> Let's put aside the fact that patenting a fucking molecule is even a thing
Assuming you don't find fault with the mere concept of patents, I am legitimately curious why patenting a molecule shouldn't also be possible.
Assuming you don't find fault with the mere concept of patents, I am legitimately curious why patenting a molecule shouldn't also be possible.
And even if you don't buy that argument (it's admittedly tenuous) the fact that it's a discovery wouldn't convince me that the discoverer shouldn't still get exclusivity rights, given the amount of research involved in discovering new molecules and shepherding them through the approval process.
Could you possibly find something a little less conspiracy theory looking? Also something a little less manifesto.
Clearly his own blog.
if you think finding out which molecule fights cancer cells vs kills you outright and how to produce it in controlled fashion is trivial, you're a moron.
if you think creating genetically enginnered bacteria to produce insulin is trivial, you're an utter moron. lest you like injecting harvested insulin from pigs or dead humans.
HN likes to pride itself on techie knowledge, but the cluelessness around actual hard tech is staggering. modern medicine is up there with rocket science, worthy of nobel prizes.
they just CURED hep C for FUCKS SAKE. but yeah, no reward for that, but sharing catpics - here, have billions.
There are many other fields with very high barriers to entry and which require very large R&D budgets, but which - unlike the prescription drug market - nonetheless manage to attract competitiors: The semiconductor industry, for example, comes to mind.
pharma is full of competitors. exactly because it rewards risk. the whole point of the system. and the patent cliff hits and generics and biosimilars take over.
You patent the method of synthesis or extraction, and you patent the method for treating a human disease or ailment.
If you discovered a novel use for acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), you could patent that. You are not re-patenting aspirin. It can still be used as an analgesic.
If you discovered a novel process to produce ethanol, you could patent that. You are not re-patenting alcohol. People could still use the traditional fermentation and distillation process. You could even patent a process step to remove the remaining water from azeotropic distilled alcohol.
Obviously, such patents are more monetizable if the molecule in question is expensive to produce by the public domain processes, has no other commonly known uses, or is a controlled substance.
So in order for me to accept a patent on a molecule, it would have to be found nowhere else in nature or in prior art, and the applicant must have synthesized a measurable quantity of it.
In practice, this means patentable molecules have to be rather complex, because there are a ridiculous number of compounds that have been created once, for someone's dissertation, or to create catalog entries for boiling points, freezing points, dissociation constants, and such, and then never looked at again.
Quite a lot of "new" drugs were actually first described decades ago and then shelved. There are just too many possibilities in organic chemistry to examine each in detail without a specific application already in mind.