http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/10/8380798/index.htm

I don't get why drugs get genercized after X number of years and patent protection ends but tech based patents don't when they are essentially commoditized (at least I think thats correct?).

Personally, I think it's a very interesting to bring together amazingly intellectual people to just invent stuff. They should be allowed to license it for a reasonable fee, problem is, what is reasonable? Of course all sides want maximum profit on their end, so this will be an endless struggle of what is correct.

6/27/2006 10:05:38 AM

not sure what you mean by "tech patents don't end when commoditized".
All patents expire, regardless of what they're for - generally in 20 years - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent

The main difference between drug and tech patents though, are this: drug patents are very very specific - they often patent a single molecule which is the active ingredient of the drug. Therefore, it's very easy to tell if someone is infringing, and also that single molecule is often the only known way to make the drug with the same effects. So if they weren't protected under patent, any pharmaceudical company could create the same modecule identically to the inventor, and there would be no motivation to invent new drugs.

Tech patents also expire, but 1) there are often many many ways to accomplish the same feat as an existing patent, and 2) by the time the patent expires, the technology is probably way too old to matter anyways.

6/27/2006 10:22:25 AM

Quote :

"there would be no motivation to invent new drugs."

Sure there would. People would still fund drug research as it might affect them personally. Look at the Christopher Reeves foundation. Also alot of drugs are researched at universities which are supported via public tax dollars, so I see no reason why the public should finance drug research only to allow corporations to patent said drug, and turn around and charge us an arm and a leg for it.

6/27/2006 11:54:06 AM

^ Sure enough, but with patents we not only get the efforts of the charitable but we also get the efforts of the greedy.

And since mankind consists of far more greed than charity we have dramatically increased the cumulative effort towards solving such problems.

6/27/2006 3:17:52 PM

Protostar, I tell you what. You find me the dollar figure of drug research in any given year of the last 50 broken down by private donations + public vs. corporate and then I'll listen to your nonsense. Donations and pet causes of the government don't cut it.

6/27/2006 3:35:37 PM

http://www.phrma.org/

6/27/2006 3:51:05 PM

i don't understand why patents expire but copyrights don't

a medical cure deserves as much protection as a pop song

6/27/2006 5:26:05 PM

They do, but isn't it like life of author + some years after their death before they expire?

6/27/2006 5:38:21 PM

The us Patent and copyright system is a complete mess.

6/27/2006 5:41:18 PM

a medical cure deserves at least as much protection as a pop song

6/27/2006 5:44:21 PM

^ The worry is that a copyright might not pay off for decades, especially if the novel is "before its time."

It is assumed that a relevant patent should be of imense value immediately, thus 15 years of monopoly should be plenty to reward a worthy inventor while a life-time may not be enough to reward a worthy author.

Plus, of course, inventions tend to be cumulative: more benefit tends to come from the inventions that derive from my invention therefore a relatively short time of monopoly protection allows this process to proceed, a process that does not take place when it comes to copyrighted works.

6/27/2006 6:02:35 PM