[philip]

Originally posted by VulcanRider: VR- The price of the license is usually based on the money spent for the research. Whoever paid for the work wants to get their money back.

I know that but those could make doing research on the subject by others less attracting. So scientific research by other companies could be hindered by this for the time of the patent.

VR- I think doctors today either deal with research or treatment. I don't think any do both.

My formulation wasn't really clear. Right now the doctor will try to help you if you have a disease. If he doesn't do any research his job is to help you. The third party, the researcher for a company doesn't have to do this, he simply has to research the disease. That's when there's a risk the care for a patient won't be optimal. In the Netherlands now only a few institutes have a license from the government to research genetic diseases or any disease that has somehow got to do with genes.

quote: -Quality control can be really hard when companies outsource certain parts of tests to other countries. -There could be problems with continuing the production when a company stops or goes bankrupt.

VR- How are either of these blamed on patents? They're both true whether the invention is patented or given away for free.
[/QUOTE]For the first you're completely right. Though national influence on quality control will be less. But still that's not really an argument against it cause there's still the international laws. The second one is because if a company has a patent no other company can exploitate the product.

VR- And if nobody's willing to pay for the research, they'll have one choice -- die.

quote: -A commercial company has to make profit. This can be by making things expensive or by producing large quantities. Either way that will give problems in what is researched or on the price. I think I'm against patents on genes because of the monopolies. What's the use of a medicine if it's too expensive?

VR- it's more useful than if nobody pays for the research and it's never developed in the first place.[/QUOTE]There will be research, there are still non-profit organisations doing research. The only thing I want to say is that everyone deserves the best treatment. Commercial companies drive up the prices cause they have to make profit. With patents they can even do so for nearly 20 years. I understand it's completely fair that companies get back what they invested, and I agree with that. But right now too much depends on the attitude of the patent holder. He can set the price. In the Netherlands the system is now somewhere between deciding on if to implement it and implementing it (though they should have done it already because of the European law) and now the price is still set by insurance companies and the non-profit research centers. What happens if patent holders do that? You get the same as what happens now in the pharmaceutical industry, prices can be outrageous to the point where you either have to pay yourself or you can't get the treatment because neither the hospital nor the insurance company wants to step up for it. That those won't pay for the best medicine out there says a lot about how high that price can be. They go up into the 100 thousands of Euros (so about the same in dollars) per patient.

Companies with a monopoly position gained by a patent take advantage of the position of a patient who will have to use it. Medicines are not luxury goods. That's when I say leave that to non-profit organisations to research and get the price a bit lower that way. That kind of inventions won't help much if a huge majority of people can't get access to them while they need it. I think it's ethically not right to have medication for people but then make the price so high so that you can make profit. Profit as in more than reasonable salaries and the research costs you made. Even if you put this extra in other projects, the money for some scientific research should be spread evenly and medical inventions should be one of them.

VR- Lost? Why? Information's not lost because when a patent is filed detailed documents about that invention are made public. The whole point is to be able to say "See this? It's mine." But since patents don't last forever, eventually that information becomes available for anybody to use.

It's lost in a sense that there's less research on it cause often those diseases aren't commercially viable.

Sorry, but I get the impression you'd like companies to spend $$ on research and give away the fruit of that labor. The simple truth is that if you take away the chance to make a profit, you take away the major incentive to pay for research. That means there will be less research done, and scientific progress will take longer.

I don't mean that. I think it's perfectly acceptable that companies get something back for their investments. But the patent system as it is now doesn't provide the proper protection for patients, research and though it will always in a way be private interest for a company to do research and produce that the balance has swung too much to the private interest while public interest should still be looked at too.

[ 03-06-2005, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: philip ]