Overturn Patent Laws

[roadtoruin]

OK. So all you need is a team of chemists with a full on analytical suite, a team of process engineers and a sterile plant on the ground. Which you can get for peanuts, obviously.

Well you don't need it because you already have it. You are a generics company. Patent runs out tuesday, the generic is available wednesday, happens all the time. And you don't need to do any reverse engineering with the current system - your drug is described and detailed in your original drug licence application. No expensive modern drugs would be developed without a patent.

[The Eagle]

No expensive modern drugs would be developed without a patent.

And that would actually be a good thing.

[Injin]

ermm, the people who steal the IP will because they didn't pay for development - thats the point, keep up injin.

Oh right, you keep changing your story, don't mind me.

[roadtoruin]

And that would actually be a good thing.

Tell that to those who have benefitted from the latest anticancer breakthroughs that would not have seen the light of day.

[The Eagle]

Tell that to those who have benefitted from the latest anticancer breakthroughs that would not have seen the light of day.

Let's not even start with cancer and so called cancer drugs as I would have whole books to write about that...

[roadtoruin]

Let's not even start with cancer and so called cancer drugs as I would have whole books to write about that...

Well everyone has their own personal axe to grind, and often based on older drugs and outdated methodologies. In properly evidence-based medicine, therapies with poor clinical effectiveness won't be purchased or reimbursed, and companies will lose money on such turkeys.

[frozen_out]

Well you don't need it because you already have it. You are a generics company. Patent runs out tuesday, the generic is available wednesday, happens all the time. And you don't need to do any reverse engineering with the current system - your drug is described and detailed in your original drug licence application. No expensive modern drugs would be developed without a patent.

Except that a generics company has a patent disclosing the best method of practicing the invention and 20 years to get it right before manufacturing.

That's a competely different ballgame to reverse engineering a novel drug where the formulation and manufacturing route is kept as secret as possible. That will require significant investment.

Anyways, it's all academic. The examples of world-changing treatments developed without protection of the IP are too numerous to ignore.

[bogbrush]

its not that progress can't be made without patent law, its just that there would be a lot less of it, particularly in the areas in which the capability to implement an invention and bring it to market is generally out of reach of the typical inventor, which today, is most areas.

if you invent a new drug, then it is easily reverse engineered and replicated once it is on the market and in this case being first is no protection whatsoever.

Why wouldn't boffins researching at seats of learning be chucking out reveleations for industry to knock out for cheap?

If invention is its own reward (as Pasteur, Curie, Fleming etc. etc. seemed to think) why does it have to be paired up with bringing to market?

[bogbrush]

Y'know all the really clever boffins who make their lifes work of research... are we saying that without patents they'd be digging roads, or is there a chance that they'd be say in University research units banging out PhDs by the dozens in return for tenure and the satisfyingly unpressurised life of academia and personal fulfillment?

I just wondered whetehr anyone is trying to suggest that without patents nothing would happen. I'm quite certain there wouldn't be 427 different brands of headache pill, but maybe we could get by without that.

[roadtoruin]

Except that a generics company has a patent disclosing the best method of practicing the invention and 20 years to get it right before manufacturing.

That's a competely different ballgame to reverse engineering a novel drug where the formulation and manufacturing route is kept as secret as possible. That will require significant investment.

Anyways, it's all academic. The examples of world-changing treatments developed without protection of the IP are too numerous to ignore.

OK so significant investment, but quicker than waiting for a patent to run out right?, so bottom line is the term of exclusivity will be shortened for the original inventor ? And then take into consideration that a significant proportion of drugs never get into profit, but go generic before that point. In that scenario it will be even less likely that a big pharma company will take a punt on a riskier high-potential drug, and orphan drugs will be further squeezed out (because in portfolio terms you rob profitable Peter to pay unprofitable Paul).

I wouldn't want to deny that world-changing treatments can be developed without a patent, just that without state-sponsorship, the vast majority of great potential ones will not be. Just out of genuine interest, can you name a recent ground-breaking new drug (not a novel rehash of an old one) introduced without a patent ?

[The Eagle]

Well everyone has their own personal axe to grind, and often based on older drugs and outdated methodologies. In properly evidence-based medicine, therapies with poor clinical effectiveness won't be purchased or reimbursed, and companies will lose money on such turkeys.

Shame that a lot of decisions are based on manipulated research results, flawed evidence, corruption and conflicts-of-interest in the bodies that are supposed to approve the medicines and in the institutions that buy and prescribe the medicines.

A former CEO of a top UK pharma company once said in an interview:

It's a commonly held false assumption that pharma companies do research to find cures for illnesses, the research is concentrated on drugs that keep the patient alive as long as they keep taking the drug, as that assures steady profits. After all pharma companies make profits from the sick, not from the cured.

[The Eagle]

Just out of genuine interest, can you name a recent ground-breaking new drug (not a novel rehash of an old one) introduced without a patent ?

That questions is flawed since as long as patents exist all research is targeted towards patentable drugs, like I have said several times already in this thread. That is exactly one of the reasons why I support the abolition of patents, since that would finally ensure that phytopharmaceuticals will be taken seriously.

[roadtoruin]

Shame that a lot of decisions are based on manipulated research results, flawed evidence, corruption and conflicts-of-interest in the bodies that are supposed to approve the medicines and in the institutions that buy and prescribe the medicines.

An easy charge to lay, much less easy to prove. The regulators have become increasingly picky and wary of bias; it's increasingly difficult to get a new drug to market, partly based on past mistakes it's true. I could equally argue they hold up a lot of useful treatments needlessly. If the banking system were regulated one tenth as robustly, we would not be in the mess we are in today.

A former CEO of a top UK pharma company once said in an interview:

It's a commonly held false assumption that pharma companies do research to find cures for illnesses, the research is concentrated on drugs that keep the patient alive as long as they keep taking the drug, as that assures steady profits. After all pharma companies make profits from the sick, not from the cured.

Pharma companies seek profits with little moral considerations, that's true enough. However, most chronic illnesses can only be arrested in their progression, not normally cured or reversed. Of course 'maintenance therapy' is therefore a common endpoint for a drug treatment. That doesn't mean cures are not focused on, they're just vanishingly difficult to discover or develop. Chemotherapy agents, anti-infectives, parasiticides, antifungals etc are still a much researched area, though treatment is usually acute. If they work, the payer-provider will come back for more so there's still an incentive to develop genuine cures for disease.

[Boom Boom]

To some extent I agree but in your professional life do you have a vested interest in the removal of patents?

Yes he does. We've had this argument before, and it was clear that he has no respect of IP because ihe has none to protect.

[The Eagle]

An easy charge to lay, much less easy to prove. The regulators have become increasingly picky and wary of bias; it's increasingly difficult to get a new drug to market, partly based on past mistakes it's true. I could equally argue they hold up a lot of useful treatments needlessly. If the banking system were regulated one tenth as robustly, we would not be in the mess we are in today.

Here is an interesting read that at least confirms some of these malpractices:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs335/en/

[porca misèria]

The engineering and scientific tradition is of paramount importance. Skill built up over decades. It's not enough to have a recipe book. If that were all it took Jamie Oliver and Delia Smith wouldn't earn a living would they?

Aha, someone gets it!

I develop innovative products, develop them, try to make a business of them. Noone notices. At least, noone with a budget.

I develop innovative products, publish them, release them FREE, write a book to help others. The world gratefully adopts the technologies. Suddenly my skills command a much higher income than ever before.

That's the real world in my own hi-tech field, and I expect you could find parallels in any other business involving innovation.

[The Eagle]

Pharma companies seek profits with little moral considerations, that's true enough. However, most chronic illnesses can only be arrested in their progression, not normally cured or reversed.

According to conventional wisdom yes. but in practice that's not true, I personally know of two cases of advanced cancer where a radical change of diet alone (vegan, mostly raw food based) caused the tumor to regress permanently. Needless to say the doctors were baffled and could not explain how that was possible.

Chemotherapy agents

Chemotherapy is one of the biggest frauds in medical history. Only 5% of all patients are still alive 5 years after a chemotherapy treatment and in a survey of oncologists that I read a while ago, less than 30% said they would accept chemotherapy treatment in case they themselves got cancer.

[connor]

I've lurked here for years, but never been motivated to post.

But I can't help responding to the utter crap spoken above. In case anyone's relative gets cancer, forget using the recent anti-cancer drugs which have been developed solely because of the patent system. Here is the solution!!!:

" ... I personally know of two cases of advanced cancer where a radical change of diet alone (vegan, mostly raw food based) caused the tumor to regress permanently. Needless to say the doctors were baffled and could not explain how that was possible"

I'll always remember this shit before believing anything an anon says on a forum again.

[bogbrush]

Yes he does. We've had this argument before, and it was clear that he has no respect of IP because ihe has none to protect.

I've sh1t more IP than you'll see in your lifetime.

And you're wasting your time sucking up to AZ, we've made our peace and found a common ground.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

I've lurked here for years, but never been motivated to post.

But I can't help responding to the utter crap spoken above. In case anyone's relative gets cancer, forget using the recent anti-cancer drugs which have been developed solely because of the patent system. Here is the solution!!!:

" ... I personally know of two cases of advanced cancer where a radical change of diet alone (vegan, mostly raw food based) caused the tumor to regress permanently. Needless to say the doctors were baffled and could not explain how that was possible"

I'll always remember this shit before believing anything an anon says on a forum again.

Most excellent first post. Welcome to ringside.

I believe one of the two people he was referring to was Face from the A-Team

The internet is full of people who like the sound of their own voice.

[ROC]

“People have stopped asking what intellectual property is for and whether it is doing any good.” Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Robin Jacob.

Patents do not reward inventors (if they did, where is the reward for the other guy who came up with the same idea - that happens all the time).

They do reward investment in innovation. Secure the monopoly and accountants will let you write in a capital asset on you balance sheet, so you can as a corporation borrow more against it. can someone tell me what happened to Enron's IP portfolio?

The arguments above seem to be strongly 'religious'. You may as well debate the pros and cons of the Vatican's granting of plenary indulgences.

There is some economic evidence available that patents are harmful. For a start see Boldrin & Levine http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm

Or consider the attitudes of real inventors, take Babbage and the Brunels. Marc Brunel considered the patent office nothing more than a lottery, his son Isambard wanted nothing to do with patents. James Watt held back the development of steam power because he had friends in Parliament and a cast iron patent - but he couldn't use a simple crank because some fool had granted a patent on that to somebody earlier.

Patents are a way that government license private persons (usually corporations) to extract a tax. They might do this for policy reasons, or to raise revenues through fees, or to distribute power to major players. It isn't efficient. We are all the poorer for it.

[scepticus]

If invention is its own reward (as Pasteur, Curie, Fleming etc. etc. seemed to think) why does it have to be paired up with bringing to market?

because in the vast majority of cases, invention is not its own reward, unless someone is funding you (e.g. the Wellcome trust or a univeristy), to do it.

[roadtoruin]

That questions is flawed since as long as patents exist all research is targeted towards patentable drugs, like I have said several times already in this thread. That is exactly one of the reasons why I support the abolition of patents, since that would finally ensure that phytopharmaceuticals will be taken seriously.

Proving they work is all that's required for them to be taken seriously. Proof of concept research is quite cheap. If you show me a great candidate phytopharma drug being overlooked then I'll take the hypothesis seriously.

[roadtoruin]

According to conventional wisdom yes. but in practice that's not true, I personally know of two cases of advanced cancer where a radical change of diet alone (vegan, mostly raw food based) caused the tumor to regress permanently. Needless to say the doctors were baffled and could not explain how that was possible.

Chemotherapy is one of the biggest frauds in medical history. Only 5% of all patients are still alive 5 years after a chemotherapy treatment and in a survey of oncologists that I read a while ago, less than 30% said they would accept chemotherapy treatment in case they themselves got cancer.

Very strange that doctors were baffled. Perhaps they didn't attend their module at med school that covered the placebo effect.

Your chemo statement is errant ****** that doesn't pass the laugh test.

[efdemin]

I don't work in the pharmaceutical industry, but I do work in a high value chemical industry and reverse engineering of competitor products is one of my areas of expertise. That's one of the reasons I'm on a patent trawl today, although it's so boring I've probably spent just as much time browsing the net.

Believe me, reverse engineering is about more than having a recipe book. Manufacturing high quality products to tight specifications isn't straight forward. Even if you get the original inventors, what will they know about process engineering? I'll tell you: Nothing. You need to employ a lot of experitse and put a lot of plant on the ground. I suppose it's doubly true for pharmaceuticals where all your plant has to be sterile. Do you know how expensive pharmaceutical plant is?

I can tell you that we have products, out of patent, that our competitors STILL can't make as good as us. And that's after the process of manufacture has been disclosed in a patent.

I would estimate reverse engineering a drug then commercialising it would require an investment in the region of $10-20M and a time of at least 3-5 years. Even with shortcuts. And even then you're going to need luck here and there.

Ok, apologies for being a bit too aggressive.

With regards to the reverse engineering, for a profitable drug, £10-20 million and a few years is nothing. After that it's all gravy. Getting the accreditation in the first place can take £100's millions. The big pharma companies need to be able to pay that off and cover their losses on drugs that don't pass but still cost £10's millions in development.

It sounds like you have a good business but it sounds very familiar (high quality manufacture that can't be easily copied in a low-cost/skills country). Is it a mass-market product though or a niche requiring high quality? High-quality niches are great and it's something the UK does really well, but it doesn't replace all the thousands of jobs lost in lower-grade manufacture. You'll always be fearing the day they do catch up though - I know I am.