Brainiachick
Active Member
Thank you very much Anna. And you are welcome on here.
Intellectual Property - pros and cons
- Thread starter Brainiachick
- Start date
Thank you very much Anna. And you are welcome on here.
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
We are a moderately civil lot. I agree with Mick that areas need to be revamped in the IP department. I'm also against Disney trying to stall Mickey Mouse from entering into common usage. The law applies to us all, not just the poorz.
At school was where my feelings of IP really took hold. I like writing and coming up with ideas and expressing them. I hate the idea of someone using my "inventions" to get a grade equal to mine without the hard work. We need creative people in the world, and I would hate to see them not have an incentive to be so. Denying people the fruits of their intellectual labor means they might not do it. I stopped teaching when I felt there was no earthly productive reason for me to do so. Would hate for writers and inventors to not want to innovate any more. Besides I'm addicted to Breaking Bad. Those people deserve all the money I can throw at them.
At school was where my feelings of IP really took hold. I like writing and coming up with ideas and expressing them. I hate the idea of someone using my "inventions" to get a grade equal to mine without the hard work. We need creative people in the world, and I would hate to see them not have an incentive to be so. Denying people the fruits of their intellectual labor means they might not do it. I stopped teaching when I felt there was no earthly productive reason for me to do so. Would hate for writers and inventors to not want to innovate any more. Besides I'm addicted to Breaking Bad. Those people deserve all the money I can throw at them.
Grieves
Senior Member
And when more stringent international laws in regard to intellectual property stand to perpetuate illness and bar access to medications from the poor? It's interesting that intellectual property laws are always defended in the context of creative art or handy products... even when they're directly impacting access to essentials, like food and medicine... those things people need to live healthy lives. Is it alright for a major pharmaceutical corp. to extend a 20 year patent on a life-changing drug for an additional 20 years, ensuring no generic brand can be produced and the impoverished could never afford it?
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
I also said I didn't like all of it. Yes drug manufacturers making the generic drug as expensive as theirs is borderline unethical. Same with AIDS and cancer drugs. In a perfect world everyone who needs those drugs would get them.
Grieves
Senior Member
Food ties in with the GMO debate and the increasing dominance of hereditarily patented plants in the market/environment, perhaps better left to other threads. As for medicine, I'll refer to a previous post:
If the agreement is as MSF describes it, and I'm inclined, perhaps with bias, to trust that it is, this seems to me a terrible development in the potential power of the patent where intellectual property is concerned. I wonder if, to anyone here, this seems a positive development, providing Pharmaceutical companies the protections they deserve..?
Last edited:
SR1419
Senior Member.
Can you clarify? Are you against patents all together? or just the extension of via the TTP?
Without patents, its quite likely the drugs would have never been developed in the first place.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Well I'd just make the observation that novel inventions, once time has proved their efficacy, often reach a saturation point and tend to lose their exclusivity and get widely disseminated through the culture, and greatly reduce in cost.
I imagine electricity was once an exclusive commodity only the rich could afford, now it's almost a basic human right.
Mp3 players, flat-screen monitors, smart-phones, are now fairly well spread over economic classes. Once an innovation proves its worth to a society it becomes a part of it.
The market responds to novelty and rewards those successful inventions with investment, which allows for them to spread through lower costs.
I think the same logic will work with expensive cutting-edge medical treatments - they will eventually become common place.
As for food being exclusive, I've noticed no difficulty in getting it.
I imagine electricity was once an exclusive commodity only the rich could afford, now it's almost a basic human right.
Mp3 players, flat-screen monitors, smart-phones, are now fairly well spread over economic classes. Once an innovation proves its worth to a society it becomes a part of it.
The market responds to novelty and rewards those successful inventions with investment, which allows for them to spread through lower costs.
I think the same logic will work with expensive cutting-edge medical treatments - they will eventually become common place.
As for food being exclusive, I've noticed no difficulty in getting it.
Grieves
Senior Member
I am very much against extended patents on medication, yes. As it stands life-saving and life-changing medications are often going 20 years before finding their way into the hands of people most desperately in need of them, and to me that's a travesty. That it would be in anyone's mind to extend that wait, perhaps indefinitely, for the sake of 'protecting' an industry that clearly needs no protection should be beyond belief... but alas I'm cynical enough to believe it, and you, seemingly, to accept it. Speculating away not only the current but all previous patent-law and then claiming something as being 'quite likely' in those circumstances is so much crystal-ball gazing. The medical field is one that can't be claimed to have such intrinsic ties with the profit-motive.
Speaking of basic human rights,
from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a prospect these patent laws seem to impede.
but you've almost certainly noticed it's gotten more expensive. That's a global phenom, in which hereditarily patented plants are most definitely a factor... the only argument being how significant.
Last edited:
SR1419
Senior Member.
Again, to clarify- you are ok with the initial patents? patents in general?
Its not "crystal ball gazing" to understand the market processes and incentives at work in spending billions in R&D to develop drugs. Its basic logic. The developers of these drugs are in business to make money- if they can't make money off of the drugs they make, they will not spend the $$ to develop them.
Try not to speculate as to what I "seem" simply by me asking a question...not productive. I never said I was in favor of extending the patents- nor did I even imply by asking the questions and pointing out the likelihood of the drugs not existing in the first place were it not for the patents. I am skeptical for the need for extending the patents...however, I have not seen enough information to make an assessment. The latest draft of the agreement pertaining to IP is a difficult read and I could not decipher where the extensions are proposed.
http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/TransPacificIP1.pdf
Moreover, suggesting poor people are the ones "most desperately in need" is emotional bunk bordering on classism. People who can afford the drugs also "desperately" need them.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
We either have to allow companies to develop medicines, and they need to make back their costs and then some. They have to pay for the 2 dozens formulas that showed promise, but failed to make the cut, either because they didn't work or because of side effects. OR we have to increase the taxes on everyone so the government can develop new medications. If we did the latter, we would not have drugs for many illnesses. Non fatal conditions, like headaches would not have drugs developed and I can guarantee that any drug that is connected in any way to sex would rarely be developed. No drugs for AIDS, no drugs for birth control or for 'women's diseases' and certainly no drugs for 'penile erection disorder'.
With a short patent period, a drug company has to try to recover it's cost in a shorter time and thus the drugs are more expensive.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthew...-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/
With a short patent period, a drug company has to try to recover it's cost in a shorter time and thus the drugs are more expensive.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthew...-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/
A new analysis conducted at Forbes puts grim numbers on these costs. A company hoping to get a single drug to market can expect to have spent $350 million before the medicine is available for sale. In part because so many drugs fail, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on dozens of drug projects at once spend $5 billion per new medicine.
Grieves
Senior Member
I'm fine with patents on material products (many of which expire immediately upon the purchase of that product), and in regard to intellectual property, it's said well here:
Again, we're talking about the medical field. Profit on an honest innovation is an absolute guarantee, and there are motivations for research and development that unquestionably transcend the profit-motive. I'm not against the responsible patenting of medical innovations that give financial credit to the place that it's due. 20-year exclusivity on a life-saving formula for demonstrably profit-obsessed corporate bodies doesn't seem responsible to me. Extending those patents, perhaps indefinitely, strikes me as crazy. Financially speaking this is the difference between jiffy peanut-butter and no-name peanut butter, Bayer Aspirin and No-name Aspirin. The Jiffy and the Bayer are still going to sell. So while we wait maybe 20, maybe 40, who knows how many years for the no-name brand, many millions aren't exactly able to 'share in scientific advancement and its benefits', are they?
So the ability to afford and thus receive treatment upon diagnosis doesn't impact the gravity and severity of that diagnosis?
Last edited:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
How do patent laws impede these human rights? I don't follow the connection, you'll have to spell that out for me.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Food prices are up some but not that much, in the mid 1950s bread was around .15 a loaf, and the minimum wage was .75 an hour. Today it is around $1.25-1.50 a loaf and the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. If anything it is a bit cheaper. Our grocery bills have increased because we are buying more items. The average grocery store today is several times larger than the average store in the 1950s. The only 'bottled water' found in that 1950s store was some distilled water for steam irons.
Grieves
Senior Member
Prolonged patents on medicinal formulas delay generic brands of medications from being produced, cutting off millions from affordable medications in emergency situations or otherwise. The prolonging, potentially indefinite, of these patents could bar those who cant afford the name-brand from access to life-saving/altering medications for lifetimes. The Universal Charter for Human Rights states every human being has the right to adequate medical care, and every human being has a right to share in the benefits of scientific advancement.
Hypothetical question.
Say Pfizer managed to produce a medication that could cure glaucoma in infants, so long as its administered before age 2. Huge breakthrough. Thousands, maybe millions of kids who were likely going to go blind have a chance to see. All they want is $300 a bottle, all it takes is two months and two bottles, and bam, your kid can see for the rest of his or her life. Awesome, right? Now how long is it alright for Pfizer to keep the formula for this medication exclusive, so it can keep selling it at the price of its choosing? The law of today says 20 years. Do you agree? Do you think it should be more? Are the consequences of such a patent worth the reward to Pfizer for producing the breakthrough?
Cairenn
Senior Member.
So they should just ignore the many millions they spent in developing it and give it away? Or have the right to recoup expenses taken away? Maybe there should be an international fund that would be able to buy the rights from a company. If companies can't recoup expenses, they will not develop those medicines.
This is like telling folks that have 2 houses that they should give one of them to a homeless family. Or telling a rancher that he has to give his cattle to a food bank, because folks need food.
This is like telling folks that have 2 houses that they should give one of them to a homeless family. Or telling a rancher that he has to give his cattle to a food bank, because folks need food.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Well I'm all for the free distribution of life-enhancing medical procedures, that would be ideal. But when it's a matter of expense it's still going to be the higher classes that get to use it first. In a way that's good because by the time it gets down to the lower classes it's been tested and refined and cheapened.
It's still someone's innovation, more likely to be a collective effort owned by a corporation who will want a return on their research investment. Inventing something doesn't bar people access to what's already practised and available, so a patent cannot really infringe human right to medical care that way. Is it a human right to have *free* access to the *best care possibly available*, or just a reasonable standard?
I like the idea that we all have the right to benefit from advances in science, and I'm pretty sure we all eventually do.
If there were some patented breakthrough in technique or medicine, usually when it's universally recognised as beneficial the government will step in and subsidise it to allow it to be accessed by all of its citizens. Some sort of arrangement can be negotiated, and corporations do make magnanimous gestures from time to time.
I suppose 20 years is more than long enough to make someone's fortune, after that it should be free to share. If we compare it to technology, it usually takes the poorer populace 5-10 years to get access to technology that was cutting edge at the time (eg smart phones) so it would be nice if it were more in line with that schedule, 5-10 years before it was generically available. But the health sector is a different force to computing technology, so maybe it can't be expected to follow the same pattern.
And I haven't noticed food getting expensive, but I live in The Lucky Country. I know England is an expensive place to live.
I used to buy 500g cheap coffee for $12, but recently I've been able to buy name-brand Columbian-style coffee for $10 on special regularly. And 4litres of virgin olive oil for 20$, that's ridiculously cheap.
What would be the patented food products that are affecting costs? Rice and pasta and bread and vegetables haven't changed in cost as far as I can tell, and can be ridiculously cheap when on special.
It's still someone's innovation, more likely to be a collective effort owned by a corporation who will want a return on their research investment. Inventing something doesn't bar people access to what's already practised and available, so a patent cannot really infringe human right to medical care that way. Is it a human right to have *free* access to the *best care possibly available*, or just a reasonable standard?
I like the idea that we all have the right to benefit from advances in science, and I'm pretty sure we all eventually do.
If there were some patented breakthrough in technique or medicine, usually when it's universally recognised as beneficial the government will step in and subsidise it to allow it to be accessed by all of its citizens. Some sort of arrangement can be negotiated, and corporations do make magnanimous gestures from time to time.
I suppose 20 years is more than long enough to make someone's fortune, after that it should be free to share. If we compare it to technology, it usually takes the poorer populace 5-10 years to get access to technology that was cutting edge at the time (eg smart phones) so it would be nice if it were more in line with that schedule, 5-10 years before it was generically available. But the health sector is a different force to computing technology, so maybe it can't be expected to follow the same pattern.
And I haven't noticed food getting expensive, but I live in The Lucky Country. I know England is an expensive place to live.
I used to buy 500g cheap coffee for $12, but recently I've been able to buy name-brand Columbian-style coffee for $10 on special regularly. And 4litres of virgin olive oil for 20$, that's ridiculously cheap.
What would be the patented food products that are affecting costs? Rice and pasta and bread and vegetables haven't changed in cost as far as I can tell, and can be ridiculously cheap when on special.
Grieves
Senior Member
I understand what you're saying here, and don't entirely disagree, but the issue for me is the scope of the thing. 20 years, in some jurisdictions, constitutes a life-sentence. That's a long time to go without a medication that changes/saves your life.
I personally feel that yes, in the face of serious medical emergencies or grave but treatable medical conditions, it's a human right for a person to have free access to the best care possibly available too them. That's certainly not the air-force 1 med-lab for the staggering majority, but I feel that if there's an effective treatment that can be administered in order to save or vastly enrich a life in peril or distress, and there's nothing barring its administration other than the financial means of the patient, it should be administered, with only as much consideration put toward that person bearing the cost as that person can feasibly bear in their circumstance. I think that's more or less the gist of what the Charter is suggesting, as can perhaps be evidenced in several health-care systems outside the US. I would have to ask: what constitutes a 'reasonable standard'?
Indeed, when penicillin was released, patents were issued on brand-names for mass production, and the US Government had to go to court with the patent-holders in regard to price-fixing.
and more than long enough for someone to wait for a treatment, presumably.
I would hope it would follow a much more rapid pattern than gadgetry, given the moral imperative of seeing the ill treated. Doesn't seem like that's how it's working out, though... quite the opposite in fact.
Corn/wheat/soy are major players, wheat especially as the financial markets often look to certain strains American wheat as a guide on how to trade other food-related shares. Corn, as I'm sure you know, is in a majority of processed foods one way or another, so even a small rise in the price of patented corn-seed ripples out a long ways.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Is it better to wait 20yrs for "access"- or is it better to never have access at all because the drugs don't exist?
At the time of diagnosis, both parties- those who can afford and those who can't- are equally in need.
We have been through this bunk before- it was bunk then and its still bunk...the global prices of commodities is set by the global markets...not by the Mpls grain exchange.
Nonetheless, the global prices of Wheat, Corn, Soybeans and Rice are all down approximately 30% in the last 12-18 months...
Grieves
Senior Member
You're evading the question.
was the question, in response to your claim that it was 'classism' to suggest the serious medical situations of the very poor are more desperate than those who can afford treatment. I foresee a debate into the semantics of the word 'desperation' to gloss that claim over.
To word it a bit more theatrically, Bill and Joe go to the same doctor for the same condition. Bill is well off, Joe is stone broke.
Dr.Doctor: "Bill, you've tested positive for lung-cancer, but with a strict regimen of medications and therapies, and timely surgical intervention, chances are very high that you'll live through this."
Dr.Doctor:"Joe, You've tested positive for lung-cancer. I'm sorry, but without insurance, there's no way we can take you on here at the hospital. Come on back if you have an emergency, though."
Who's in the more desperate situation?
Last edited:
SR1419
Senior Member.
But that is not your original claim- you said:
"As it stands life-saving and life-changing medications are often going 20 years before finding their way into the hands of people most desperately in need of them"
Which - to me- implied that the people who could afford the medications didn't also and equally "desperately" need them.
At the time of diagnosis...both are equally desperate for the needed drugs and/or treatment.
As for your vignette- in the US at least- that scenario is not really accurate as there are many options for the uninsured- and even more once the new Health Care law kicks in:
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/fin...istance-thinking-about-costs-cancer-treatment
http://www.cancersupportcommunity.o...are/Cost-Information/No-Health-Insurance.html
"As it stands life-saving and life-changing medications are often going 20 years before finding their way into the hands of people most desperately in need of them"
Which - to me- implied that the people who could afford the medications didn't also and equally "desperately" need them.
At the time of diagnosis...both are equally desperate for the needed drugs and/or treatment.
As for your vignette- in the US at least- that scenario is not really accurate as there are many options for the uninsured- and even more once the new Health Care law kicks in:
http://www.caring.com/questions/cancer-treatment-with-no-insuranceEvery region has hospitals operated by state and local government (public hospitals) as well as some nonprofit hospitals that provide a safety net for anyone who needs care, regardless of ability to pay.
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/fin...istance-thinking-about-costs-cancer-treatment
http://www.cancersupportcommunity.o...are/Cost-Information/No-Health-Insurance.html
Last edited:
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Where the problem is, is not in the lack of a needed medication. It tends to be in 2 major areas, the lack of care for chronic conditions like diabetes and in the lack of screening tests, like mammograms and colonoscopies. When cancer goes undetected until stage 3 or 4 instead of being caught earlier, the chances of dying from it increases. Folks without insurance will often not get conditions treated, until they are more serious.
SR1419
Senior Member.
I understand what you are trying to say- truly I do...but thats suggesting that the need is somehow gone once they have access to them. Again I refer to your original comment. You implied those without access need the drugs to survive more than those who do have access. That is false.
The need is desperate...That need doesn't change whether you have access to the drugs or not...you still need the drugs- desperately- to survive even though you have access to them...its not like since they can afford them they no longer desperately need them to survive. The desperation for survival is not limited to the poor.
Both those who can afford them and those who cannot are equally desperate for the life saving attributes of the drugs...that doesn't change just because you can afford them....you still desperately need them.
Last edited:
Grieves
Senior Member
The implication you're perceiving is inaccurate, as it's not at all contained within the sentiment of my original comment. My original comment, as you quoted, was that "As it stands life-saving and life-changing medications are often going 20 years before finding their way into the hands of people most desperately in need of them". There's absolutely nothing in there about the wealthy or the middle-class needing medication less, or that their need is never dire. I didn't say 'the only people most desperately in need.' I think it's entirely fair to say people most desperately in need of a life-saving medication are the ones who don't have any access to that life-saving medication. That goes for anyone, whether it's a rich guy stuck in a plane where no one speaks his language and he forgot his epipen, or a poor kid with an infection he can't afford to get treated. Do you disagree?
Last edited by a moderator:
SR1419
Senior Member.
I think the people most desperately in need of life saving medication are people who have a life threatening medical issue.
Last edited:
Grieves
Senior Member
What an awkward dance. The medication wouldn't be life-saving if the life didn't need saving. I've pretty thoroughly explained why your claim of 'classism' is baseless, and asked you several rather simple questions to try and gain some handle on what your stance on this issue actually is... if it extends to the defense of 20-year patents on critical medications, or even to the prolonging/renewal of those patents. You've avoided a direct answer to each and all, and wont even admit that where your 'classism' accusation was concerned you were off the mark.
I hope you can understand why I get a little sharper-edged when we argue SR... it just so often seems to be over the oddest, most irksome and circular things.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Indeed.
Given that the desperation is predicated by the need for the life saving attributes of the medicine- the claim that those "most desperate" are those who can't afford it does seem baseless.
I elucidated my views on the issue as it pertains to the extensions in previous posts.
Last edited:
Grieves
Senior Member
That's a claim you attribute, not a claim I made. My comment only suggested that some of those peoples going up to 20 years without affordable medication are among the most desperate, not that they had any sort of exclusivity where desperation is concerned.
"As it stands life-saving and life-changing medications are often going 20 years before finding their way into the hands of people most desperately in need of them"
Not 'the only people in desperate need', not 'of poor people', not even 'hands of THE people most desperately in need', but the hands of people, people in the broadest terms, applicable to any and all.
None the less I still feel in the dark where your stance on this issue is concerned. Could you maybe summarize? I'm genuinely curious as to your opinion on the current duration of patents on medications, the proposed extensions, and the consequences, independent of any asides on the virtues of patents in other areas. The most basic place to start would be an answer to the simple question: Do you think the current duration of patents on life-saving medications is fair and acceptable? If so, would you be alright with those patents being extended an additional 20 years? Feel free to elaborate, but I'm hoping for yes/no's in there somewhere.
Last edited:
SR1419
Senior Member.
Fair enough...but you did not include the modifier "among" in your original post. The way it reads is that those who can't afford them are the most desperate for the life saving attributes. I apologize if I misinterpreted your meaning.
I believe patents are crucial to the development of medicine. They provide the incentives needed for such capital and time intensive endeavors.
As for the extensions- I will simply re-post what I originally wrote:
I am skeptical for the need for extending the patents...however, I have not seen enough information to make an assessment. The latest draft of the agreement pertaining to IP is a difficult read and I could not decipher where the extensions are proposed.
http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/TransPacificIP1.pdf
SR1419
Senior Member.
That would be interesting...I do know that a lot of the HIV drugs are quite expensive and largely out of reach for most in Africa...where HIV is one of the biggest - if not the biggest killer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa
Grieves
Senior Member
No sweat. If you're unsure of my meaning on something, just ask. We can avoid lengthy arguments over phantom "the"s.
So, to be clear, that's a "Yes, I believe the current duration of patents on life-saving medications is fair and acceptable."?
a list I'll have to put a bit of time into, and I'm just wrapping up my day here... can maybe find something comprehensive for you later tonight/tomorrow. That said, here's a good place to start:
SR1419
Senior Member.
I wouldn't even go that far as I haven't studied the issue in detail- 5 yrs vs 10yrs vs 20yrs etc...
The basic premise of patents creating the incentive to spend the $$ and the time to develop the drugs is all I can cop to at this point...
Its no doubt a highly complicated issue. A lot drug development is a money loser for drug companies and they rely on one or 2 "blockbusters" to cross-subsidize their losses on other developments. Patents do provide incentives and yet also create inefficiencies and costs (enforcement etc...)
There are really 2 issues with patents and IP - moral and economic...the economic case is less convincing the less $$ is needed to develop ie; software
here is a very interesting economic case against IP- an interesting and thought provoking read to be sure:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf
Grieves
Senior Member
In scrounging for a solid list of patents, prices, and perils, I've stumbled across an interesting article, speaking from the business side of things on the lamentable patent expiries pending for this year. Somewhat humorous when read in contrast to this thread, and with a list of those drugs in peril from generic competition. Seems like OxyContin's time is up... that's a surprise. No wonder they're pushing this trade agreement. 
http://www.fiercepharma.com/special-reports/top-15-patent-expirations-2013
http://www.fiercepharma.com/special-reports/top-15-patent-expirations-2013
Cairenn
Senior Member.
That article also brings up another point about patents on drugs. They help to drive companies to produce new drugs for the same illnesses, both from the companies that has the patents and from companies wanting a share of that market. The results, better treatments, either more effective or ones with less side effects.
Similar threads
