Yes, fix the patent system

Posted Apr 26, 2011 10:07 UTC (Tue) by dpc (guest, #74012)
In reply to: Yes, fix the patent system by drag
Parent article: A victory for the trolls

I can go into the economics behind it and how the lack of profit motivation and the ability to do proper accounting makes it impossible to accurately gauge the demand and usefulness of products, but most people would have no clue what I am talking about. It's not 'government is teh suxor', but simply a result of a facet of human nature

I can understand economy well. I understand what you mean. However I disagree. The pharmacy does not have to be post-paid.

Sick people (their friends, families and foundations around them) are vitally interested in paying for the fact of researching. They would pay companies with good previous record of drag researching and publishing solutions for the promise that when the cure is found it would be "open-sourced"/"more or less free for anybody to produce", etc.

If selling medicine after successful research would be impossible (due to lack of patents), these companies would have to switch to a model which is more or less Open Source in medicine. Companies would be run for profit (selfish motivation, good!), would compete between them-selfs (good!) and once something is discovered everyone can benefit instantly (think about poor countries) and other drugs can be researched without licensing and patenting issues.

I see no reason why this model would be anyhow less efficient than current post-paying. But I'm opened for discussion.

to post comments

Yes, fix the patent system

Posted Apr 26, 2011 11:45 UTC (Tue) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link] (4 responses)

People are rarely so forward thinking as to fund research that isn't likely to be complete before they succumb to their own illness, much less to do so proactively on the chance that they will develop a given disease.

"Why should I fund cancer research? I don't have cancer!" -- young, cancer-free person.

I'm not saying that it couldn't work, I'm just doubting whether voluntary funding like this would be sufficient to raise the necessary cash. That's the advantage of government funding; governments are more suited to long term investments and rewards.

I've often thought that it would be great to crowd-source funds for e.g. a TV show or a movie, but it really is very difficult to raise that kind of money on the promise that the donators will like the result. Medical research is the same kind of problem (only more expensive).

Yes, fix the patent system

Posted Apr 26, 2011 13:16 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

> People are rarely so forward thinking as to fund research that isn't likely to be complete before they succumb to their own illness, much less to do so proactively on the chance that they will develop a given disease.

That's what entrepreneurs are for. They search out new opportunities and seek to fulfill society's needs with the least amount of resources used (and, as a result, highest profits)

> governments are more suited to long term investments and rewards.

The bad thing about governments is that they are insulated against failures, have a poor ability to properly account expenses and lack a feedback mechanism that can properly assess society needs (democratic politics are proven to not be effective). All this means is that they are wasteful with resources and that expenditures are governed by politics and not needs.

Yes, fix the patent system

Posted Apr 26, 2011 21:57 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

<blockquote>I've often thought that it would be great to crowd-source funds for e.g. a TV show or a movie, but it really is very difficult to raise that kind of money on the promise that the donators will like the result. Medical research is the same kind of problem (only more expensive).</blockquote>

Showtime, HBO and others are examples of what you seek. They survive on subscriber funds, they produce new and innovative entertainment and IMO the best shows on television now. They do so without commercials (and the interference they bring) and without (AFAIK) government intervention or assistance. So you shouldn't need to wonder as it already exists, but costs considerably more than commercial television.

Yes, fix the patent system

Posted Apr 28, 2011 9:14 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (1 responses)

> "Why should I fund cancer research? I don't have cancer!" -- young, cancer-free person.

Quite true. Healthy people tend to behave like that, but what about ill people? Most behave just the other way around, funding research and creating foundations, generally trying to help. Paradoxical, isn't it? One may say that for ill-free people, having to chose between one or other cause finally leads to helping nobody. All that changes once life pushes you in certain direction. Human nature, I guess.

This is very similar to what happens with OSS, indeed. What makes anybody start collaborating with a project? And why do people start projects? Often they have a need to fulfill, or someone with that need is paying them.

So, the problem with Open Source Drugs is not people. It's a economical (and thus technological) problem. Such a project needs to be started by one person alone, or an small group, with very little funding. What's needed is not ways to raise more cash, but mechanisms to lower that need of cash, so many small projects can be started -and continued- by the people with the skills and interest. That and knowledge about the "Open Source" way of doing development, of course.

Yes, fix the patent system

Posted Apr 29, 2011 6:19 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

Open Source Drugs? Are you serious? This isn't a simple field, that's like suggesting that people should engage in nuclear or particle physics research in their basement including full blown experiments that could lead to catastrophic consequences. There are several ways to help drug research, the protein folding distributed computing application is one, although some professionals doubt it will ever lead to a single drug.

You don't just create a drug and start testing on people. Drugs go through computer models, animal research and many other steps before a single human takes the chemical. This is a highly specific field requiring controls and methods that are going to be economically beyond all but the most advanced and they are already working in the field. Please consider that if you start making drugs and someone dies you will end up in jail for a very long time. There is a reason government highly regulates this stuff, it's an area where even with full safety measures and a lot of experience people can still be killed by drugs that have previously proven safe.

I work in a profession that requires a professional license to work in it, I like to think that gives me perspective that some things just aren't meant for amateurs to work on because of the potential for fatalities. Maybe there are areas where ordinary people can help in the research but I just don't see it.