lead to a less than optimal market efficiency for a variety of reasons - the biggest of which is that there are people involved and there are a lot of imperfections in markets."
So then you shouldn't have a problem with having the government and the people making sure that monopolies are substantiated before granting them. If the justification is the cost why not have independent auditors audit them to ensure that the costs are true unless there is something to hide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are people involved in "non-free" markets and there are imperfects in governments just as well. Who is to say that the government (composed of people) is any more perfect than the people in free markets.
Free markets lead to less than optimal efficiency because there are people involved is a big argument among economists? No, that sounds like something you made up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(1) The inventor reveals his knowledge for the ultimate benefit of society.
(2) Society grants the inventor an EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to his invention for a limited period of time."
Let me rephrase that.
1: The person can't survive in a free market so he tells unelected officials what he wants a monopoly on.
2: unelected officials grant him that monopoly.
It's entirely one sided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and regarding the inventor "revealing" his knowledge to society, all he's doing is dictating to us what we can't build. That's not doing anyone a favor. If I come across a problem I don't need you to tell me that I can't implement a solution, thank you very much, we (ie: society and businesses that hires engineers) can find a solution all on our own just as well as you can WITHOUT your help and WITHOUT you telling us what solution we may and may not implement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is amazing how many people claim they "could have" invented the same invention because it is "obvious," and yet, there are inventions that have taken decades to develop. Where were you when we needed your "obvious" solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean like swinging sideways on a swing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You claim that patents are doing because these corporations (and people) are in it for the money. If that's the case, it's not about the ROI per se, how much you will invest into R&D will be determined on the PRESENT VALUE of each additional dollar invested on R&D. So say someone invests $100 now. If s/he plans on recouping that $100 twenty years from now the PRESENT VALUE of that $100 twenty years from now is MUCH LESS than the present value of that $100 now. So s/he likely will not invest $100.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you NOT understand time value of money concepts? Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounted_cash_flow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What do you mean invention is "not where the money is"? If your job is to invent, there has to be money in it. Indeed, why would anyone invent if there is no money in invention? Indeed, if there was no money in it, then all we would do is "innovate." Eventually, we would have the best buggy whips and buggies in the world, but no ipods, no video games, no computers, no clean diesels, and a lot more no's.
Those who want to invent for the sake of invention don't do it because they want profits.
You obviously do not know any inventors. Would you like some phone numbers of a few?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, Cummins was not enthused about filing for a patent at that time, not because he was uninterested in a patent, but because HE WANTED TO PERFECT THE SYSTEM. Oooooooo, kind of missed that point, didn't you?
Also, as you get further in the book, and then in "Diesel Odyssey of Clessie Cummins," Cummins is quoted a number of times regarding how important patents were to him and to his ability to get paid for his inventions, particularly after he left Cummins Engine Company and started his own company.
Patents are credited for helping Clessie Cummins to be able to recoup his huge investment of time and money and enabled him to make a profit. As he points out in his book, he needed the patent to be able to proceed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please provide evidence of this. Making up your own reasons why you think he didn't file for a patent doesn't count. Give quotes please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please provide evidence of this. Making up your own reasons why you think he didn't file for a patent doesn't count. Give quotes please.
Gladly!
Page 152 lines 31-32, noting why Clessie did not want to file a patent application yet:
"Clessie first wanted to improve the technology."
Would you like anything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Cummins' former employer, Irwin, invested a great deal of money in Cummins' company"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clessie_Cummins
(again, all of this was before patents even got in the picture and Cummings didn't seem to excited about even getting a patent after the fact).
So when you come in here and say, "well, there is an invention and a patent is involved, so the patent must be responsible for helping to advance the invention" it is correct of me to ask you to PROVE that patents were responsible for helping advance the invention (not to merely assert such a thing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Cummins' former employer, Irwin, invested a great deal of money in Cummins' company"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clessie_Cummins
(again, all of this was before patents even got in the picture and Cummings didn't seem to excited about even getting a patent after the fact).
lol...I see Wikipedia got it wrong. I refer you to "Diesel Odyssey of Clessie Cummins" and "The Engine That Could."
Cummins' "company" was actually Irwin's company. Irwin provided the finances and ultimately the management, and Cummins provided the technical genius.
As for patents, Cummins filed for patents from almost the BEGINNING, and, as stated in both books, patents were very important to both companies.
However, you MISSED (big shock here, given your ability to comprehend FACTS) was that Cummins LEFT Cummins Engine Company and started his own company, which Irwin DID NOT INVEST IN. It was after Cummins left Cummins Engine Company that he invented and patented the engine brake.
As for "excited about patents," Clessie Cummins repeated again and again and again the criticality of obtaining patents on his inventions in the books noted above, particularly "Diesel Odyssey." I recommend you read them if you wish to learn how important patents are to an inventor wishing to make money from his inventions.
So when you come in here and say, "well, there is an invention and a patent is involved, so the patent must be responsible for helping to advance the invention" it is correct of me to ask you to PROVE that patents were responsible for helping advance the invention (not to merely assert such a thing).
I recommend that when I provide references regarding the importance of patents to an inventor, as I have, that you not merely blow them off, but actually go look at the references. The evidence is there, in abundance. Have fun reading. Both books are a lovely case study in the value of patents to inventors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm still waiting for references.
"As for "excited about patents," Clessie Cummins repeated again and again and again the criticality of obtaining patents on his inventions in the books noted above, particularly "Diesel Odyssey.""
Where?
As I glance through the Book I see example after example of money and resources wasted on patent litigation including examples of patents hindering innovation. For example,
"Since Diesel had no patent in patent in Holland, Brons & Sons was free to develop diesel-type oil engines."
It was the lack of patents that allowed this innovation and it was patents that prevented this innovation from occurring elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The models Busch sold were used in power plants, mines, mills, retail operations, and manufactories, while production of the first marine diesel was stalled by the Busch patent monopoly until about 1910."
Not to mention all the money that was wasted on patent issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But Ohio Crankshaft put an end to competition from Atlas (and several other manufacturers) by threatening patent litigation."
All throughout the book patent litigation and patent issues seemed to make things a lot more expensive than they should be for Cummings and they seemed to cost him, and everyone, enormous resources, resources that could have gone into advancing technology instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm still waiting for references.
I give you one for now, from "The Engine that Could," page 47, discussing the steps that Cummins and W.G. Irwin were taking to change Cummins Engine Co. from a licensee to a developer of technology:
"This critical meeting probably took place in the second half of 1921. It was then that W.G. [Irwin] and Clessie [an inventor] put concrete plans in motion to transform Cummins from licensee to diesel developer. The application for Clessie's patent in September...was one step."
Then, on page 48 of the same book there is a discussion of the formation of the Oil Engine Development Company (OEDC), which Clessie Cummins would own 50% of:
"The following month, Clessie Cummins and W.G. Irwin formed a new organization to carry out the required development work. The [OEDC] was organized on February 2, six days before application for its incorporation was filed in Bartholomew County. Although the company's mission statement was reminiscent of the engine company's - to "design," build, improve, develop, perfect, and sell oil and other engines, and, in connection therewith, to acquire, hold, sell, assign, and license to use patent and patent rights..."
Tell me again how Cummins did not care about patents.
"As for "excited about patents," Clessie Cummins repeated again and again and again the criticality of obtaining patents on his inventions in the books noted above, particularly "Diesel Odyssey.""
Where?
Page 53 of "Diesel Odyssey of Clessie Cummins" describes how Cummins came up with the invention of an improved "stuffing box" for boats and the award of his first patent. On page 55, it is apparent that he thought this patent and invention were important because he created stationary with the return address:
Clessie L. Cummins
Manufacturer of
The Cummins Universal Stuffing Box
The Only Self-Aligning
Device for Power Boats
Columbus, Indiana
On page 58 is a description of how Cummins Engine Company was initiated. Worthy of note was that Clessie Cummins was the one who convinced W.G. Irwin to invest in the endeavor and item #2 of the articles of incorporation:
2. Take out patents, acquire patents, and transfer patents.
Cummins experience with patents, both licensing and getting his own, already told him how important they were.
There are other references throughout the book, but another one from pages 367 and 368, speaking of the patents he obtained on an engine brake:
"Securing a potentially lucrative licensee for one retirement idea was a great satisfaction to Dad. It not only had returned his development expenses through the option payment, but would also bring increasing royalties to him. While he lived to see only a promising dawn of its [the brake] increasing success, it was long enough for him to be vindicated for his vision and determination so underestimated by naysayers in Columbus [referring to those who did not think he could have come up with a successful engine brake design on his own when hundreds of engineers had tried and failed to create such a brake]."
As I glance through the Book I see example after example of money and resources wasted on patent litigation including examples of patents hindering innovation. For example,
"Since Diesel had no patent in patent in Holland, Brons & Sons was free to develop diesel-type oil engines."
It was the lack of patents that allowed this innovation and it was patents that prevented this innovation from occurring elsewhere.
Yes, but it turns out that those patents ultimately drove others to make improved diesel engines that avoided all the patent issues. In fact, the improved diesel engines were much better than the original and used a different technology. Chalk up another benefit to patents - the drive to create options that may be better than the original. In fact, there is example after example of this in the book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for patents, Cummins filed for patents from almost the BEGINNING, and, as stated in both books, patents were very important to both companies."
Where in the books does it say this.
"However, you MISSED (big shock here, given your ability to comprehend FACTS) was that Cummins LEFT Cummins Engine Company and started his own company, which Irwin DID NOT INVEST IN."
No, Cummins left his former employer, Irwin, to start Cummings and Irwin invested heavily in Cummings. This was before patents were involved. Please cite in your sources where it says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least I provide references but when I ask you for sources you provide none. Or you say, "it's there somewhere, keep looking." Instead of just making things up why not provide sources?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You must be a politician because you're evading the issue.
"Clessie Cummins repeated again and again and again the criticality of obtaining patents on his inventions in the books noted above, particularly "Diesel Odyssey."""
Where does he say this. Quotes and URL's or references. Don't just say, "it's in the book somewhere." Where, what did he say, give me quotes and references.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and I'm still waiting for references on the statement that
"First, Cummins was not enthused about filing for a patent at that time, not because he was uninterested in a patent, but because HE WANTED TO PERFECT THE SYSTEM. Oooooooo, kind of missed that point, didn't you?"
Instead of just your made up statement.
"Clessie Cummins was listed as an inventor on 33 patents."
but as I already demonstrated he didn't seem to care very much for patents and just got them at the recommendation of his lawyer. If anything patent litigation seemed to annoy him and get in his way being that he had a lot of problems with patent litigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just look at the the front of their homepage.
Zune = most likely has several patented components.
Laptops = most likely have many patented components.
Monitors = most likely have many patented components.
Playstation 3 = intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here, I found this google link.
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=eIU7AAAAEBAJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, you have yet to explain why Wal-Mart's sales of someone else's products that contain inventions owned by someone else is relevant to anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, where is the "grant" of monopoly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
also note that the FCC often has influences over many of these rights of way, so it's not just a city issue.
http://www.universalservice.org/sl/applicants/step06/wide-area-network-fact-sheet.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for local government's awarding of monopolies, that is a problem with the citizens of that city. They should be more active in their government to prevent awarding of a monopoly, not for the right-of-way, which they do not do, but for access to the right-of-way without competition from others. Fortunately, more and more cities are recognizing that limiting access to city owned rights-of-way ultimately leads to higher prices. Some cities are now taking ownership of cable lines to enable competition among cable companies. Bully for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but PepsiCo does have patents on what it does sell yet the very products that it has patents on that it sells it also spends tons of advertising dollars on suggesting that that patents have done little to nothing to eliminate marketing and advertising costs. Look at big Pharma, they have tons of patents yet they spend more on marketing and advertising than they do on R&D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also note: many of pepsico's products are trade secrets. The purpose of patents is supposed to be to avoid things like trade secrets. Yet, apparently it hasn't worked. Patents are only used when something is so obvious that it's no secret and hence patents are used to prevent people from using obvious ideas. For example, many ideas are independently created by different people (calculus was constructed by both Newton and Libniz at the same time). Patents are mostly used because some new problem with an obvious solution comes out and someone knows that someone else could and would come up with the same solution, when faced with the same problem (and often times they already have but often the first to file a patent is the one who gets it, especially in other countries), and they want a monopoly on the solution anyways.
http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000061.html
It's often not that the solution is non - obvious and innovative, it's that the solution is obvious but the problem itself is new and the patent office is quick to hand out patents to whomever comes up with the first obvious solution to a new problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please substantiate your scare mongering tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would like to see evidence of this because it just sounds like more scare mongering to protect a business model that relies on government protectionism to survive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A: Cross license them (that way they can exercise patents that others have)
B: countersue if someone sues them for patent infringement.
Also found this interesting.
"IBM announced lay offs of 300 good smart people here in Research Triangle Park (a stone's throw from my home in Durham)."
http://scenttrail.blogspot.com/2009/03/ibm-stop-advertising.html
While IBM lays off scientists who perform R&D they continue to waste money on telling us how important math is (ie: advertising and marketing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would also be interested in how much suing and counter-suing IBM has done with their patents.
Your comment regarding IBM's advertising and marketing is uninformed. Companies should advertise their products. The bigger their market and the more competitive their market, the bigger advertising and marketing might need to be, even in the face of layoffs. Without that advertising they might well be laying off more people.
However, your comments neglected an important point, and that is that IBM is not one of the biggest advertisers, in spite of getting more patents per year than any other company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.emulex.com/resources/press-releases/2009/list/aug-24-2009-emulex-announces-cros s-licensing-patent-agreement-with-ibm-to-accelerate-integration-of-high-performance-networking-solut ions.html
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2080586,00.htm
http://www.microsoftsta rtupzone.com/Blogs/cliff_reeves/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=36ac4053-2dce-4dd1-aa24-b236edfedcb5& ID=111
http://websphere.sys-con.com/node/839485
"Both companies say their cross-licensing contracts support their side of the dispute."
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Business-general/IBM-Microsoft-are-deadlocked-over-royalt ies-IBM-Novell-to-announce-marketing-pact.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, other than a very few anecdotes, you have no data on IBM lawsuits and cross-licensing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not Just for the sake of cross licensing, though that is an important factor of course. It's simple to deduce that they wouldn't cross license if it wasn't beneficial to them.
Also, patents are often used to give one party disproportionate bargaining power when it does come to cross licensing deals and working together and such.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/1938442601.shtml
But of course I don't expect IBM or Microsoft to admit that they are abusing the patent system for such causes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A: To prevent competitors from creating a competing product to their own
B: So they can counter sue if anyone does sue them for patent infringement.
C: So they can have more bargaining power when it comes to patent cross licensing deals
D: So they can patent troll
After all, patent trolls don't innovate, they don't create products, yet patents are still of value to them, so just because IBM has a lot of patents doesn't mean that all of those patents are just there to help them innovate and that they aren't used for something else. They're there for a reason and considering that the majority of patents aren't exercised by the entities who own them then what other reasons are there: cross licensing is one of those reasons, countersuing is perhaps another, preventing others from innovating and hence competing is perhaps another, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, IBM does have a stated purpose of earning income from licensing their inventions, and they make substantial revenue from licensing, as has been often publicized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am merely stating different possibilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only assumption one has to make is that IBM (just like any other corporation) is self interested.
However, it seems like the only evidence you would take as valid is an outright admission that IBM is abusing the patent system for the wrong reasons. Of course I expect no such thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cross licensing among entities that have many patents is common, but it's those smaller entities with fewer patents (ie: the average Joe Blow) that doesn't get to have fair cross licensing deals and that end up losing in the end as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See post Aug 26th, 2009 @ 4:14am
ChrisB paraphrased what I said by saying.
"So basically there are diminishing returns on innovation investment for each additional year patents are extended.
If patents lengths are doubled, the investment into R&D may increase slightly, but certainly isn't going to double."
20 year patents are way too long and the last couple of years won't contribute much to R&D. How much money would you give me now to receive $100 twenty years from now. Not much. You also wouldn't invest much into R&D now to receive $100 twenty years from now as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the searches in the USPTO database, use the following format:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm
AN/[company name]
And you will find the number of patents issued to that company since 1976.
As for the TAF reports, they are all locatd at:
http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/reports.htm#by_org
However, you will have to work for statistics. You need to separate out the big companies from the top inventors, and sum the remaining patents, including those for individual inventors. I am a little out of date on individual inventors. Seems like they peaked at about 30% or so of patents a few years ago, but they are now around 18% or so of issued patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The site will focus on medical process patents because these patents are universally disparaged by medical organizations. "
http://harmfulpatents.org/blog/
But of course the scientists nor the people have any say over the law, its' only rich and the powerful who use broken laws to exploit the poor that have a say. Of course the rich and the powerful is always right and everyone else is always wrong. America is always right and all other nations are always wrong and, on top of that, it's the rich and the powerful that are always right and the masses in America that are always wrong.
Also see
http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2009/08/patent-litigation-weekly-stanford-resear cher-loses-at-pto-still-fights-on.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Tens of millions of dollars have been spent in legal fees in pursuit of royalties on undeserved obvious patents that assert ownership of the concepts of HIV drug resistance and virus load monitoring. The legal fees alone could have been used to pay for virus load and/or resistance testing for hundreds of thousands of patients. Moreover, the patent on the concept of the HIV drug resistance testing was the basis for the cross-licensing agreement between Stanford and ABL."
http://harmfulpatents.org/blog/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"[T]these proposals represent a huge risk for the Patent and Trademark Office, which already is under severe strain as indicated in Congress’ emergency approval to use trademark fees for patent functions. Adding new obligations to the agency at this time seems extraordinarily unwise. Almost inherently, the basic patent examination function will suffer, with the result of longer patent pendency and lower patent quality. . .
Another troubling aspect of the post-grant review and inter partes reexamination proposals is that, as written, they are vulnerable to a high level of abuse."
http://271patent.blogspot.com/2009/09/and-were-off-companies-turning-to.html
but they only do so when it's in their best interest to make such an argument. Otherwise they would argue till the bitter end (and many on techdirt have argued such a thing) that there is no problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And since people are the biggest problem with the system, lets eliminate them! If we do that, we won't even need a healthcare system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get Rid of Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]