Doctors cash in on patents. Drug companies keep prices high with patents. HMOs boost profits by denying care, if you have insurance to get care at all. The government rules certain procedures illegal for political rather than health reasons. And on and on.
As Medical Patents Surge, So Do Lawsuits
A surge in patents that protect surgeries and other medical methods has triggered numerous lawsuits in recent years, with inventors fighting more vigorously than ever to protect their intellectual property rights.
Patent lawyers say doctors and scientists are suing to protect everything from laser eye surgery techniques to stent procedures to methods for declawing a cat.
The medical community is weary of the trend, noting that threats of patent infringement litigation could interfere with effective patient care.
Attorney John Dragseth said he has noticed a new trend: doctors getting their own patents, and then asserting them against medical device companies in court.
The medical community is weary. “It’s not clear that providing a monopoly over a certain process promotes innovation in the field of patient care delivery,” said Aaron Kesselheim, a patent attorney and doctor who conducts health policy research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“The legal concern is that physicians won’t do something because they’re concerned that somebody will sue them, and if that affects the care that they are trying to provide to the patients, then that’s a negative,” he said.
How soon will we see a lawyer having to scrub in with the doctors and nurses? Wait… Are there hospitals where this happens already???
>>Drug companies keep prices high with patents.
Well, so do Apple, Micro$oft, General Electric, Toyota, Toshiba, and maybe even dvorak.org/blog. Although the patent system is certainly open to abuse (as appears to be the case in this instance), faulting innovators for seeking to gain a decent return on their investment seems like somewhat of a cheap shot, Tio.
Having a lawyer in the operating room is no surprise to me. We’ve had lawyers assigned to senior military officers for decades so they don’t do anything “illegal” in battle. That’s what you get when you elect a Congress made up of lawyers.
Yep, every good idea needs to be revisted every 25 years or so. Takes that long ((absent a BushCo infection)) for things to get off center.
Which do we value more–the general availability of knowledge, or the inducement to create it?
#3, bobbo,
Good point. Well said.
#1, Mister Mustard
Your point is valid. Except of course, so much of the knowledge going into new drug patents have very little to do with the drug company. It becomes novel use of public knowledge and research done on the publics dollar.
For example, Prozac. A great drug? Sure, but it was a tweaking of earlier tricyclic drugs already on the market. Yes, it became a more effective drug, but Lilly didn’t invest very much in the research. Then along came all the copy cats, Effexor, Wellbutrin, etc. that were mere twists on Prozac. Again, very little original research, just re-formulations.
Then Lilly patented the process for making Prozac so after their patent ran out they could stop the generics from making any.
I for one don’t have a problem with anyone getting a decent return on their investment. BUT, I do have a problem with legalized hijacking of the public. As bobbo put it, it is time to re-visit this and make the changes that reflect our technological changes.
I’m going to agree here too. The software arena is not the only area where patents have run amok. Getting rich is primary goal, but do it honestly through continuous new invention.
A short-cut to the final weights, in my view===do away with patents totally.
Most creative talents are driven by that primal urge alone. Business adds little to it beyond a desire to control/monopolize/limit the market.
I wonder what exactly we have today that would be absent without patent law? and what would we have if patent law did not exist?
Course, things don’t stand alone. Other reforms needed as well–for instance, liability for idiomatic immune responses, which raises the issue of national health care, which raises the issue that Bush is an idiot.
All roads lead to Rome.
>>liability for idiomatic immune responses
Bobbo, I hate to even ask this (you’re already talked me to death several times), but wtf is an “idiomatic immune response”? An immune response that is peculiar to people who speak a certain language?
A couple of points:
1. A huge amount of research into patented medicines and devices is done with public money. Where’s our return, other than in the form of grossly inflated drug prices?
2. You wouldn’t want your police and fire services to be “for profit”, so why would you want your health care system to be? Do you want the EMT leaning over you after your accident, asking you, “how much is it worth to you”? Well, that’s the question many families have to answer every day.
3. For those that claim that the “free market” will fix everything, I would ask this: We’ve had free markets in health care since Nixon, so why is it that it costs the U.S. double the amount per capita for health care than even nations with socialized medicine? Isn’t the so-called “free market” supposed to optimize costs and services?
>>A huge amount of research into patented medicines and
>>devices is done with public money.
You can say it, but that don’t make it so.
Please provide a link or a citation. The fact remains, it takes an average of $100,000,000.00 (in addition to any research that is done with “public money”) to gain regulatory approval for a “patented medicine” or device. If drug companies can’t make back their $100,000,000.00 and a little extra to pay the rent, why should they bother?
#1, #8, #9 and #11 Mister Mustard, Another blathering hypocrite.
You can say it, but that don’t make it so.
Please provide a link or a citation.
No facts you attempted remain. You have established nothing, excepting demonstrating your “hot bagness”, IMHO.
We can only hope, you didn’t waste too much money on your apparent lack of education.
#3 bobbo puts it best. Which do we value more–the general availability of knowledge, or the inducement to create it?
Also, there are many public factual examples of
>>A huge amount of research into patented medicines and
>>devices is done with public money
>>You have established nothing, excepting demonstrating
>>your “hot bagness”, IMHO.
noname, if anything at all in your post made a whit of sense, I would respond to it. Unfortunately, I can’t decode a single thing in that rambling diatribe except my hame, so I guess you’re talking to me. Beyond that, you lost me.
And what the fuck is ‘hot bagness”? In your humble opinion.
>>You have established nothing, excepting demonstrating
>>your “hot bagness”, IMHO.
Sorry dude; I don’t use a hot bag. May I borrow yours?
http://tinyurl.com/3yhcru