Yeah, there are no easy answers to this one. At least I dont see one. I think at this time, there's this Red Scare McCarthy thing going on. It'll pass, and perhaps the global community could be encouraged to collectively invest in public domain drug research. Which can then be handed off to generic manufacturers. (Thats a joke, BTW.. The US is a wholly owned subsidiary Pfizer)
"There's still a tremendous value in being the first to the market."
Ehhhhhhh not exactly in this case, I think the hook here is marketing. The first to market pays out of pocket for the drugs popularity. So if, a new Viagra competitor came out tomorrow, they would send in the reps to push samples, buy all of those ads with the fast taking guy who tells you that you're going to die if you take it.. etc.. The thing is, it takes relatively little time to knock off most drugs. So reallly as soon as they succeeded in establishing a market worth taking, the generics would just ship at that point. As we all know, they have major advantage over the brands. Most pharmacists automatically substitute. Sooo that wont work IMHO.
The idea of insurance companies manufacturing, on the other hand.. Thats a great idea. Hmmm what if, manufacturers offered insurance or uhh prescription subscriptions? for the drugs in there portfolio. They could cut out the middleman and ship direct. If HIPAA permits, that could be a golden marketing opportunity (depending on the drug). That may not be enough, but it's a start. Yeah I'm sure there are other ways to monetize. Value added proposition, or through direct savings, as in the case of insurance companies manufacturing pharmacy.
Then theres also option C, stop spending billions on marketing :) I remember a time when the prescription drug manufacturers didn't advertise on TV, let alone every second of every day.
This is one that I've thought about for sometime, and you're right. These companies would not invest the massive sums of money needed to get new drugs to market if generics were available the day after they were released. That said, allowing a purely profit driven system of innovation dictate what medications come into being has proven to be somewhat of a problem in it's own right. I don't think I have to illustrate how many pills come out to treat illnesses that are more buzz words than medical conditions.
When was the last time the industry invented a cure for anything? If they found a cure for HSV for example, would it see the light of day given the staggering amount of money brought in by Valtrex? I of course use this example, since an HSV vaccine -primitive has existed for at least 10 years (that we know of) and to this day it's poorly funded descendent's are only available in Norway (I think other parts of EU might have one by now, I'm not sure). Rather than create a vaccine, they created management drugs. That's good business, but poor social ethics. The argument of the industry has always been one of : "would you rather we left these people to fester!". Which is an evidence of absence argument, an exploit of human reasoning used to paint complex scenarios as a simple fundamental truth, siting it's own logic as evidence to support that logic. In other words, "in spite of" is not the same as "because of". Would there be any new drugs if they couldn't patent them? You betcha! There's more disease in the world today, than at any other time in human history. Of course, you can't recoup investment selling cures for HIV to African villagers, any more than you can selling T-Shirts to Hipsters.
Ok, all that aside, Sure.. just like other things which exist in a tangible manor, drugs need a window of ROI recovery. The issue with drugs are two fold:
1. We give them protection at the wrong stage of development. Big Pharma locks up entire branches of research so that they alone control, just about every aspect of that *type* of drug.
2. They have a fixed window of 20 years, It's compleatly wrong for this type of "invention" in a world of real time innovation. The industry itself has pointed out, that it forces drugs out of development prematurely. Who knows what breakthroughs never were, because of patent exhaustion. In a way, I think of Drugs as being more akin to movies than inventions. The development investment is all up front, the marketing investment peaks then diminishes within the first several years.. and the medium is inexpensive to produce and distribute. It would be a tragedy though for these medications to be locked up for that long.
I don't have any real answers mind you :) but I think maybe... If we said, ok show me a working drug, and enter trials we'll give you semi-protection at the engineered molecular level, and if you're approved you get an 8 year monopoly for that specific compound. Not, file a patent, spend 12 years in "research and development" while stockpiling hundreds of patents that don't directly pertain just to hold up a competitors progress. I have a really long winded example of this too if you want it :)
ehh I'm tired, didn't get much sleep last night.. if any/all of this is lucid.. I apologize :)
A rational explanation of what? Mike asks for an evidence based debate, which is more than fair Mr. Riley. You should just turn over some of this evidence.. I mean it's frikin ever where just grab one good example - then, you will have undermined his position. I'm not talking about saying things like "it's a fact" and that he ignores "massive evidence" while there exists "Countless studies" to prove your point, but actual evidence. The logic you use is might work at one of Glen Beck's Tea parties, but saying that faith is evidence of God is a poor argument Mr. Riley.
I am trying to speak on behalf of those without a lobby.
Titles: Aspiring Parasite, Master Dullard
Presedent: www.tofui.com
Founder: Opponents Of Oppressive Patent Systems (OOOPS)
Right, the whole problem with our approach to date is summed up in the first sentence. The word "pirate" is used to link the gross injustice of concept ownership, with the more moderate and globally understood act of Copyright infringement. Whats surprising to me is that guys like this are even taken seriously.
To be clear, we should make every effort to remove this shelter from men like Mr. Riley. He is clearly out of touch with what's going on in the world today. If his position had to stand alone without the cover of "IP" they would have done away with process/idea/software patents ten years ago.
ok.. I try to stay away from these postings.. but this seems to be someone that has obviously bought into a philosophy dogmatically at a point in time, when it was somewhat rational (the patent system in 1993), and has failed to see what it has become. I suspect you either have rose colored glasses, or this is how you "earn" a living. Not to diminish the importance of your perceived cause but I must know.. what the hell does "make a quick buck with little risk by backing those copying others inventions" mean? Do you have any concept of risk as it pertains to investment? I mean, I find this either incredibly disingenuous or child like naivety. Patents are considered a liability for small startups in IT, not just the patents that others in the industry hold on using a Bunsen Burner, but the patents held by the startup it's self. The obvious exceptions being the IP litigation business, or setting up a company for the sole purpose of M&A.
Patents are not a positive attribute when investors look at risk associated with seed and 1st-2nd round funding. Do you know why that is Mr, Riley?
-ps I'd tell you to update your website, as it looks like it was made by the kids from "saved by the bell" - but I can point to several patents you would have to infringe to bring it up to date.
Exactly, 3 strikes is misdirection on behalf of the other draconian aspects of this treaty that have far worse implications. Such as the reasoning that you are just as liable for any and all activity on your internet connection as you are on your property. Forcing you to put security measures in place, as you would a fence around a pond on your property. They like using these analogies because they appeal to those that struggle with new concepts (a series of tubes). However furthering the liability of assets is nothing new. In fact that's one of the ways governments have historically exploited fundamental human flaws like greed. Let the people think they own "stuff", then that stuff becomes their responsibility to fix/maintain. No new taxes, few laws at first to ease the public into the new deal, then 1 degree at a time..
Everything benefits the top 0.2% not 1% get it straight, money is only power if it's used to buy power. Just like soap (see how I just did that :-) ).
Mike, please.. lets back up a bit on the 3 strikes coverage. Thats all anyone that's not a card carrying member of the reform movement knows about ACTA.
I was having a hard time buying the whole 3 strikes thing. It seemed too much like a red herring, designed to raise intense opposition to one aspect of this treaty, that could be dropped at the last minute to silence th critics. Then France surrendered and England is pushing a similar law. Now, I can't help but think that even the industry is surprised at what they could push off.
The media is mums on this for a good reason (they get new powers) and like all rights transfer treaties it will be a sprint to the signature. Any delay and it won't float. It will be unveiled and signed within a week. It takes the public several weeks to spread the news, before they know it, it's too late. Anyone who follows politics should know this, thats why the anti-Healthcare ads were initially just asking you to call your senator and tell them to "slow down" on reform.
slow down = don't pass..
It's a real shame Obama turned out to be utterly ineffective as a force for good, Yet he executes is political paybacks with surgical precision. His legacy will be the disparage of the masses around the world, deepening the divide between the have and have not(s). Then again, I'm under do delusion that the president is little more than a figure head.
Hold on just a second.. I cant find who's actually at fault here? I mean if this was a clear case of the victim handing his info over because he/she was conned, I find it really hard to justify the bank covering their stupidity.
On the other-hand, if it were the fault of the bank in say, security of their server.. or their records were not properly disposed of.. well yeah the bank is liable.
The victim said: "The biggest red flag should have been that the money was being transferred to foreign destinations, which had never happened before with Hillary's account".
That said, having transfered large sums of money overseas, I can tell you first hand, it's handled very differently than domestic transfers. There is no call verification but there is the requirement that you know the pin number. If they had this, the question is how did they get it. If Hillary had declared their account not to wire overseas.. they would never have had an issue. I might be wrong, but my bank made me jump through all sorts of hoops to be able to transfer overseas after 911.
I just never understood the concept of the banks insuring all of their account holders without any assessment of risk or profit from taking that risk. I mean.. look, I'm no fan of the man, but the days of the magic Internet are long gone.
The only way this could happen is to have a registry of identification for everyone on the internet. Which is sort of what I'm anticipating will eventually happen. Think about the children!!!
I just saw the State of the union address.. He talks of human rights, while just today the administration pushed the free nations of the world to convict file-sharers based solely on accusations. Today in Guadalajara the ACTA treaty's enforcement negotiations took place. Guilt by accusation is a human rights violation last time I checked. He talks of stopping lobbies from corrupting senators.. The fortune 100 companies are the ones that crafted this treaty. He talks of transparency, HE IS the one that hid this treaty from the people calling it a "National Security" secret. The only people that have seen it, are the intellectual property lobbies who wrote it, and the trade negotiators of these foreign nations who we're threating with embargo if they don't betray their Citizens on behalf of our corporate elite.
I'm not even against a life of the artist + 5 years. That's reasonable and gives the artist a lifetime to realize the fruits of his/her labors. It also allows the family of the artist to prepare financially for the expiration of royalties. The 70 years postmortem goes almost exclusively to "big content" and subsequently to lobbies that will buy new laws in 69 years to extend it yet again. It's cultural fleecing of society dressed up as a "common sense argument".
That's not entirely true. Israel has a strong sense of independence. It has as much right to defend it's economy as it's borders. Also, don't forget.. Israel is in a unique position amongst nations. It can for the most part, get away with things that other nations could not. The reason for this might have something to do with an undisclosed but massive nuclear Stockpile. (or where those weapons came from ;) )
You know, some (the vast majority) of the greatest works of art known to man happened without copyright, and even until recently copyright was only 15 years, with an option to apply for an additional term extension. To really understand whats going on, you have to go all the way back to the beginning and look at all cultures and their artifacts of creativity.
What were experiencing now is a dismal example of greed and entitlement. It's important to also understand how these royalties are delegated in this new system and who really wins with each copyright extension. Lets say it lasted forever as you have pointed out.
1. one thousand years from now who do you think will hold all of these rights? It's not the panacea of artists children .. It's a weapon that will be used to crush other artists who don't pay up. Just like Patents don't really protect inventors. They only protect monopolies and lawyer's seven figure incomes.
2. The point of the public domain is not only so that works can be enjoyed. It's also important to cultural identity. The Monalisa is an example of this. If every time someone used that likeness in a commercial or on a TV show they had to pay someone somewhere whatever they asked. You and I probably would never have seen it. It would be just another option in the media vending machine, and it wouldn't return investment.. It's only the Monalisa because it's ubiquitous.
See.. these classic works are so important because they tell the story of a species. Standing without context, alone as media inserts, the greatest creative achievements of our history are worthless.
3. Say you write a song. You have to "infringe" on others work, because all songs sound alike at some level. This sounds silly, but it's a legal battle that takes place amongst copyright holders (Vanilla Ice and David Bowie, ColdPlay multiple times .. etc etc ).
4. Lastly if everything ever made was under copyright how much would a text book cost? What information would be left out because the rights holder couldn't / wouldn't license.
What's happening with copyright at this time, is potentially a tragedy of historic proportions.
Where do I start.. First of all, the counterfeiting bit is a misnomer. It's about a gross expansion of power for those that allready have far to much power. Power which is not regulated by the people but by the ones with said power. That has never worked out throughout all the history of mankind.
Second Treaties can be used to tranced laws established by governments and their people LONG after the party that made them is out of power. Meaning regardless of public sentiment our "international obligations" come first.
Third ACTA is far more reaching than even an expansion of Copyright, it's an expansion of TRIPS. TRIPS is a way of pushing our hopelessly broken patent system on the planet Earth. Many companies have withdrawn from entire markets in which they were just entering, because once TRIPS was signed they found themselves in violation of imagination patents on concepts and methods that were broadly used throughout a given industry. Liability is the anti-innovation. Small Database vendors and Chip makers are particularly susceptible to infringement given the thickets in those two sectors. You wont see many if any new players in those markets for sometime to come.
... Do you see why were all so worked up?? Take something that doesn't help anyone other than the already powerful, and kick it up a notch (Please don't sue me) and you get a global cooling of free markets. This is baaaaaad for small business and startups. Big players have pounded down companies in the US with patents, not because they win in court, but because they win in bankrupting the little guy with litigation fees. Which are now in the tens of millions of dollars to defend yourself against "one click checkout" inventions.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ehhhhhhh not exactly in this case, I think the hook here is marketing. The first to market pays out of pocket for the drugs popularity. So if, a new Viagra competitor came out tomorrow, they would send in the reps to push samples, buy all of those ads with the fast taking guy who tells you that you're going to die if you take it.. etc.. The thing is, it takes relatively little time to knock off most drugs. So reallly as soon as they succeeded in establishing a market worth taking, the generics would just ship at that point. As we all know, they have major advantage over the brands. Most pharmacists automatically substitute. Sooo that wont work IMHO.
The idea of insurance companies manufacturing, on the other hand.. Thats a great idea. Hmmm what if, manufacturers offered insurance or uhh prescription subscriptions? for the drugs in there portfolio. They could cut out the middleman and ship direct. If HIPAA permits, that could be a golden marketing opportunity (depending on the drug). That may not be enough, but it's a start. Yeah I'm sure there are other ways to monetize. Value added proposition, or through direct savings, as in the case of insurance companies manufacturing pharmacy.
Then theres also option C, stop spending billions on marketing :) I remember a time when the prescription drug manufacturers didn't advertise on TV, let alone every second of every day.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re:
This is one that I've thought about for sometime, and you're right. These companies would not invest the massive sums of money needed to get new drugs to market if generics were available the day after they were released. That said, allowing a purely profit driven system of innovation dictate what medications come into being has proven to be somewhat of a problem in it's own right. I don't think I have to illustrate how many pills come out to treat illnesses that are more buzz words than medical conditions.
When was the last time the industry invented a cure for anything? If they found a cure for HSV for example, would it see the light of day given the staggering amount of money brought in by Valtrex? I of course use this example, since an HSV vaccine -primitive has existed for at least 10 years (that we know of) and to this day it's poorly funded descendent's are only available in Norway (I think other parts of EU might have one by now, I'm not sure). Rather than create a vaccine, they created management drugs. That's good business, but poor social ethics. The argument of the industry has always been one of : "would you rather we left these people to fester!". Which is an evidence of absence argument, an exploit of human reasoning used to paint complex scenarios as a simple fundamental truth, siting it's own logic as evidence to support that logic. In other words, "in spite of" is not the same as "because of". Would there be any new drugs if they couldn't patent them? You betcha! There's more disease in the world today, than at any other time in human history. Of course, you can't recoup investment selling cures for HIV to African villagers, any more than you can selling T-Shirts to Hipsters.
Ok, all that aside, Sure.. just like other things which exist in a tangible manor, drugs need a window of ROI recovery. The issue with drugs are two fold:
1. We give them protection at the wrong stage of development. Big Pharma locks up entire branches of research so that they alone control, just about every aspect of that *type* of drug.
2. They have a fixed window of 20 years, It's compleatly wrong for this type of "invention" in a world of real time innovation. The industry itself has pointed out, that it forces drugs out of development prematurely. Who knows what breakthroughs never were, because of patent exhaustion. In a way, I think of Drugs as being more akin to movies than inventions. The development investment is all up front, the marketing investment peaks then diminishes within the first several years.. and the medium is inexpensive to produce and distribute. It would be a tragedy though for these medications to be locked up for that long.
I don't have any real answers mind you :) but I think maybe... If we said, ok show me a working drug, and enter trials we'll give you semi-protection at the engineered molecular level, and if you're approved you get an 8 year monopoly for that specific compound. Not, file a patent, spend 12 years in "research and development" while stockpiling hundreds of patents that don't directly pertain just to hold up a competitors progress. I have a really long winded example of this too if you want it :)
ehh I'm tired, didn't get much sleep last night.. if any/all of this is lucid.. I apologize :)
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: I am waiting for a rational explanation.
I am trying to speak on behalf of those without a lobby.
Titles: Aspiring Parasite, Master Dullard
Presedent: www.tofui.com
Founder: Opponents Of Oppressive Patent Systems (OOOPS)
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: I am waiting for a rational explanation.
To be clear, we should make every effort to remove this shelter from men like Mr. Riley. He is clearly out of touch with what's going on in the world today. If his position had to stand alone without the cover of "IP" they would have done away with process/idea/software patents ten years ago.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Not Innovators
Patents are not a positive attribute when investors look at risk associated with seed and 1st-2nd round funding. Do you know why that is Mr, Riley?
-ps I'd tell you to update your website, as it looks like it was made by the kids from "saved by the bell" - but I can point to several patents you would have to infringe to bring it up to date.
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
Re: Re: Re: My favorite line from the article ....
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
Re: My favorite line from the article ....
Everything benefits the top 0.2% not 1% get it straight, money is only power if it's used to buy power. Just like soap (see how I just did that :-) ).
Mike, please.. lets back up a bit on the 3 strikes coverage. Thats all anyone that's not a card carrying member of the reform movement knows about ACTA.
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
The media is mums on this for a good reason (they get new powers) and like all rights transfer treaties it will be a sprint to the signature. Any delay and it won't float. It will be unveiled and signed within a week. It takes the public several weeks to spread the news, before they know it, it's too late. Anyone who follows politics should know this, thats why the anti-Healthcare ads were initially just asking you to call your senator and tell them to "slow down" on reform.
slow down = don't pass..
It's a real shame Obama turned out to be utterly ineffective as a force for good, Yet he executes is political paybacks with surgical precision. His legacy will be the disparage of the masses around the world, deepening the divide between the have and have not(s). Then again, I'm under do delusion that the president is little more than a figure head.
On the post: Distributor Claims Microsoft Terminated Partnership After Reps Refused To Take Part In Sex/Drug Party
Re: Re: open source?
++;
On the post: Dear Recording Industry: Three Strikes Won't Save Your Business
Re:
On the post: Bank Sues Identity Fraud Victim After $800,000 Removed From Its Account
whos at fault?
On the other-hand, if it were the fault of the bank in say, security of their server.. or their records were not properly disposed of.. well yeah the bank is liable.
The victim said: "The biggest red flag should have been that the money was being transferred to foreign destinations, which had never happened before with Hillary's account".
That said, having transfered large sums of money overseas, I can tell you first hand, it's handled very differently than domestic transfers. There is no call verification but there is the requirement that you know the pin number. If they had this, the question is how did they get it. If Hillary had declared their account not to wire overseas.. they would never have had an issue. I might be wrong, but my bank made me jump through all sorts of hoops to be able to transfer overseas after 911.
I just never understood the concept of the banks insuring all of their account holders without any assessment of risk or profit from taking that risk. I mean.. look, I'm no fan of the man, but the days of the magic Internet are long gone.
On the post: Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal
WHAT ABOUT THE CORP GIANTS!!!
On the post: IFPI Claims That Three Strikes Can Surgically Remove One Family Member From The Internet, But Not The Rest
just
On the post: Microsoft Sues BitTorrent Tracker
Speeking of accusation based presumption of guilt
This is too painful to watch..
On the post: Copyright Is An Exception To The Public Domain
Re:
On the post: Israel Making Generic Patents As Big An Int'l Trade Issue As Corruption And Bribery?
Re: Development Costs
On the post: Israel Making Generic Patents As Big An Int'l Trade Issue As Corruption And Bribery?
Re: Brazil and India also are being pressured.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/DIA1999.jpg
On the post: Copyright Is An Exception To The Public Domain
Re:
What were experiencing now is a dismal example of greed and entitlement. It's important to also understand how these royalties are delegated in this new system and who really wins with each copyright extension. Lets say it lasted forever as you have pointed out.
1. one thousand years from now who do you think will hold all of these rights? It's not the panacea of artists children .. It's a weapon that will be used to crush other artists who don't pay up. Just like Patents don't really protect inventors. They only protect monopolies and lawyer's seven figure incomes.
2. The point of the public domain is not only so that works can be enjoyed. It's also important to cultural identity. The Monalisa is an example of this. If every time someone used that likeness in a commercial or on a TV show they had to pay someone somewhere whatever they asked. You and I probably would never have seen it. It would be just another option in the media vending machine, and it wouldn't return investment.. It's only the Monalisa because it's ubiquitous.
See.. these classic works are so important because they tell the story of a species. Standing without context, alone as media inserts, the greatest creative achievements of our history are worthless.
3. Say you write a song. You have to "infringe" on others work, because all songs sound alike at some level. This sounds silly, but it's a legal battle that takes place amongst copyright holders (Vanilla Ice and David Bowie, ColdPlay multiple times .. etc etc ).
4. Lastly if everything ever made was under copyright how much would a text book cost? What information would be left out because the rights holder couldn't / wouldn't license.
What's happening with copyright at this time, is potentially a tragedy of historic proportions.
On the post: UK Gov't Tells MPs They Can't See ACTA Details
Wellll
Second Treaties can be used to tranced laws established by governments and their people LONG after the party that made them is out of power. Meaning regardless of public sentiment our "international obligations" come first.
Third ACTA is far more reaching than even an expansion of Copyright, it's an expansion of TRIPS. TRIPS is a way of pushing our hopelessly broken patent system on the planet Earth. Many companies have withdrawn from entire markets in which they were just entering, because once TRIPS was signed they found themselves in violation of imagination patents on concepts and methods that were broadly used throughout a given industry. Liability is the anti-innovation. Small Database vendors and Chip makers are particularly susceptible to infringement given the thickets in those two sectors. You wont see many if any new players in those markets for sometime to come.
... Do you see why were all so worked up?? Take something that doesn't help anyone other than the already powerful, and kick it up a notch (Please don't sue me) and you get a global cooling of free markets. This is baaaaaad for small business and startups. Big players have pounded down companies in the US with patents, not because they win in court, but because they win in bankrupting the little guy with litigation fees. Which are now in the tens of millions of dollars to defend yourself against "one click checkout" inventions.
Next >>