Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Mar 2012 19:44 UTC
Legal "Last week a large, profitable company sued a small start-up business for patent infringement. As a non-legal person, I can only guess that this sort of thing must happen fairly often. I would also guess that the large companies, which have the means to hire crackerjack legal teams and drag cases out, must often win. And while I guess I feel bad for the small businesses, I've never really cared before now. Because this time, the stakes are high. This time, it's my daughter's voice on the line. Literally." Infuriating. Maybe these are the kinds of stories we need to get normal people to care enough to force lawmakers to change. Sadly, the big bags of money from Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are probably far more important to them than this sad story.
Thread beginning with comment 511850
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by shmerl
by marcus0263 on Sun 25th Mar 2012 21:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
marcus0263
Member since:
2007-06-02

Those who are software patent aggressors don't care about people. They usually don't care about anything except their purse to be precise. So this isn't surprising. Same story with drug patents. Those who abuse them care not about sick and those who could benefit from cheaper drugs.


Problem is the obscene amount of money it takes to bring a drug to market. There are also a large amount of drugs that do "not" get FDA approval and literally millions of $$$$ go down the tube. Once a drug company does get approval they have only something like 7 or 10 years to recoup the investment then the Generic's then start puking them out. I take issue with the company's who have invested nothing in the drug and are only in it for profit.

For the record I do "not" work for any Pharm or Medical but where I work there is a small drug company. Which BTW have invested millions in a drug over the last 8 years or so and are trying to bring it to market. It opened my eyes .........

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by cyrilleberger on Mon 26th Mar 2012 06:22 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Problem is the obscene amount of money it takes to bring a drug to market. There are also a large amount of drugs that do "not" get FDA approval and literally millions of $$$$ go down the tube. Once a drug company does get approval they have only something like 7 or 10 years to recoup the investment then the Generic's then start puking them out.


Yes but that is the problem with the way drugs are being researched and developed. There are two side effects to that, drugs companies pushes new medicine even if they don't have better effects, just because they get higher profit from their patented drugs, second side effect, dugs companies mostly invest in medicine in area with high profit (such as anti-depressor, weight losing...), for problems affecting wealthy people who can make afford to pay a lot of money on drugs, meaning western countries.

Research on new drugs should be public, paid by a tax on drugs sell, and companies should compete on their ability to lower the production cost.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by ilovebeer on Mon 26th Mar 2012 06:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

There are two side effects to that, drugs companies pushes new medicine even if they don't have better effects, just because they get higher profit from their patented drugs, second side effect, dugs companies mostly invest in medicine in area with high profit (such as anti-depressor, weight losing...), for problems affecting wealthy people who can make afford to pay a lot of money on drugs, meaning western countries.


First, only 3 of the top 10 richest countries in the world are western. Additionally, in most cases getting drugs approved here by the FDA is far harder than the EMA in Europe. What does that mean? It means the European market is very lucrative for drug companies.

Research & development of new drugs is astronomically expensive. While drug companies certainly may _potentially_ make enormous profits, they operate in a very high risk field in terms of investment. Naturally they have to focus on drugs with higher chances of payoff. This is not just for profit, it's also for survival for many drug companies.

Research on new drugs should be public, paid by a tax on drugs sell, and companies should compete on their ability to lower the production cost.

While that sounds good on paper, like many other ideas, it doesn't translate well in the real world. By reducing drug companies to mere manufacturing operations, you will essentially kill the same R&D competitiveness that has created many of the great drugs we have today. Remember, that insanely expensive R&D is paid for by those high prices. You take that away and you've cut off the very means by which new drugs are created.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by danger_nakamura on Tue 27th Mar 2012 17:32 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
danger_nakamura Member since:
2011-06-21

Problem is the obscene amount of money it takes to bring a drug to market. There are also a large amount of drugs that do "not" get FDA approval and literally millions of $$$$ go down the tube. Once a drug company does get approval they have only something like 7 or 10 years to recoup the investment then the Generic's then start puking them out.


Judging by the obscene profits that the pharmaceutical giants report year after year, I have to guess that the R&D sob story given by apologists for the industry is -ahem- overstated to an extent.

Pfizer 2011 earnings: 17.19 billion USD. Profits: 3.74 billion USD.

2008 salary of CEO of PhRMA, lobby for the industry: 4.48 million USD.

Somehow I don't think that food-on-the-table or recouping investments is a problem for people in this industry. In fact, I can't find (in an admittedly brief search) a single unprofitable year for any of the major innovators in the field. Could it be that they are overstating the problem a bit?

To me, it is the same old story:

PATENT DEFENDER: We just want to put food on our tables and recoup our investment.

ROUGH TRANSLATION: We want you to respect our right to make obscene amounts of money at the expense of society. "An honest living" isn't enough. We're superstars - where would you be without us. We want ALL of the money.

Is it any wonder that some of the people living in the larger society take offense to this position? Especially when we are all hit in the pocket to sustain this multi-billion dollar profit?

Reply Parent Score: 1