kuzmich writes "The Taiwanese government has announced that it will violate patent laws to manufacture a drug that can help fight bird flu virus. In doing so, they have spelled out their reasoning very clearly: 'We have tried our best to negotiate with Roche, it means we have shown our goodwill to Roche and we appreciate their patent. But to protect our people is the utmost important thing'. Not being in Taiwan, this makes me wonder how bad the situation would have to be for some of the other governments to follow a path of violating patent and copyright laws for the benefit of the general population. Are there precedents, procedures for doing so?" Violating A Patent As Moral Choice Log in/Create an Account | Top | 534 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 534 comments 0: 527 comments 1: 420 comments 2: 288 comments 3: 66 comments 4: 35 comments 5: 23 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. (1) | 2 Not right! (Score:5, Funny) by GFLPraxis (745118) on Saturday October 22, @07:54PM (#13854620) Patent laws are far more important than human lives; what gives them the right to do this? Just kidding, of course. Good for Taiwan. Patent laws should not cause the death of people. [ Reply to This Re:Not right! (Score:5, Insightful) by pivo (11957) on Saturday October 22, @08:03PM (#13854686) One interesting question related to this seems to be, at what point does it become ethical for a country to ignore patent laws to save its citizenry? How many people have to be threatened to make it acceptable?Tiwan is acting in the face of a pandemic. What about less widespread, but equally fatal diseases? For example, why isn't it equally ethical for a country to ignore patent laws for cancer drugs? Why hasn't this already been done for AIDS drugs?I'm all for this, by the way. I hope this emboldens other countries to do the right thing for its citizens. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Not right! (Score:5, Informative) by connect4 (209782) on Saturday October 22, @08:09PM (#13854724) India has tried, WTO wins again.http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5459 [yale.edu] [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Not right! (Score:5, Informative) by aka.Daniel'Z (586849) on Saturday October 22, @08:10PM (#13854725) AFAIK Brazil ignores patents for AIDS drugs (or ignored in the past - not sure about what is being done now). Refer to Brazil to Ignore Patent on AIDS Drug [globalpolicy.org], Brazil to Ignore Patent on AIDS Drug [aegis.com] [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Not right! by chaves (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:19PMRe:Not right! by Rik van Riel (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @09:26PMRe:Not right! by OohAhh (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @09:56PMRe:Not right! by ozmanjusri (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @11:10PMRe:Not right! by karnal (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:24PMRe:Not right! by HardCase (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:12AMRe:Not right! by ErikZ (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:39AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Not right! by BinLadenMyHero (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:36PMRe:Not right! by Mark_in_Brazil (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:45AMRe:Not right! by hazem (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @08:39PMRe:Not right! by Tony Hoyle (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:02PMRe:Not right! by ozmanjusri (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:11AMRe:Not right! by fullpunk (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:49PM Re:Not right! (Score:4, Interesting) by Ohreally_factor (593551) on Saturday October 22, @08:44PM (#13854950) (Last Journal: Friday January 02, @08:40AM) I think this falls under the legal concept of eminent domain, which makes it legal for the state to use property for the public good. Usually this applies to real property and construction projects that will benefit the greater public, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply here. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Not right! by Agarax (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:50PMRe:Not right! by 'nother poster (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:02PMRe:Not right! by TapeCutter (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @10:43PMno, it means fair market value by Trepidity (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:52PMRe:no, it means fair market value by InvalidError (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:26AMRe:no, it means fair market value by TapeCutter (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:46AMRe:Not right! by Buran (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @11:02PM Re:Not right! (Score:4, Informative) by rgoldste (213339) on Saturday October 22, @09:15PM (#13855112) Actually, the U.S. government wouldn't have to invoke eminent domain if they wanted to do something like this. Most of the basic research that leads to these drugs, vaccines, etc. is paid for by the federal government. The gov't then licenses this technology to biotech and pharmaceutical companies to develop a practical application, like a drug. The private company keeps IP rights to the developed drug/vaccine/whatever.In these licensing agreements, however, is a clause that allows the government, in an emergency, to manufacture the drug/vaccine/whatever, or give a license to another manufacturer to increase supply of the product. So they're not invoking eminent domain to seize IP, they're availing themselves of a contractual provision. Among other things, this means the gov't doesn't have to compensate the IP holder.See, for example, section 5.04(b) of the Model PHS Patent License Aggreement--Exclusive, available here [nih.gov]. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Not right! by tombeard (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @10:18PMRe:Not right! by geekee (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:39PMRe:Not right! by AnonymousCactus (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @09:27PMRe:Not right! by Ohreally_factor (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:06AMmust be done carefully though, in both cases by Trepidity (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:55PM Nothing new here.... (Score:4, Interesting) by msauve (701917) on Saturday October 22, @08:45PM (#13854959) They're not violating any US Patent, as they'll presumably be producing in Taiwan. They're only "violating" the Taiwanese patent, if any. But then again, "they" are the Taiwanese government and people. It doesn't appear that Taiwan honors foreign patents via treaty: http://www.bpmlegal.com/pctco.html [bpmlegal.com] http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/plt/ [wipo.int] , but I may be wrong.The US has done basically the same thing with US patents which have "national security" implications. In the US, the Constitutional authority for patents lies in Congress, so Congress is perfectly free to decide whether patent protection should/is offered for such things. I don't profess to know such specifics about Taiwan. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Nothing new here.... by fishbowl (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:09PMRe:Nothing new here.... by hunterx11 (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:47PMRe:Nothing new here.... by dasunt (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:44PMRe:Nothing new here.... by Muhammar (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:27AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Not right! by smitty_one_each (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:46PMTwo Problems by Agarax (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @08:56PMRe:Two Problems by mOdQuArK! (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @12:01AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Not right! by geofferensis (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:13PMRe:Not right! by mumblestheclown (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:14AMRe:Not right! by blair1q (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:14AMRe:Not right! by aminorex (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:19AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Not right! (Score:5, Insightful) by bladernr (683269) on Saturday October 22, @08:24PM (#13854824) Patent laws should not cause the death of people.Should a lack of patent laws cause the death of people? Imagine that the entire world declared that for "serious disease" no one had to respect patent laws. Let's say that AIDS was declared such a disease. Would any more private sector research money (by far the most research money spent) go into finding a cure or better treatment for AIDS? Would anyone be able to write a business case to get venture money to start a new bio-tech firm looking at AIDS treatment?The problem with patent-law violation reasoning is that it seems to be without regard to the future. It's the same logic that leads to other poor policies (who cares about the environment! It's not messed up today).If patent protection isn't required for drug development, where are the "open source" drugs? It only requires a few billion USD to develop drug lines... I'm sure there is plenty of non-profit, non-patent money to fund that, and so we can do away with the entire patent system.Oh, and addressing this specifically: if this stands, and other countries follow, no more advances may be made in bird flu research since all private-sector motivation is removed. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Not right! (Score:4, Informative) by netsharc (195805) on Saturday October 22, @08:41PM (#13854928) Actually, drugs for HIV are so expensive that most people in the poor countries can't afford them, and there's an AIDS epidemy in Africa! There's a doctor from Thailand (Krisana Kraisintu) who's mixed the three main ingredients for the HIV-pill, without paying attention to the patents of the big drugs companies. I've read a magazine article about her where she says she's gotten death threats telling her to stop producing her own version of the pill.Talk about being nice.. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Not right! by Fulcrum of Evil (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:51PMRe:Not right! by Skreems (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:36PMRe:Not right! by Skreems (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:38PMRe:Not right! by Fulcrum of Evil (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:51PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Not right! by hazem (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:43PM Re:Not right! (Score:4, Informative) by Waffle Iron (339739) on Saturday October 22, @08:45PM (#13854953) Oh, and addressing this specifically: if this stands, and other countries follow, no more advances may be made in bird flu research since all private-sector motivation is removed.There already is almost no motivation for private sector research into dealing with epidemics. The market for vaccines just isn't very lucrative compared to things like allergy treatments or impotency cures, and the market size is spotty and unpredictable. Without big profits to chase, major funding for significant advances in these areas will have to be driven by government funding anyway, so dropping the patent incentive would be no big loss. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Not right! by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @08:45PMRe:Not right! by shma (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:53PMRe:Not right! by mrcdeckard (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @08:58PMRe:Not right! by Tony Hoyle (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:13PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Not right! by dinog (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:59PM Re:Not right! (Score:5, Insightful) by bladernr (683269) on Saturday October 22, @09:16PM (#13855114) After all this, people wonder why poor foreign people tend to dislike the USA. Hello Roche, you are one of the reasons. Wow. People hate the USA because people like you are ignorant, and associate everything you don't like with the USA.Roche is Swiss. I would rather see the drug not manufactured than witheld from needy people. That is certainly an option. If we tear down the patent system, perhaps we can insure that many, many drugs never get developed, and so never manufactured. We all die equally.Btw, Tiawan can afford the drug. The amount of money in the corruption-fueled grey economy of corrupt officials is more than enough to buy the drugs. Just check out the world-wide corruption studies in The Economist for evidence. It's not about lack of money in Tiawan, but about priorities of spending (bribing MPs is more important than buying drugs - so break the patents). [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Not right! by Lemmy Caution (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @10:10PMRe:Not right! by Jim_Callahan (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:20AMRe:Not right! by huiac (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:56PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Not right! by MisterBone (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @10:57PMWe're dying under the current system by HangingChad (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @11:32PMRe:We're dying under the current system by SQL Error (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @11:39PMRe:We're dying under the current system by Jim_Callahan (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:28AMTry to remember how patents work... by alexhmit01 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:01AMIt's FAR worse than that... by alexhmit01 (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:53PMRe:Not right! by root-a-begger (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:57PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Not right! by jcdick1 (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:00PMahh, no by geekee (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:09AM Re:Not right! (Score:4, Informative) by am 2k (217885) on Saturday October 22, @09:03PM (#13855061) (http://slashdot.org/~am%202k) Would any more private sector research money [...] go into finding a cure or better treatment for AIDS? Uhm, what incentive is there for a private company to find a cure for a disease? It's much more cost efficient when the patient has to buy the medication in regular intervals for the rest of his/her life (see diabetes, AIDS, asthma, etc etc).This is not a theoretical statement, but current practice. I've heard of research projects getting their commercial fundings withdrawn, because they were about to develop a permanent cure instead of a temporal one. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Not right! (Score:5, Insightful) by biodork (25036) on Saturday October 22, @09:58PM (#13855255) (http://www.softfish.com/Gavin.html) This is trotted out every time this discussion comes up...but no one can ever point to any specific "drug" or treatement that has had this happen. It is always this mystical unknown magic cure that is being with held so that the drug companies can make more money....Please. Stating this is current practice requires some level of "These guys are doing it with a treatment for disease X". Other wise this statement is no better than me saying I was kidnapped by aliens yesterday. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Not right! by bear_phillips (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:30PMRe:Not right! by hung_himself (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:44PMYou know, I actually asked this once. by Grendel Drago (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @11:46PMRe:You know, I actually asked this once. by njyoder (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @12:42AMRe:Not right! by torokun (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:05AMRe:Not right! by jackbird (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:21AMRe:Not right! by biodork (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:57AMRe:Not right! by KillShill (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:35AMRe:Not right! by biodork (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:46AMRe:Not right! by 808140 (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:41PMRe:Not right! by biodork (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:39AMServes him right! by Crouty (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:51PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Not right! by Cylix (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @10:30PMRe:I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. by Jim_Callahan (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:34AMRe:Not right! by Tracy Reed (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:10PMRe:Not right! by brundlefly (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:24PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Not right! by mickwd (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @09:03PMRe:Not right! by bhiestand (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:34PMRe:Not right! by Jim_Callahan (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:37AMRe:Not right! by avarame (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @09:12PM Re:Not right! (Score:5, Interesting) by mbaciarello (800433) on Saturday October 22, @09:13PM (#13855104) An editorial in a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, possibly the most authoritative source in the field, pointed out how drug companies spend far more money in marketing than they do in research. Also, drug companies often outsource the pure R&D to little-known laboratories, or buy patents from them, just to re-brand the products. I've been involved in research on levosimendan, created by Finnish Orion Corp., only to be licensed as Simdax® by Abbott Laboratories, Inc.I figure that when push comes to shove, there's money to be made even from "open source" drugs. The so-called generic drugs, although not as profitable as your typical anti-depressant or branded statin, are a good, perfectly open source market for many companies.Personally, I do believe in using "force" on private companies when emergencies arise. This might entail paying a forfeitary fee (kinda like compulsory licensing [wikipedia.org] in music.)Force (of money) is what drug companies use to get (partially connivent) physicians to prescribe one expensive, proprietary drug over a generic one, even if the benefits of the former are unproven.Force of marketing (as in "ad bombing") is what drug companies use to get unwitting patients to ask their doctors for Plavix®, even though saving one life with Plavix® may cost millions of dollars which could be spent elsewhere more usefully. That is, especially in countries where resources are limited and the health care system is public, that money could save more lives if used for screening programs and promotion of healthy lifestyle, for example.Sheer force of money is also what gets people to buy Aleve (naproxene sodium) over, well... Naproxen sodium in its cheaper, unbranded, but otherwise perfectly equivalent form!So be it: fsck them for Greater Good. Granted, a better definition for "Greater Good" would be useful. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Not right! by timeOday (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:55PMRe:Not right! by mbaciarello (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:54PMRe:Not right! by timeOday (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:10AMRe:Not right! by nahdude812 (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:59PMRe:Not right! by mbaciarello (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:45PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Not right! by QuietLagoon (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:22PMRe:Not right! by elfguygmail.com (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @09:24PMRe:Not right! by Bastian (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:52PMRe:Not right! by orzetto (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:58PMRe:Not right! by Duhavid (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:32PMRe:Not right! by chicago_bulls (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @10:42PMRe:Not right! by Eric Damron (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:54PMRe:Not right! by vandan (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:59PMNot dieing a possible motivation? by Albinoman (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:13PMRe:Not right! by joemontoya (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:53PMRe:Not right! by TapeCutter (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:57PMProportion? by coastwalker (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @12:02AMRe:Proportion? by coastwalker (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:06AMThis oughta be good by heinousjay (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:40PMRe:This oughta be good by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @08:43PMRe:This oughta be good by 'nother poster (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @08:53PMRe:This oughta be good by 'nother poster (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:44PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:This oughta be good by billsoxs (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @10:47PM Re:This oughta be good (Score:5, Interesting) by tomhudson (43916) <thudson@@@gmail...com> on Saturday October 22, @08:51PM (#13854984) (Last Journal: Saturday October 22, @07:20PM) Taxpayers through university researchPrivate funds (look at all the money raised by fund-raising for AIDS, breast cancer, MS, etc)Charities, philanthropy, etc.The drug companies have a much lower efficiency in terms of money spent per researcher in their labs vis. the people doing research at universities for their post-docs, so when you factor that in, the inbalance is even greater towards the public sector. [ Reply to This | Parentforgot something, did you? by Quadraginta (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:31PMRe:forgot something, did you? by i_should_be_working (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:52PMoh well by Quadraginta (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:38PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:forgot something, did you? by tomhudson (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:57PMI know by Quadraginta (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:53PMRe:This oughta be good by Jim_Callahan (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:48AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Not right! by bladernr (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:57PMRe: Flamebait by L0k11 (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:09PMRe:Not right! by Red Alastor (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @09:00PMRe:Not right! by tomhudson (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:22PMRe:Not right! by Jim_Callahan (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:51AMRe:Not right! by bladernr (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:02PMRe:Not right! by Kaemaril (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:28PMRe:Not right! by Rayaru (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @10:16PMRe:Not right! by Kaemaril (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:20PMRe:Not right! by Rayaru (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:54PMRe:Not right! by Kaemaril (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:42AMRe:Not right! by bhiestand (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @09:52PMRe:Not right! by tomhudson (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @10:40PM12 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Not right! by FredThompson (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:54PMRe:Not right! by SandiConoverJones (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @10:36PMRe:Not right! by nelsonal (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:56PMRe:Not right! by nelsonal (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:17PMRe:Not right! by bergeron76 (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:37PMRe:Not right! by mOdQuArK! (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @12:19AMRe:Not right! by moviepig.com (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:42PMAlternative methods for compensation by tin foil hat dude (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @12:14AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. I don't blame them. (Score:5, Interesting) by Pantero Blanco (792776) on Saturday October 22, @07:54PM (#13854624) They have their priorities straight. Stopping a potential pandemic is more important than not stepping on a businessman's toes. [ Reply to This Re:I don't blame them. (Score:5, Insightful) by DoorFrame (22108) on Saturday October 22, @08:06PM (#13854700) (http://www.rumorsdaily.com/) That's sort of true, definitely true in the short term, but you've got to look at the issue from a long term point of view as well. The system we've currently established is that drug manufacturers outlay a truly phenomenal amount of money to develop and test any particular drug. They do this on the assumption that they will, in the future, be able to charge good money for the results of their research. If they can't charge for it in the future, there's no incentive for them to develop new drugs today.Now, one country destroying one patent is not going to eliminate the profit incentive for the drug developers. And in a situation where the drugs are badly needed (I don't know how true that is in Taiwan, but my guess is that since the disease doesn't affect people yet the answer is not very) there's a moral calculus that has to go into making this sort of decision. Is it worth it to hand out free drugs today at the possible cost of not having drugs to hand out at any cost in the future?You're going to have to look at every individual situation and decide if the tradeoff is worthwhile.Do you think the current phantom bird flue pandemic is worth risking future drug development over? I'd say you'd have a much better argument for taking away that patents on AIDs drugs than bird flu drugs. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:I don't blame them. by jcr (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:19PM Re:I don't blame them. (Score:4, Interesting) by SteeldrivingJon (842919) on Saturday October 22, @08:27PM (#13854847) (http://jonscocoa.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 13, @07:12PM) But not the marketing costs of the drug.And regardless, Big Pharma is enormously profitable, for all their claimed "woes".If the profit margin was slimmer, companies would still make pharmaceuticals. If nobody went into business if they weren't guaranteed pharma-class profits, there'd be a lot of industries that wouldn't exist. Grocery stores, for instance, are inherently low-margin businesses. Yet they haven't looked at their 1-2% profit margins and said, "Feh! I quit!" [ Reply to This | ParentRe:I don't blame them. by bladernr (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @08:35PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:I don't blame them. by Pantero Blanco (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:20PMDo you really understand the danger of bird flu? by benhocking (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:20PMRe:Do you really understand the danger of bird flu by nelsonal (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:01AMRe:I don't blame them. by Mateito (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:21PMRe:I don't blame them. by bladernr (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:31PMRe:I don't blame them. by Mateito (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:06PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:I don't blame them. by Lemmy Caution (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:07PMRe:I don't blame them. by bladernr (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @09:08PMRe:I don't blame them. by shutdown -p now (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:20AM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:I don't blame them. by nuggz (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @08:34PMRe:I don't blame them. by jimi the hippie (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @10:32PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:I don't blame them. (Score:5, Informative) by sam_handelman (519767) <skh2003@@@columbia...edu> on Saturday October 22, @08:25PM (#13854832) (http://www.columbia....ndelman/student.html | Last Journal: Saturday October 22, @07:21PM) This is drug industry propoganda.  The majority of the expenses associated with new drug discovery are actually made in the public sector - by Universities and so forth. In broad outline the story is very similar to the Internet, also developed at public expense.  Now, the private sector does contribute significant additional resources to drug development. HOWEVER, these additional resources are a *fraction* of the total increase in drug prices that result from the patents they are awarded (vs. what the same drugs would cost if prices were governed by a free market.)  The upshot is that if you look at it over the long run, we would be much better off if we violated all the patents, let the patent-dependent drug companies go out of business, and funded an equivalent amount of research in the public sector, making the results available to anyone who wished to sell the resulting drugs on the market.  The research I'm citing here was done by a fellow named Dean Baker [cepr.net]. I'll dig up an exact ref if you like. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:I don't blame them. by njyoder (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @08:35PM Re:I don't blame them. (Score:5, Informative) by sam_handelman (519767) <skh2003@@@columbia...edu> on Saturday October 22, @09:06PM (#13855072) (http://www.columbia....ndelman/student.html | Last Journal: Saturday October 22, @07:21PM) njyoder - do you have any background in biology or chemistry?  How were the mechanisms of blood pressure regulation discovered (picking a drug from that list at random)?  The techniques commonly used to perform high throughput screening of new drugs - who discovered those?  The synthetic organic chemistry required to actually *make* all these novel compounds? Where do you think that was developed?  The research in fundamental biology has been absolutely *essential* to the development of modern pharmaceuticals - every bit as vital as DARPAnet was to the creation of the internet.  Yes, it's true, the public sector does not develop drugs - because when public sector entities get close to developing a drug, they sell their data to a drug company to let the drug company finish the process. However, this is not a law of nature - or even of convenience. It's a massively inefficient mess, with huge amounts of wasted effort and redundant work, driven entirely by the patent system (and the desire by University administrations to secure the profit from those patents.)  Here are the refs:(journal articles)"Patent fiction," Health Letter (Washington, DC): vol. 20, iss. 6, Jun 2004; p. 1."A Free market solution to prescription drug crises," Challenge (Armonk, NY): vol. 46, iss. 5, Sep/Oct 2003; pg. 76"Medicines and the New Economics Environment," Journal of Public Health Policy (South Burlington, VT): vol. 23, iss. 2, 2002; p. 245.(also a policy paper you should read)"Bird Flu Fears: Is There a Better Way to Develop Drugs?" Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research, October 2005"Bigger Than the Social Security Crisis: Wasteful Spending on Prescription Drugs", Washington, D.C.: Center for Economic and Policy Research, April 2005"The Benefits to State Governments from the Free Market Drug Act," Washington, D.C.: Center for Economic and Policy Research, November 2004 [ Reply to This | ParentRe:I don't blame them. by njyoder (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @09:43PMRe:I don't blame them. by sam_handelman (Score:3) Saturday October 22, @10:39PMRe:I don't blame them. by David Rolfe (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:12PMRe:I don't blame them. by njyoder (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:03PMRe:I don't blame them. by David Rolfe (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:20PMRe:I don't blame them. by njyoder (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:21PMRe:I don't blame them. by njyoder (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:24PMRe:I don't blame them. by njyoder (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @11:40PMRe:I don't blame them. by sam_handelman (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:43PMRe:I don't blame them. by David Rolfe (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @11:50PMRe:I don't blame them. by njyoder (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @12:11AMRe:I don't blame them. by njyoder (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @12:34AMFaraday. by David Rolfe (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @12:51AM