US Software Patents are back with HR 6264 section 7
cpip.gmu.edu
cpip.gmu.edu
The Patent Act of 1790 set the patent term limit to 14 years and allowed them to be much shorter if the situation called for it, and Article I Section 8. Clause 8 of the Constitution itself calls patents an "exclusive right" for a limited period of time.
So then, we're saying that both the Constitution and the first Congress declared your "private property" to no longer be yours after a limited period of time?
That's quite an... interesting definition of property too, one where the Constitution itself separately defines it from all other property, then gives an explicit reason for allowing you to have any right to it at all, and the reason has nothing to do with it being "your" property and everything to do with the broader benefit to society by promoting "... the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/us/koch-brothers-antonin-...
Second, given the Koch's long history and extensive network of supported organizations, many people can come to their own conclusions about the motivations of past and current actions in the context of the currently posted article. Taking more information of past actions into context is also not an ad hominem attack.
"Because Koch" is as invalid as "Because Soros".
It's really sad that you and several others here are only interested in yelling "Koch".
These proposed changes to patent law have some good and what I consider some bad aspects, all worthy of actual argumentation. Engaging in ad hominems is ridiculous; doing it deliberately is at best puerile; the only achievement is to prevent purposeful debate (and paint yourselves as unworthy of reasonable conversation).
Think! The EFF does not get results by engaging in ad hominems.
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/07/legislation-leadership-...
https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2018/07/FinalPatentBill.pdf
Let me quote the revelant paragraph:
"(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con5 gress that— 6 (1) the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence 7 concerning subject matter patentability has harmed 8 the progress of science and the useful arts; 9 (2) the United States patent system must pro10 tect and encourage research and development in 11 such scientific disciplines as would promote the 12 progress of science and the useful arts by securing 13 for limited times to inventors the exclusive rights to 14 their discoveries and provide scientists in the life 15 sciences, computer sciences, and other disciplines, 16 with certainty that their discoveries and inventions 17 are entitled to patent protection; and 18 (3) this amendment effectively abrogates Alice 19 Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 20 (2014) and its predecessors to ensure that life 21 sciences discoveries, computer software, and similar 22 inventions and discoveries are patentable, and that 23 those patents are enforceable. "
How do you patent diagnostics? I can understand diagnostic equipment but this makes it sound like you can patent the process used to find the problem. I don't want to hear my doctor say "I think you have the X, but you can only be sure if you go to the Koch Clinic, they have the patent on diagnosing this."
Do you think there are currently no businesses that invented, exclusively make, and control the pricy distribution of specialized diagnostic tools? how does the political philosophy of investors in such corporations change whether a doctor decides additional diagnosis is required? are patients expected to reject diagnosis on the basis of the political thoughts of people who may, or may not, have invested in the relevant pharmaceutical companies?
What about the purchase of food and clothes? does the same standard apply?
The notion that patents are promoting pharmaceutical innovation or improved medical outcomes is absurd at this point, there are medications that are being excluded from the market because they can't be patented despite being well known and in use for decades, while other medications are being brought to market solely because someone managed to obtain a patent.
For example Prilosec, which was discovered in 1979 and has been marketed since 1989, is a racemic mixture of (S)-(-)omeprazole and (R)-(+)omeprazole. For an exceptionally simple analogy of what that means: hold your hand in front of your face vertically with all of your fingers together pointing straight up. Now point just your thumb sideways instead. Same hand, same thumb, different configuration, only one of which would fit through the sleeve of a dress shirt. (S)-(-)omeprazole is the one that actually fits, and your body turns (R)-(+)omeprazole into (S)-(-)omeprazole, which causes it to eventually fit as well.
Prilosec is now generic and long past the patent term which expired in 2001, is well understood and is on the WHO list of essential medicines.
Nexium on the other hand, is (S)-(-)omeprazole by itself, and was able to immediately enter the market when the Prilosec patent expired because the same company patented Nexium 2 years before that happened.
Nexium is essentially just Prilosec with an active ingredient removed (the (R)-(+)omeprazole form) rather than added or altered. They claimed it was an improvement over Prilosec, and were able to market it as another more expensive drug, but even that improvement was somewhere between questionable and fabricated according to their own studies.
Only 2 out of the 3 studies used by AstraZenica showed an improvement over Prilosec, and they compared 20mg-40mg of Nexium to 20mg of Prilosec, which means they just doubled or quadrupled the dosage of (S)-(-)omeprazole, because 20mg of Nexium is 20mg of (S)-(-)omeprazole, while 20mg of Prilosec is only 10mg of (S)-(-)omeprazole. You could do the same thing by taking 2 Prilosec capsules instead.
And that patented decision to remove an active ingredient while misrepresenting the research to justify it was somehow not only "innovative" but should be treated as "private property"?
Nonsense.