Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
A model for open source software development (NewsForge)
In this NewsForge
article a pediatric oncologist finds analogies between biomedical
research and the open source software development model. "It has
been argued that the only way to make money off of software is to follow
the closed proprietary system of software development. If this were true,
then no company would be able to make money in biomedical research, which
depends on full disclosure and published research. It can hardly be argued
that there is no money to be made in biomedical research. Pharmaceutical
companies do make money. But they do so in no small part due to the fact
that they participate in research that is published in peer-reviewed
journals."
(Log in to post comments)
A model for open source software development (NewsForge) Posted May 25, 2004 22:16 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] This is possibly not the best conceivable analogy given that thepharmaceutics companies usually patent their products in order to be able to recoup the research costs. The argument goes that if the substances were not patented the research (and the approval process) could never be paid for. Now patents on software, or even patents on inventions which are implemented in software, are of course anathema to the OSS scene. This is where the analogy breaks down. Anselm
A model for open source software development (NewsForge) Posted May 25, 2004 22:44 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Agreed strongly.Indeed, I'd almost like to see the analogy go the other way. Look, Open Source exists! And yet patents are a threat to it. Maybe biomed research could still exist without patents.... Personally, I fear that pharmaceutical patents are more evil than software patents. After all, they have put the USA in the position of needing to argue that millions in Africa must die in order to protect the intellectual property of our pharmaceutical companies (and campaign donors). Huge drug prices are also in large part repsonsible for escalating medical costs in the USA-- which not only makes it difficult for poorer people to get medical care, but stands a chance of bankrupting our government as a larger political voting bloc retires and goes on medicare. We need to *seriously* ask the question as to whether pharmaceutical patents should be outlawed, and biomedical research should be funded more like other basic research -- i.e. from government and foundation grants. Yes, it would cost the government more, but I question if the difference would really be as big as the pharmaceutical lobby would say, given that we are guaranteed to get savings out of grealty reduced drug prices-- not only directly for the government (Medicare costs), but also for all taxpayers. (Generics would be available immediately; also, we would no longer have to pay for the marketing that pharmaceutical companies pay for now, nor the legal costs, nor the high paid executives.) Additionally, it would be a more humane system-- no more arguing that people in Africa must die to protect our intellectual property, no more arguing that people in America must go untreated to protect our intellectual property. Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies form a powerful enough lobby that this question will never even really be *asked*. They have strong incentive to preserve the status quo, so even a question as to whether or not there's a better way to do it (not a different agenda, but just the question) is a threat to them, and their mighty lobbying power can and will stop it. And, meanwhile, drug prices will continue to ever go up, more people in Africa will die of AIDS, health care will consume an ever increasing portion of the federal budget, and only the priveleged -- including pharmaceutical company executives, as well as other people like (admittedly) me -- will be able to afford good health care. -Rob
A model for open source software development (NewsForge) Posted May 26, 2004 4:22 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] Well, I have worked on some drug-screening software andas far as I know, some sort of a way to compensate the research costs is necessary. The problem is, that currently, patents work on a monopoly and that the price or the license or even the grant of the license is the sole decision of the patent owner. Yep, I guess, that there are better ways. For instance But, as we all know, nowadays the patent system is not
A model for open source software development (NewsForge) Posted May 26, 2004 12:02 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] And there's another problem with the pharmaceutical analogy. Let's look at heart attacks. The latest figures I'm aware of (for the UK) is that aspirin is not routinely administered or prescribed. Indeed, only about one third of heart attack victims are given it as a "first response".Yet the evidence is that (a) as a first response it dramatically reduces the severity of the original injury, and (b) as a medication over the next week or so it dramatically increases the subsequent recovery. But it's not advertised and pushed because it's 'out of patent'. As a result, many people who could have made a full or nearly full recovery end up dead or badly disabled. As always, money influence on the vendors severly distorts the market - to the major detriment of the consumer ... It's a lot easier (PHB mentality aside) for us to choose the appropriate remedy - and to find the information to show that our remedy IS appropriate. Cheers,
A model for open source software development (NewsForge) Posted May 26, 2004 20:51 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] Where do You know the stuff about aspirin?
|
|||||||||||