Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, that used to be the point of patents. Now it seems it's mostly to squeeze as much out of people by capturing the majority of the market by not allowing similar products.

I mean, we have CEOs of biomedical companies admitting that they aren't basing prices off of what it costs to research, develop, and deliver a therapy, but rather base it off of what a deaparare person is willing to pay for it. This is the very thing antitrust laws were supposed to prevent, but the patent system is used to create a similar environment.

View on HN

Agreed? Patents are being misused. We should fix that. Patents fixed gross injustices when they were created, and we shouldn't forget that, either. Software is probably the worst example of a field for patents and I think the case for patenting algorithms or design is dicey. But if you sink 100M into drug R&D, a novel type of medical device, or a new type of semiconductor CVD process you should have some protection against reverse engineering from competition for a period of time.

Since the problem seems to come a lot, maybe the problem is the role of money in politics and we should address the root cause. Just a thought.

No you shouldn't.. The idea that your idea is so novel it should be legally enforced as "yours" is pretty egotistical imo. How do you credit the millions of ideas you are basing yours off of. It's also information, it's not "stolen" in the sense that multiple people can't use it at the same time.

Benefit of rnd is being first to market. You will capture much of the market while everyone else catches up and you are in a better position to innovate.

Also without these legal barriers if somebody can improve on it and make it better that's better for the community and consumer at large and allows for constant iteration.

Also there is a lot of bad behavior and things encouraged by the patent system. You have judges giving patents over technical nuances they can't possibly learn in a courtroom. You have companies like Intel spending millions on legal teams to enforce things rather then engineering innovation, which is great until you are no longer the dominant player and global players don't play by those rules.

Drug companies spend more on marketing than on R&D. Much of the research is done with grants and government money. The vast majority of medical devices use the 510K process for approval, which means they are substantially similar to existing device (to bypass testing).

Sure some protection is necessary. You could make it based on development costs and have much shorter times for things that were cheap to do.

"maybe the problem is the role of money in politics and we should address the root cause. "

There are a lot of problems in politics that should be fixed - rules for thee but not for me (rule of law ignored), basically insider trading, high lifetime pensions, long careers, two party system, media bias/lies, and even problems in the voter base (us v them). Money is an issue, but it's really only good if the constituents are gullible or believe in the ends justifying the means. The real root of all of this is that politicians are a separate class from the rest of us and aren't accountable to anyone unless their transgressions are egregious, and then only sometimes. Rule of law has become a joke.

Drug companies are just similar to software in that regard. They acquire a bunch of companies that do basic R&D and get drug pipelines. Those founders get rich because they have patent protection. Just look at biosimilars for a taste of what might happen without patent protections.

I am more familiar with the 510(k) that most people are. It bypasses some testing, but there is still a fair amount of work. It has nothing to do with R&D expenditures that may or may not be behind an submission.

510K is faster and cheaper in regards to studies given that it doesn't necessarily require human data nor clinical trials, which can be fairly large costs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com