|
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
The problem is, the drug companies put all
their oomph into finding drugs that rich
people want. They don't invest in
drugs to cure things where the return isn't
there. So I'm not positive that it'd be
so bad to lose [redacted], for example, and gain
a cure for malaria or Ebola.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: lnuss on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
And why should cost, as such, figure into patentability? Just because there is
greater cost something otherwise ineligible becomes eligible? Huh? What am I
missing?
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kenryan on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
And yet the pharma companies still manage to find twice the budget for marketing
as for R&D...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
Forgive me if my sympathy is limited.
---
ken
(speaking only for myself, IANAL)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
A lot of money could probably also be saved by not gold-plating all the safety
requirements.
No I'm not saying we should take risks, but if we had far better reporting and
control of drugs in use, and were more ready to licence risky drugs for the
seriously ill with decent trials, etc etc.
And I doubt your assumptions about the increase of the cost of government
research are correct! Anyway, how much money do the pharmaceutical companies
spend on basic research? Precious little, I gather. Add into that the research
fraud which I gather is rather too much the norm for comfort...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mvs_tomm on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
1. The research was not done by Myriad Genetics. It was done by the University
of Utah.
2. This case came to court because someone WAS doing research, and I haven't
seen anything that says that they had any intention of patenting the results of
their research.
3. Speculating about possible government expenditures for medical research does
not constitute facts.
4. Even if the kind of funding for research was required, the cost to society
would be small compared to the cost of legal wrangling over patents.
Tom Marchant[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
OMG, the smoke and mirrors. Somebody needs to re-read the original Groklaw piece
again. Better yet, go read the lawsuit. The debate is over patents on human DNA,
not on drugs. What human organism can rationally argue that granting patents on
DNA, that prevent any company from working on drugs and treatments, even
diagnosis of the disease or condition without paying toll to the patent holder,
is justifiable?
FWIW, I am also a cancer survivor (seven years, a four inch tumor removed) who
almost died twice during recovery from surgery. Again, the argument is about
patents on my DNA and the DNA of my fellow humans, not on a drug product.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
But we are not talking about patenting a new drug here. This is about using a
common, well established process to isolate a gene, then patenting the isolation
of that gene. It's like gettin a patent on using a pocket calculator to add two
and two. The method (using a calculator) is obvious. The operation (the
mathematical operation of adding two and two together) is patent ineligible, yet
because of the patent, no one would every be able to key 2 + 2 = into a pocket
calculator without breaching the patent.
I had another thought. If Myriad have shutdown all alternatives to their lab for
people to get a second opinion and that getting a second opinion is key to
getting an accurate result, doesn't Myriad now have an obligation to be 100%
accurate in their results? Surely, they should be sued for every false positive
or false negative by those who suffer as a result. Suddenly, their patent will
become very expensive.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
