Health Care: Is Obama Taking on the Biotech Industry?

KT, if Obama wants generics on the shelves faster I’m for it. Cheaper drugs = lower HC costs for us. It’s interesting how pharmas (Big and Bio alike) tweak old drug formulas into new ones …for more profits I presume? e.g., Claritin’s loratadine (good stuff!) becomes desloratadine / Clarinex. Given some pharmas make both brand names and generics and others mostly one or other, do YOU see more pharma infighting (Big vs. Bio) or a united front to get their way in the final bill? thanks for your thoughts, KT (and please pass concerns / wishes to Jay when possible per prior post).

Thank you Karen for this information.
Have you heard if they are going to close the donut hole for medicare?

From the NYT link: “After the patent on a biologic drug expires, competitors may produce similar products, but they are treated by the health care system as if they were entirely new drugs, not substitutes like generics.”
..
This seems to be the problem with the law as it stands today. This should be fixed so that generics could be made after the patent expires on the given biologic drug. Treating them as new drugs seems utterly foolish as does extending patent protection on these drugs.
..
“…or the Federal Trade Commission’s recommendations, which was … zero.”
..
The FTC nailed it right there.

KT:
.
Does any other wealthy country have the kind of patent laws that we have, or do they resist granting these kind of temporary monopolies?
.
If the effect of laws that allow enormous market participants to remain “shielded from competition” that the prices of those sellers’ products tend to be more expensive? Even way more expensive?
.
Is that, more than, say the “unnecessary treatments” afforded low copay, low out-of-pocket, comprehensive health insurance plans (“Cadillac plans”, or really “French plans” or “Canadian plans” or “German plans” or “Japanese plans”) perhaps one reason why the United States pays the price of $7400 plus per person for health care, as opposed to France’s $3600, or Canada’s $3900, or Germany’s $3500…or Japan’s $2600?
.
Here’s a link to the OECD data that supplies those figures ( link to data showing how much more Americans pay for these same health care products and services ), in case you didn’t have that information, KT.
.
Thanks in advance for helping your readers understand why the United States pays so much more than every other wealthy country for the same drugs, KT. I’m sure Americans would love to know why they’re getting ripped off.

So long as the Federal Government also allocates millions of dollars of research money to take the place of the money the restriction the patent enforces makes for the drug companies.
.
Most of the “miracle” drugs we have seen over the past 50 or so years has been acheived by this process. A company will sink in millions of dollars, do the research and testing, and then are given a patent on the drug to recoop costs. Just how long they are allowed to recoop costs is what is at debate.
.
I am all for a shorter or even “zero” year, but there has to be some incentive as well. Not incentivising equals no break through drugs.
.
The same low cost could have been acheived if Democrats would have allowed the Dorgan Amendment to have been included. Had that been done, then you may have convinced me into this bill, but very grudingly. Now, the bill must be killed. Kill the bill, and start over again.
.
Anyone have the secret recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken?
.
The next great cancer drug or Alzheimer’s drug may depend on this process. We will pay in some form or another for the cost of it.
.
The question remains, what is the fairest approach.

“Most of the “miracle” drugs we have seen over the past 50 or so years has been acheived by this process.”
..
You’re wrong on the facts here. Where do you get this misinformation? Many, if not most, drugs have been funded through public dollars; money granted to the NIH, colleges, universities, etc. The rights to these drugs are then given to private pharma companies so that they can carry them through the FDA trials and bring them to market. Big pharma has an abysmal record at researching successful new drugs and bringing them to market.
..
David Cay Johnston wrote quite a bit about it in his book, Perfectly Legal. See it here:
..
http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Rich-Everybody/dp/1591840694/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263566165&sr=8-1

Drugs developed by any biotech R&D that’s government-funded should not be shielded at all. I’d favor more government funding for R&D if it would save American consumers money on the other end.

Drug prices have gone up far faster than the rate of inflation, & drug companies usually preserve the generic shield by tweaking their products at the last minute &/or buying out generic rights to produce a drug.

Time to scream, free-market libertarians & conservatives: the federal government needs to get much more involved in the entire process of development, production & distribution of prescription drugs. Of course this won’t happen if drug lobbies continue to fund congressional & presidential campaigns at the rate of $609K/day.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

Rusty: The FTC report suggested that the barriers to entry are high enough that existing patent protections should be sufficient:
.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/06/biologics.shtm
.
The Commission’s Report states that competition by FOBs is unlikely to be similar to branded-generic drug competition because:

* The substantial costs to obtain FDA approval, plus the substantial costs to develop manufacturing capacity, will limit the number of FOB competitors;
* The lack of automatic substitution between an FOB drug and a pioneer biologic drug will slow the rate at which FOBs can acquire market share;
* An FOB drug also may have difficulty gaining market share due to concerns about safety and efficacy differences with the pioneer biologic drug;
* Biologic drugs currently are not reimbursed according to strategies that insurers often use to encourage the use of lower-priced drugs;
* As a result of these factors, FOB entry, although important, will be less-dramatic than generic drug competition. FOB entry is likely in biologic drug markets larger than $250 million in annual sales. Only two or three FOB manufacturers are likely to attempt entry for a given pioneer drug product. These entrants are unlikely to introduce their drugs at discounts any larger than between 10 and 30 percent of the pioneer product’s price;
* The effect on pioneer manufacturers also will be different. They are expected to respond and offer competitive discounts to maintain market share and are likely to retain 70 to 90 percent of their market share and will continue to reap substantial profits, even after FOB entry.

Well dicash as usual, YOU are the one with the erroneous and false or half-truths that are easily contradicted.
.
While I will agree the “research” dollars are given to Universities or Colleges, the lion-share of money today is given by the large biotech and research companies, not the government. Where the government plays a very important role is in the “phase II and phase III” testing of clinical trials, which assure factual research has been done on the new drug before final approval to be prescribed.
.
The Government does provide “some” money for the initial research, today most of the money we see in new drug research comes from the biotech companies themselves in the form of research grants.
.
While stating 50 years ago we saw a great surge in Biotech and new discoveries, it is at least 30 years. The push for major drug research began in the early 1980′s. Since the 1980′s we have seen a near renaissance in drug discovery and research. More drugs in the past 30 years than in all the previous years back to the middle ages combined.
.
Rather than a fictional tale from an “Amazon” book, perhaps the liberal generated Wikipedia may enlighten you.
.

The cost of innovation Drug discovery and development is very expensive; of all compounds investigated for use in humans only a small fraction are eventually approved in most nations by government appointed medical institutions or boards, who have to approve new drugs before they can be marketed in those countries. Each year, only about 25 truly novel drugs (New chemical entities) are approved for marketing. This approval comes only after heavy investment in pre-clinical development and clinical trials, as well as a commitment to ongoing safety monitoring. Drugs which fail part-way through this process often incur large costs, while generating no revenue in return. If the cost of these failed drugs is taken into account, the cost of developing a successful new drug (New chemical entity or NCE), has been estimated at about 1 billion USD[4](not including marketing expenses). A study by the consulting firm Bain & Company reported that the cost for discovering, developing and launching (which factored in marketing and other business expenses) a new drug (along with the prospective drugs that fail) rose over a five year period to nearly $1.7 billion in 2003.[5]

These estimates also take into account the opportunity cost of investing capital many years before revenues are realized (see Time-value of money). Because of the very long time needed for discovery, development, and approval of pharmaceuticals, these costs can accumulate to nearly half the total expense. Some approved drugs, such as those based on re-formulation of an existing active ingredient (also referred to as Line-extensions) are much less expensive to develop.

Calculations and claims in this area are controversial because of the implications for regulation and subsidization of the industry through federally funded research grants. It is important in drug formulation.

Controversy about drug development and testing
There have been increasing accusations and findings that clinical trials conducted or funded by pharmaceutical companies are much more likely to report positive results for the preferred medication.[6]

In response to specific cases in which unfavorable data from pharmaceutical company-sponsored research was not published, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have published new guidelines urging companies to report all findings and limit the financial involvement in drug companies of researchers.[7] US congress signed into law a bill which requires phase II and phase III clinical trials to be registered by the sponsor on the clinical trials.gov website run by the NIH.[8]

.
While research on drugs has gone back in the the middle ages, we really did not see truly “miracle” drugs on the market until the 40′s and 50′s.
.
Aspirin an exception and an example was initially researched and found in 1853 by a French Chemist. However further research and marketing was done by Bayer.
.

“In 1897, scientists at the drug and dye firm Bayer began investigating acetylsalicylic acid as a less-irritating replacement for standard common salicylate medicines. By 1899, Bayer had dubbed this drug Aspirin and was selling it around the world.[11] The name Aspirin is derived from A = Acetyl and “Spirsäure” = an old (German) name for salicylic acid.[12] Aspirin’s popularity grew over the first half of the twentieth century, spurred by its effectiveness in the wake of the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, and aspirin’s profitability led to fierce competition and the proliferation of aspirin brands and products, especially after the American patent held by Bayer expired in 1917.[13][14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin
.

Bruce D. Roth of Ann Arbor, Mich., will be honored March 25 by the world’s largest scientific society for inventing and helping develop the molecule that would become Lipitor�, the most commonly prescribed drug to lower cholesterol. He will receive the 2003 ACS Award for Creative Invention from the American Chemical Society at its national meeting in New Orleans.
.
“With 20-20 hindsight everything seems obvious, but in 1982 it wasn’t clear whether lowering plasma cholesterol would have a benefit or that we could do it safely,” said Roth, who is vice president of chemistry at Pfizer Global Research and Development. That was the year Roth joined the company (then Parke-Davis) and began work on a class of compounds, originally extracted from fungi, that held both promise and challenge in lowering cholesterol, averting heart disease and premature death.
.
The highly complex fungal products, called statins, blocked cholesterol synthesis at a key step. Roth’s challenge was to make a molecule that acted the same as statins but was straightforward to assemble. He met that challenge in 1985.
.
Between his discovery and Lipitor’s market debut in 1997, however, were 12 years of more work: first, to make the drug in pure form, then to scale up from laboratory to cost-efficient manufacturing. Only then came the decision to begin human clinical trials. Along the way were entire teams of chemists and others who contributed to Lipitor’s development, Roth noted.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2003/C/2003363.html
.
I am glad I have had this opportunity to enlighten you.

Stuart,

I do enjoy your posts whic are usually full of information (even if I disagree with some of the things you say) but this is just too complicated an area for simplistic answers.

Let’s take the patent laws and the issue of generics. At first blush it does seem particularly unfair to allow monopolies and then extensions to protection after patents expire but the situation is more complex than that.

First, to answer your question – most nations have the same or very similar patent laws so it is not just the US. Patents usually allow for a 20 year monopoly for the product or process patented. Patents have been around for centuries and the idea behind them is specifically to encourage innovation. The idea being that if you invent something you get a monopoly on it for a period of 20 years in exchange for publicising the invention to the world (i.e. making it “patent”). This gives an incentive to invention and also improves society because the invention is only protected if it made public.

However, a patent will only be granted if it is considered “inventive” (different courts around the world have different ideas of what constitutes inventiveness) at the date of filing. In effect what that means is that it has to be inventive over and above everything that was known at the date of the filing of the patent. So, if you invent something and show it in public (even by giving it to one person in Japan, or writing an article about it in a public but obscure periodical) you will not get a patent for it since your public disclosure will have formed part of what was known publicly before the date of filing (called the “state of the art”).

The upshot is that for any company to obtain patent protection it has to file for a patent at a very early stage of development to ensure that the filing date is before any public disclosure of the invention. In the case of pharmaceutical products, that means that the date of filing is often many years before a particular drug is ready to be sold/exploited. Further, for pharmaceutical products they have to go through a fairly detailed process of approval from the relevant regulatory bodies (i.e. FDA in the US) which can also take years. So, for any given pharmaceutical product although patent protection is available for 20 years from the date of filing, the 20 year period is often half way through (more or less) before the product is able to be exploited.
That is why there is a process for extending the patent term for patents relating to specific pharmaceutical products – to compensate for the delay in getting to market caused by research and approval process.

On the other hand, a generic company can effectively shortcut the approval process and/or testing and research and be ready to go on day 1 after the patent expires. There is also a reason why generic products are to be treated as entirely new products – because those products should also be submitted to the same approval process as the real thing for the sake of public safety. This is especiallly so in the Biotech area because of incredibly nuanced differences in the scientific processes (which I don’t pretend to understand).

Note, this is not to say that pharma prices aren’t too high or that this doesn’t contribute to the high cost of pharmaceutical products in the US – just a conceptual argument about patents and extensions to show that it isn’t all black and white.

It is also not necessarily accurate to pinpoint the increased costs in the US of healthcare on one thing and one thing alone. It is a contribution of factors, including the cost of drugs, over testing/medicating (I have to say, eg, that it is amazing to me in the UK how many drugs are available and prescribed for things I would label as the mere human condition in the US), profits of the insurance companies and (more tellingly in my view) doctor’s pay.

From my reading, the healthcare bill currently in debate does a fair bit on costs control, in terms of trying things out – and that seems to me to be a reasonable thing to do given that it is almost certainly not known exactly what will work. For example, by expanding medicaid (where doctors are paid less, I understand) this goes some way to address the inflation of doctor’s salaries.

I’ve always been a bit ambivalent about Obama’s deal with Phrma since, at the very least, those companies do actually contribute something tangible to healthcare and in fact have the potential to reduce healthcare costs considerably. For example, there is a statistic (I can’t remember where this is from) that before Losec (anti-ulcer drug) the most common surgical procedure in the US was to deal with stomach ulcers. Now that is dealt with by a drug which, atlhough expensive, is much much less costly than surgery.

Anyway, sorry for the rant but thanks for reading.

And, to add, thank you Karen for your comment as usual, insightful.
.
However this is a subjective assumption on the part of the FTC. Real model testing in Europe has found that drugs are still being discovered despite their socialist medical insurance systems, however I found this interesting as well.
.

“An interesting paper by Donald Light was posted on the Health Affairs website on 25 August 2009. “Global Drug Discovery: Europe is Ahead” aims to debunk two popular misconceptions about pharmaceutical research: (1) That the U.S. has eclipsed Europe in drug research productivity and (2) that most new drugs are therapeutically important
.
“It is well-known that we pay relatively higher prices for drugs in the U.S. than elsewhere. It is often argued that one benefit of high prices is high rates of innovation and more effective NCEs. Yet, U.S. innovation rates and rates of clinically important NCEs are not particularly high, nor are they growing.
.
Of course, European companies benefit from high U.S. prices as much as U.S. companies do and people in the U.S. benefit from European drugs as much as Europeans do. So, despite Light’s findings it isn’t clear to me that they are in and of themselves arguments against the compensating benefits of high U.S. prices. If it were the case that U.S. purchasers only bought from U.S. firms then Light’s argument would be air tight.

If Light’s findings are accurate, what is clear is that European pharmaceutical companies are operating more efficiently than their U.S. counterparts. The obvious question is why? The answer is beyond the scope of Light’s article.”

.
Are our high drug prices we pay, the result of Europe’s ability to afford the research dollars needed?
.
What if we also follow the lead of European countries and socialize our medical system? Will we see a drop in drug research as a result? Will European drug companies see a major dry up of funding as a result?
.
I am in no way a proponent of drug companies, Big Pharma. That title can be bestowed upon Barack Hussein Obama, he’s the one who made the most recent deal with them. I supported the Dorgan Amendment. Did you?

Well Rusty, you definitely enlightened me on your knowledge of sources. The author I cited, David Cay Johnston, wrote a fact-based analysis of the waste and graft that occurs within our tax code. One section was written on the pharmaceutical industry, drug development and patents. If you possessed the necessary level of reading comprehension, you would realize that his book it well documented.
..
Furthermore, you are apparently unaware of the two contradictory arguments that you have been floating recently. On one hand you say that the Dorgan amendment should be passed though it will certainly reduce the profits of drug companies. On the other hand, you make the case today that “Not incentivising equals no break through drugs.” What a patent providing many years of protection is not enough of an incentive? Now you are worried about the profits of the drug industry? Make up your mind which side of the argument you are on already.
..
It’s also convenient that you left out this from the NIH:
..
The NIH invests over $30.5* billion annually in medical research for the American people.
..
More than 80% of the NIH’s funding is awarded through almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 325,000 researchers at over 3,000 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions in every state and around the world.
..
About 10% of the NIH’s budget supports projects conducted by nearly 6,000 scientists in its own laboratories, most of which are on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland.
..
* This amount excludes the $10 billion appropriated to NIH in 2009 for short-term stimulus purposes under the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) available for obligation across a two-year timeframe until September 30, 2010.
..
See more here:
..
http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm

homerhk: Really interesting comment. Thanks for the perspective. (I have a bias against patents having seen how they are applied in the software industry, but I can see it’s a complex issue.)

OK people, please don’t blame me for this, honestly, homerhk’s long rant forced me to do paste this novella ( link to the original novella ) here:
.
Imagine, if you will, that the only food that people have to eat comes from McDonald’s.
.
Now imagine that a strange phenomenon occurs, in which it is noticed (but, oddly, not widely reported) that Americans on the Canadian border seem to stream across into Canada to buy their Big Macs.
.
It is discovered, and the information spreads through word of mouth on the internet, that a Big Mac in Grand Forks, North Dakota costs $7.40, but –incredibly– McDonald’s sells that same Big Mac in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada for $3.90.
.
Many people continue not to notice this strange situation, after all, most people get their information about McDonald’s from the television commercials McDonald’s airs, and they don’t advertise their Canadian prices during Meet The Press, they advertise their “6 Dollar Menu!” specials. A huge population of Americans don’t live near the Canadian border, and so remain unaware that they pay so much more than Canadians for the same sandwich. And, again, somehow these disturbing facts don’t regularly make it into newspapers, magazines and television shows that depend on McDonald’s for the advertising dollars for which they’re starting to starve.
.
But, more and more, word spreads via new communications technologies that this is the case. Economic data that previously sat in dusty reports ( link to comparison of Big Mac prices around the world ), waiting for reporters to notice, and publishers to publish, is instantaneously available to anyone online. It is by this new channel that the shocking information starts to come out: the price that McDonald’s charges for Big Macs in the United States is almost twice that of every other country that has McDonald’s restaurants.
.
The data shows that it’s not just Canada. A Big Mac in Switzerland costs $4.61, in France it’s $3.61, in Germany it’s $3.58, in the UK it’s $2.99, in Italy it’s $2.68, in Spain it’s $2.57, and –unbelievably– in Japan it’s only $2.58 for the same Big Mac.
.
What’s different about these countries?
.
Lots of things, but one thing they also have in common is that their governments have special ministries set up to negotiate the price of a Big Mac with McDonald’s every few years for the entire nation of tens and tens of millions of people.
.
The reason that the price of a Big Mac in Japan is so low is that their government has decided how much a Big Mac should cost, and told McDonald’s that, if they don’t like it, the Japanese government will fund a project to make their own McDonald’s, complete with Golden Arches and Special Sauce, and that they’re pretty confident they can make Big Macs, if they had to. Plus, they don’t really respect McDonald’s “worldwide patents” on Big Macs. They just don’t care. So McDonald’s takes the deal, otherwise they’ll lose the money, and they know that the Japanese are not f*cking around.
.
So now it comes time in the United States to deal with the fact that McDonald’s expenditures are taking up, like over 16% of the nation’s wealth, because we’re overpaying for Big Macs, and as the price stays low in other countries, McDonald’s keeps raising the prices here to compensate and make more profits. Gradually, and then suddenly, it’s getting ridiculous. Nobody can continue to bankrupt themselves paying for Big Macs, and so something must be done. The Federal government’s “Medi-Mac” program, which feeds people over 65, is going broke in ten years at a desperate pace.
.
What does the government of the United States do?
.
Well, they ask economists. The economists put up big, long, complex math equations with Greek letters in them up on white boards and Power Point presentations, and they explain what the symbols mean to government officials.
.
One of these symbols is for the price of Big Macs, one is for the number of people who need Big Macs, and one is for the number of Big Macs. Then they draw a graph of what that equation looks like, just like kids are forced to do in algebra class. The graph radically curves upwards, like the trajectory if you shot a balloon out of a cannon.
.
These economists come from different schools of economic theory, so some economists say “Set the price of Big Macs lower, then run the equation!” Unfortunately, the government officials say “We can’t do that! That’s off the table! You’re fired. Somebody shut them up!”
.
Other economists, though, say “Set the number of people lower! Now run the equation.“, and the officials say “Sure. Now the graph looks like a cannon shot of a balloon that’s got a slow leak. Great!“.
.
The problem is that the government officials are trying to make a new Federal program called “Big Mac Reform” that actually increases the amount of people who can buy Big Macs a little bit, because those poor folks are going to get a tax break at the end of the year for all of the Big Macs they buy.
.
So these officials go back to the economists, and say “We’ve got a problem here. How do we get that number of people who need Big Macs lower again, so the graph doesn’t go back to exploding?” These helpful economists say “Well, why don’t you tax the people who buy Big Macs now? Then the resulting decrease will offset the increase you’re planning by a bit. That will keep the people who need Big Macs number more or less the same!””
.
Did you get that?
.
These economists can “bend the cost curve” on that graph of Big Mac spending, if they can offset the number of new Big Mac buyers with those who are taxed, and therefore can buy less. How much will the graph change? Not much, but enough so that that the government officials can say that it’s “historic”.
.
Everybody in Washington goes home happy, job well done, live to fight another day. The economists, in particular, are pleased with their equations and graphs. Science! $700,000 in US Dept. of Health and Human Services research money! Science.
.
Meanwhile, back in Grand Forks, North Dakota, people hear grand statements about “bending the cost curve” and “historic” and “31 million people now able to buy Big Macs”, and get increasingly irritated –and desperate. They still have to go to Winnipeg to buy low-cost Big Macs, and they don’t understand why they can’t just go to Walmart, and get them cheap there.
.
They also know that, in addition to having to go to Canada to get McDonald’s food, they’re also paying taxes to supply revenue for the government’s “Medi-Mac” program, and they know that the Feds aren’t paying Canadian prices for that, so they’re getting soaked no matter what. They hate the political party in charge of Washington that did this to them. Their incumbent Senator from that party actually declines to run for office again. This scenario plays out similarly in many other states, just with different degrees of anger and disappointment. The price of a Big Mac in the United States begins to climb skyward to $8.00, $9.50, $15.90, $21.20, just like a cannon shooting a leaky hot-air balloon at the horizon.
.
Many middle class people who used to be able to afford a Big Mac start to starve.
.
That’s the story of this Health Care Reform legislation, if it were about Big Macs instead of health care, and McDonald’s instead of Pfizer.
.
I hope that you all enjoyed this little novella. 18 and over, entertainment purposes only.

Interesting find here:
..
I know that many people are getting tired of this topic. But many people who work in the industry have never met someone who’s convinced that drug companies are just standing in the way of innovation, and that all the good stuff comes from the NIH, anyway. So allow me a couple of quick quotes from Dr. Jerry Avorn, chief of pharmacoepidemiology at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and (thus) a person who should know better:
..
“. . .Virtually every progressive recommendation about health policy for the last 20 or 30 years that the drug industry felt might harm its bottom line has been met by the threat that if they don’t make as much money before, innovation will cease and there will be no cures for new diseases. It came up around Medicare drug pricing and generic drugs. It’s not a surprise to see it come up around health-care reform.
There are a couple reasons that this is a specious argument. One is that according to their filings with the SEC, the drug companies only spend about 15 cents of every dollar on research and development. That’s compared to more than 30 cents in administration and marketing and more than 20 cents on shareholder equity. As an investment in R&D, I think any venture capitalist would say a company spending 15 percent on research is not a robust innovation engine.
..
The second issue is that if one looks at the new pipeline of drugs that Pharma has been generating in recent years, it’s been puny. Wall Street has noticed this as well. There have been 20 or fewer drugs approved by FDA in recent years, which is lower than in past periods. It’s sort of an open secret that innovation isn’t working that efficiently.
..
The third leg of the stool is that if you really trace back where the seminal discoveries come from on which new drugs are based, it is federally supported research, usually funded by the National Institute of Health, and frequently conducted at universities or academic medical centers. The drug companies will then identify these discoveries and do hard, costly, and important work commercializing them. And they deserve compensation for that work. But it’s disingenuous for them to imply that all the discoveries occur in their walls.. . .”
..
Read the rest of the interview if you want to hear how we’d all be better off if everything turned into biotech start-ups. But you say that you thought those were companies, too, and weren’t funded by NIH money, but rather by investors who are often hoping for a deal with a big drug company? Adjust your thinking! This last quote should help you:
..
“. . .if we want innovation and scientific discovery we should fund innovation and scientific discovery, not go after it bass-ackwards by paying too much for overpriced drugs and hoping that some of the excess profit will trickle down into innovative research. If I’m right that a lot of the important and useful innovation comes from NIH studies, then the way to get more innovation is to fund innovation. It frankly would be a far more interesting use of any given dollar one wanted to spend. . .”
..
Megan McArdle has done the work of attacking this
at greater length than I can right now, and her post is a good palate-cleaning read after the Avorn interview. One tiny point she brings up that Dr. Avorn might want to internalize is that 15% is actually quite a large percentage of R&D spending. Apple spends 3%, and Google, 10%. Intel manages to get all the way up to 15%. At any rate, the whole post is worth reading, and was clearly written in a mood of complete exasperation. Which I share.
..
See it here:
..
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2009/08/05/just_give_it_to_nih.php

stuart, thanks for the novella. It’s a good analogy…
.
…but after the many long, thought out HC comments today, could you spare a few words to wish Jay well in harm’s way in Haiti? HC insurance debates and drug prices simply don’t matter there right now. I left her best wishes / concerns, will you do the same?

That goes for everyone else too who has commented this morning except at KT’s post about Jay.

Again diecash, one cannot convince a complete idiot of facts, when their mind is already made up.
.
I agreed that the Government does fund BILLIONS but what your brain lacks is the understanding that those billions of dollars goes into phase I, phase II and phase III research as mandated by Congress through the FDA Amendment Act of 2007. This is where the lion’s share of your government funding is allocated today. Prior to that research and development with clinical trials were in the hands of the drug companies who often gave more positive conclusions about drugs, rather than an impartial one. In that time period we saw many drugs which initially saw great promise, but ended up with long term side effects which caused more harm to the patient, than the disease treated.
.
Again, I shall repeat, I am not on the side of Big Pharma, you confuse me with Barack Obama. I am simply questioning the headlong run at this health care problem by the Obama Administration when they do not know all the facts or outcomes. Especially in this specific bill which daily proves to be a boon-doggle, and a kickback to special interest groups rather than to effectively create reforms which will be to the benefit of the American public.
.
They put together a 2000+ page bill. In the wake of it, we do not know what the potential failures will be, this being one example of how government regulation can and will affect the future of drug research and development. How it affects it is unknown.
.
It is simply too much too fast, with the results being nothing short of a tax on the middle class supporting a domestic policy to insure those who are currently uninsured to meet one of Obama’s campaign promises.
.
Pass recission laws. Pass laws to protect against pre-existing conditions. Pass laws which protect people from complete bankruptcy due to a medical procedure first.
.
Then begin a process which tackles costs. Maybe it is a public option only, universal health care system. Maybe it is exchanges. Maybe it is the Dorgan Amendment. Maybe it is all the above. But, one thing I know for certain after exhaustive research on this specific Democrat ONLY backed and proposed bill, it is not this type of radical reform we need right now.

deconstructiva:
.
Done. Hopefully she’ll somehow receive word of our prayers.

Thanks, stuart. I hope so too.

There are a few more things we need to consider:

How is the quality of medicine being produced by the pharma and biotechnology industries currently?

Most of the time the patents on the drugs exist so that there can be innovation and quality in this field producing higher quality medicine. If we shorten the time, the quality of medicine would further decrease. Is that we want?

I liked the apple novella better!! But then again, Big Mac’s give me indigestion. Apples simply loosen my bowels.
.
Ha!

Deepak, that is WAY too deep for this crowd. You better take stuart’s advice and keep it more on the level of apples and Big Macs.

Sorry, that should read “in Spain it’s $2.67“.
.
Go read the OECD data yourself at the link, don’t trust me. Go look at those prices.

Time magazine predictably asks: Is Obama taking on the Biotech Industry?

No, the fundamentalist Marxist is taking on freedom and the American way. Knowing that his idiotic supporters just love such boilerplate leftist claptrap, Obama wants to confiscate the property (i.e., patents) of those businesses that have invested billions of dollars into developing medication and give said property to Obama’s irresponsible welfare queens, while Obama’s useful idiots (i.e., the American press corps, especially those members in Washington and New York) hail their Marxist leader as “taking on” the biotech industry. Predictably, should Obama’s war on America prevail, there ain’t gonna be no biotech industry willing to invest its own money to develop drugs only to have Obama give the fruits of such investment to his irresponsible freeloaders and welfare queens.

“Most of the time the patents on the drugs exist so that there can be innovation and quality in this field producing higher quality medicine.”
.
It always amuses me that those who swear the greatest slobbering fealty to free-market dogma understand not even the most fundamental facts about business and markets. Most of the time the patents on the drugs exist so that there can be more profits for drug companies. Business exists in the first place and continues to exist based upon its profits. Period. If they can profit without innovation or quality, say by manipulating product information, markets and/or government regulation, which they often do, they will. Period.

Freedom and the American way?
.
A reminder, textee, of what we are talking about here: The INDUSTRY is asking the GOVERNMENT to PROTECT THEM from COMPETITION. (Sorry for the caps, but I didn’t know how else to make this point.)
.
They’ve got patent protection. They are asking for 12 YEARS ADDITIONAL PROTECTION ON TOP OF THEIR PATENTS.
.

Most of the time the patents on the drugs exist so that there can be innovation and quality in this field producing higher quality medicine.

I thought drug patents really existed so pharmas can maximize market share and profits within their time window – and tweaking formulas to get new patents, more profits -but I digress.

You do realize that the big brouhaha over Obama making a secret deal with big pharma was a not so secret deal to close the doughnut hole. I guess we were so busy slamming Obama for his alleged betrayal that we didn’t bother to find out what the media was really talking about — of course I suspect the media didn’t bother to find out what they were talking about either.

Thank you so much for responding to commentary, KT, it is very much appreciated.

…KT, you could try bold text ala rusty. (I wonder if bold text will help get good luck messages thru Haitian phone lines / cell towers to Jay?) I’m just glad conservatives are NOT quoting Ayn Rand on this topic. She despised companies seeking government protection to eliminate competition – which is precisely what pharmas are doing.

“Most of the time the patents on the drugs exist so that there can be innovation and quality in this field producing higher quality medicine. If we shorten the time, the quality of medicine would further decrease. Is that we want?”
..
Deepak, care to explain HOW exactly patents on drugs promote “innovation and quality in this field producing higher quality medicine”? Despite Rusty’s blatant attempt to curry favor by agreeing to something nonsensical that he fails to understand, your statement is utterly false. Patent protection, as others have stated, allows drug companies a window to recapture the expenses associated with their business and the opportunity to make (egregious) profits. The drug companies are seeking an ADDITIONAL extension of their patents, BTW.

“One is that according to their filings with the SEC, the drug companies only spend about 15 cents of every dollar on research and development. That’s compared to more than 30 cents in administration and marketing and more than 20 cents on shareholder equity. As an investment in R&D, I think any venture capitalist would say a company spending 15 percent on research is not a robust innovation engine.”

A selective and not very strong reading of the data. From the CBO study (link below) Pharm Research & Manufacturers spend on average about 17% (it was 20% for years). If this is not innovative just imagine how un-innovative the computer, communications equipment and all manufacturers are with 5%, 10% and 3% spent annually. Over 70% higher than its nearest tech industry and that’s not considered innovative? Yes a VC company woudl be spending 50% or higher. They also do not have products or revenues at that rate either.
\
The CBO also noted that from start to finish it costs approximately $600 million and takes 11.8 yrs to bring a new drug to market.

I am also curious as to how a company spends money on shareholder equity. Shareholder equity is the earnings retained inthe company by the owners that has not been spent to operate the business. To consider this a cost of the business is comparable to considering tax reductions as a cost to the government. It is the money of the ownerm the taxpayer.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf

Not unlike the unions askin gfor protection of their health care plans.

I believe the point of the commentary you cited is not entirely about the level of funding in percentage terms but more so about the lack of results from the spending mentioned in the interview.

While some regulation and taxation is necessary “for the common good”, as Marx said and most liberals believe, “From each according to their abilities. To each according to their need”.
.
In other words, if a biotech firm researches and develops an earth shattering drug which cures all illness, in Karen Tumulty’s world one should not benefit or profit from such intellectual property. Simply give the great idea over to the government to grant everyone this new miracle drug at subsidized prices to meet their need. A truly socialist ideal.
.
Whereas, we do live in a capitalist country and economy. If I sweat, toil and discover, I am given the fruits of those labors to enjoy. I choose how I will give to the poor and needy, based upon my ability to provide for their need. I can also choose to give it to my family and friends first, and what I choose to deem as charitable, I can choose to give it to them.
.
But, in Karen Tumulty’s world, I cannot be trusted to give to the poor. Her remedy is to have the government decide how much I am obligated to give based upon some unknown formula devised by our Legislative Branch and enforced by the IRS.
.
But, also what we have seen from history is socialist built societies become lazy, lax, and un-motivated. Technological advancement is lowered. New discovery and innovation soon comes to a grinding halt. We end up making toys with lead for our children to eat from factories whose socialist goal is to produce the cheapest toy to sell at Walmart, the new Government Warehouse Store, so that more money for the big government machine may consume more dollars.
.
“Ages of Enlightenment” and “Renaissance” are forever gone. Well gone at least until one of the European Countries under a socialist system realizes their mistake, and changes back to the Capitalist system which they all knew all along was the best economic system to begin with. They remembered the United States of America before President Obama, and how they were once the greatest Nation in history
.
Discover more truth at http://www.newfreedomblog.com

Dee, I remember the public announcements of agreements with Pharma, Hospitals and Doctors. They did not keep it secret.
.
The President cannot change that, but I think he has the opportunity now to extract more, to come to an agreement that will pass both the Senate and the House. Closing the donut hole completely will do that as well as help those on Medicare that need it.
.
Doing this as well as lowering the insurance rate ratio to house levels will also help politically.

Hey blog-whore, don’t ascribe your warped ideas of liberal thought to actual liberals because you lack the first clue.
..
Another blog-whore gem: “We end up making toys with lead for our children to eat from factories whose socialist goal is to produce the cheapest toy to sell at Walmart, the new Government Warehouse Store, so that more money for the big government machine may consume more dollars.”
..
This demonstrates your utter delusion and lack of understanding of capitalism. Making toys in China is a RESULT of unregulated capitalism and “free” trade! The factory’s goal is to make a profit, hardly a socialist motive. They must use ever cheaper labor and materials because their capitalist masters at Wal-Mart demand an ever cheaper product. Try taking econ 101 before pontificating like this in the future.

This is in answer to Dee on my comment #2

What’s amazing to me is that the right never seems to see the disconnect between their reliance on the most strident voices with the most authoritarian world view to spew charges of assaults on freedom and the American way of life. Is it that they just do not get irony or do is this similar to the teabagger debacle — they just don’t know what these terms actually mean?

So, newfreedom, are you saying you are for the government erecting barriers to competition? that sounds awfully … socialist.

Since TIME.com does not want to acknowledge the almost unbelieveable special Senate election in Massachusetts, I am hoping that my conservative friends here in the swamp would like to meet my challenge of giving a contribution to the Republican Candidate, Scott Brown.
.
Scott Brown seems to be the last chance we have as conservatives in defeating the bill offered to us by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. A bill which is clearly not anything to do with health care reform, but political paybacks to the Democrat Party’s special interest groups and lobbyists.
.
I challenge you fellow conservatives to give to Scott Brown’s election. America’s future is at stake. You know deep down in your heart that what Obama is attempting to do is simply wrong. He asked for a “fight”, we need to show him what a fight is all about.
.
Will you be able to look your children in the eye one day and say, “I had a chance to stop this, but I didn’t do anything, I’m sorry” ??
.
I’ve posted a link in my most recent blog post, so that you can contribute to Scott’s last minute push to win this election on my site,
http:www.newfreedomblog.com

rustyblog, I mean newfreedom, how is KT a Marxist? Please explain.

newfreedom, we have posted several entries about this race in this blog and jay newton-small has written a story about it. i am headed to massachusetts on sunday.

Marx said and most liberals believe
.
This is not what liberals believe at all, that’s a lie.
.
The definition of a liberal is someone who does not subscribe to Marxist theories of history, government and political economy.
.
Liberals advocate a balanced (so that the little guy and the consumer have a shot against the big guys) market economy, entrepreneurism, individualism, fairness, liberty, innovation and improvement.
.
The word you’re looking for is “Marxist” or “Bolshevik” or “Communist”.
.
You’re either an idiot or a liar or both.

Ms. Tumulty:

Thank you for the response ….

…well crap, my comment’s left out of the discussion again, aka Groundhog Day revisited. Also.

Well Ms Tumulty, maybe this will help you to understand. A patent is not unlike a deed given to me by the Government, which states clearly “this land belongs to newfreedomblog.com”. It is an instrument proving ownership.
.
A patent is a similar document. It is an instrument that identifies me as the owner of this new idea or thing I discovered. While the Government as the authority has determined how long I can keep someone else from taking my idea or thing, and producing it. Or, like property rights, keep someone from tresspassing on my property. With land, that right is virtually as long as I own it. With patents the government determines a length of time of sole ownership. This does allow for the fair and equitable return on investment for my new discovery.
.
When that determined time has expired under current patent law, then free market competition will take over. Depending upon demand for my idea, demand will then determine my profit. If it is a truly great, unbelieveable idea (drug), then many people will compete for consumer dollars, copying my idea. This will eventually drive down the cost. But, most ideas are not sought out after by the consumer in such high demand. The protection of the idea allows me to recoup some, maybe all of my initial captial expense.
.
Do you believe in copywrite laws as a journalist Karen? Or, if not and if you wrote a truly amazing book, would you want that book reprinted and sold without any copywrite protection? Patents are in that same genre of governmental protections.
.
I hope that is clearly stated for you Ms Tumulty.

I was really being snarky by referring to the fact that KT and her fellow villagers at the NY Times referred to the white house deal with big pharma to contribute $80 billion to close the doughnut hole, which was announced on c-span with the AARP in attendance, as a secret white house deal. Despite the fact that it was common knowledge the month before, it didn’t stop the media from trying to project the perception that somehow Obama had betrayed the believers and put more anxiety in the game, driving another wedge in the Democratic process. The media has been playing this game of trying to unseat the Democrats why I can’t fathom because they live in this country too and they can see for themselves the damage Republicans governance has done. Even now Andrea Mitchell and Savannah Guthrie are busy trying to derail health care by saying labor is betraying progressives by compromising on the Cadillac plan and insinuating that if Brown winds in Massachusetts, challenging the results to stall for time to pass health care would be too ugly for the Democrats to d and so health care ill go down. Give me a break, after Norm Coleman dragged on challenge after challenge for how many months, it would be too ugly for Democrats? Its no longer even veiled, they are deliberately trying to pain this president as a failure.

“A bill which is clearly not anything to do with health care reform, but political paybacks to the Democrat Party’s special interest groups and lobbyists.”
.
NEW RULE: If you voted for George Bush after Afghanistan, Iraq and Medicare Part D, you don’t get to bitch and moan about deficit spending or industry-friendly legislation now. So if you voted for Bush or a Republican in Congress, to keep doing the job they were doing in 2004, you need to shut your hypocritical pie hole and crawl back under the partisan (and possibly racist) rock you came from.

Yes, from my trackback, I count exactly 2 posts since January 7th at 5:59 PM. I really didn’t think it was worth going back any further.
.
But, Ms Tumulty, it seems that Scott Brown in the most recent poll taken today is now leading Ms Coakley, the Beacon Hill high society choosen Democrat in Massachusetts, 50% to 45%. An amazing accomplishment do you not think? THE former seat once held by the so-called “Lion” of the Senate. (Excuse me I just had to barf).
.
That Scott Brown if elected, will as he has promised to vote “Nay” on this exact bill we have been discussing. This bill which is has also been said is Barack Obama’s “waterloo”. The same bill that quite possibly will make or break his Presidency.
.
I am simply saying that only 2 posts on this nearly impossible accomplishment by Scott Brown, a Republican. A Conservative, who appears to be winning this election, goes almost un-noticed in this blog site. I just find it sort of curious is all.
.
But, thank you for your reply to my comment. It is indeed appreciated.

Not that I am going to fall for this media led hoax, since the turnout models for the polling has little or nothing to do with reality, but is based on political landscape that no longer exists. But in any event you go ahead and encourage your conservative friends to take their best shot and convincing the people of Massachusetts to derail the health reform bill that is strikingly similar to the health reform bill that they have in their own state that was brought to them by Republican Mitch Romney when he was governor. Now that they have guaranteed health care they should do all they can to make sure everyone else in the country does not.

I apologize, I should have posted the link to the poll.
.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31534.html
.
Thank you.
.
http://www.newfreedomblog.com

Allow me to point this out to you Dee, from the same poll I referenced above.
.

“Against the backdrop of an election that could possibly play a decisive role in the health care debate — a point both parties have begun to press on their supporters — 51 percent said they did not support the health care bill, with 36 percent supporting it. Sixty-one percent said they didn’t believe the government could afford such a plan.

.
You are welcome.
.
I am sorry if this upsets you and Ms Sheperdwong, but your Democrat Pary talking points do and shall fall on deaf ears with me.

Well Ms Tumulty, maybe this will help you to understand. A patent is not unlike a deed given to me by the Government, which states clearly “this land belongs to newfreedomblog.com”. It is an instrument proving ownership.
.
Newfreedom: You do understand, right, that this is 12 years BEYOND their patent protection?
.
No one is proposing taking away their patent protection. The issue here is giving them 12 years “exclusivity” beyond their patents before generic equivalents would be allowed on the market.

The blog-whore lacks an understanding of the most basic and relevant facts. His postings are rife with evidence of this.

A patent is not unlike a deed given to me by the Government, which states clearly “this land belongs to newfreedomblog.com”. It is an instrument proving ownership.

No, it isn’t.
.
It’s unlike a deed, because it refers to a commodity that’s cheaply and easily reproducible without diminishing the quantity of the original. You can’t make duplicate copies of land, so there’s no patent on it, only deeds.

A patent is a similar document. It is an instrument that identifies me as the owner of this new idea or thing I discovered. While the Government as the authority has determined how long I can keep someone else from taking my idea or thing, and producing it.
.
Or, like property rights, keep someone from tresspassing on my property. With land, that right is virtually as long as I own it. With patents the government determines a length of time of sole ownership. This does allow for the fair and equitable return on investment for my new discovery.

No, that’s not true.
.
Long ago, the government attempted to promote the general welfare by granting inventors a temporary monopoly on the right to copy a piece of information. Unlike a piece of land, which can only be physically occupied by one party at a time, a piece of information, once discovered, can be endlessly duplicated in the time it takes to talk about it. There is a natural scarcity of land that provides value, unlike, say, Newton’s formulas of the calculus once communicated.
.
Since, in a market without government intervention, everything that could be duplicated with ease and no expense, and then used (or sold) would be, the government decided to create an artificial scarcity of that information.
.
The purpose is not to create a fair and equitable return. The creation of a fake drought of something that can be easily reproduced isn’t “equitable”. It prevents the exploitation of a resource that would naturally occur in markets. It’s not “fair” to say to a farmer “You could physically grow more of these crops, but the government says that only one person at a time is legally allowed to plant those seeds, so that the price stays artificially high.” That’s not the intent of this framework.
.
The intent was to temporarily create an otherwise not-occurring unfair monopoly, so that the general welfare of every citizen might be better served. When that intent is undermined, then the framework must change.

When that determined time has expired under current patent law, then free market competition will take over. Depending upon demand for my idea, demand will then determine my profit. If it is a truly great, unbelieveable idea (drug), then many people will compete for consumer dollars, copying my idea. This will eventually drive down the cost. But, most ideas are not sought out after by the consumer in such high demand. The protection of the idea allows me to recoup some, maybe all of my initial captial expense.

This is incoherent, but yes, eventually the natural forces of the market will be again allowed to resume what activity would normally occur. The artificial scarcity of the protected information is intended to allow a head start in a production race, not anything to do with recouping capital expenditures. The covering of expenses is not something in which the Federal government has any interest, because there are many, many factors as to whether a business recovers its costs, such as pricing, how much they pay their workers, etc. The only thing promoted by the government is a head start in the race, that’s it.

Do you believe in copywrite laws as a journalist Karen? Or, if not and if you wrote a truly amazing book, would you want that book reprinted and sold without any copywrite protection? Patents are in that same genre of governmental protections.

I am a copyright holder of software and music, and I have made money licensing both. I don’t know about Karen Tumulty’s experience, since Time-Warner probably owns the copyright on literally everything she says or does as a condition of employment, but I fully understand the practical ramifications of what copyright law are.
.
You, on the other hand, are confused by some sort of bizarre ideology, and, quite frankly, don’t know what you’re talking about. Your notions of the subject are silly, incomplete and ultimately false.
.
If your ideas about these things were actually true, the history of human intellectual development would have been radically different as societies became more and more like our developed democracy. The Enlightenment Era which produced the ideals of this nation’s founders would probably never have occurred, because Galileo Galilei’s plans for his telescope would have been seen as the exclusive and nearly perpetual deeded property of his heirs –for as many generations as they were able to lobby the state to enforce their ancestor’s patent.
.
A truly competitive market is what we’re interested in, not the protection of family heirlooms like E=MC2. Why don’t you reconsider these bizarre ideas of yours, and become a liberal, if you really want to protect the free market??

[...] A blog about politics. Swampland Feed   Daily E-mail Updates   « PreviousHealth Care: Is Obama Taking on the Biotech Industry? Next »Keeping Score: The Massachusetts [...]

A spokesman at Congresswoman Eshoo’s office notes that my characterization of the patent question is not accurate. He points out: “The patent and data exclusivity run concurrently.”

A more precise way to describe this is a period of “data exclusivity” (that is, use of the data used to develop the drug) guaranteed separate and apart from the patent. The amount of time we are talking about differs from drug to drug, because of the varying amounts of time that it can take to test a drug and win regulatory approval. For instance: If a drug comes to market with, say, five years left on its patent, this bill would give it an additional seven years.

As the spokesman explains:

To further clarify, just like chemical drugs, biologics have a 20-year patent protection from the date the patent is filed. Data exclusivity begins the date the FDA approves a drug or biologic, running concurrently with whatever patent protection may be left at that time (generally this is about 12 years, according to the CBO).

So what does this mean to the big picture of health care costs? As noted in our earlier story on the subject:

A 2008 analysis by former Clinton Administration official Robert Shapiro, who has consulted for both biologics companies and their would-be generic competitors, suggested that generic versions of the top 12 categories of biologics whose patents have expired or will expire soon could save Americans up to $108 billion in the first 10 years and as much as $378 billion over two decades. “It’s the low-hanging fruit,” says Mark Merritt, head of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the trade organization for prescription-drug-benefit managers. “If you can’t get this right on cost control, what can you get right?”

“It’s unlike a deed, because it refers to a commodity that’s cheaply and easily reproducible without diminishing the quantity of the original. You can’t make duplicate copies of land, so there’s no patent on it, only deeds.”

.
Actually no, You are wrong. But, good try.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_patent
.
Have you heard of Land Patents, Mr Zechman? If so, please read our history, and how Land Patents were evolved into what we have today in Real Estate Law and Real Estate ownership.
.
I happen to like this particular court citation, I believe it not only explains my point, but proves it.
.

““A patent to land, issued by the United States under authority of law, is the highest evidence of title, something upon which its holder can rely for peace and security in his possession. It is conclusive evidence of title against the United States and all the world. ..” 2 The American Law of Mining, § 1.29 at 357. Nichols v. Rysavy, (S.D. 1985) 610 F. Supp. 1245.

.
A land patent was the precursor to our modern day “deed for land / Real Estate ownership”. A patent merely cites ownership, in anything. Period. A legal instrument that identifies said ownership.
.

“You, on the other hand, are confused by some sort of bizarre ideology, and, quite frankly, don’t know what you’re talking about. Your notions of the subject are silly, incomplete and ultimately false.”

.
Yes, this does state very well what your opinion happens to be.

.

You’re really something, you know that?

In the original 13 American Colonies, a proprietor would grant land patents. Besides patent, other terms for the certificate that grants such rights include first-title deed and final certificate. In the United States, all property can be traced back to the first title deed and to claims that document titles for land originally owned by France, Spain, United Kingdom, Mexico, Russia, or Native Americans.
.
A land patent is known at law as “letters patent” and usually issues to the original grantee, and their heirs and assigns forever. The patent does not constitute title but is mere evidence of right to title existing in law.

Now you’re going to try to parse the term “patent” into some dubious association with perpetual ownership of land? You’re going to try to link current patent law, with its emphasis on the temporary nature of exclusivity, with the historical word “patent”, by which we acquired the Louisiana territory from Napoleon?
.
That’s the basis with which you refute the clear and well-understood intent of patent law?

A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state (national government) to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of an invention.

As folks around here can tell you, I’m usually restrained with ad hominems, but you belong to a special category of thinker.
.
If you actually care about innovation, liberty and the useful exchange of information, if you actually care about the free market as it operates in practice, then you should really consider not pinning your ideology to ideological constructions of the meaning of land title letters of the original 13 Colonies, and try to get your mind around liberalism. Liberals are for doing what actually works when it comes to capitalism.

diecashi,

“Hey blog-whore, don’t ascribe your warped ideas of liberal thought to actual liberals because you lack the first clue”

diecashi are these crud remarks really necessary? Your comments make Liberals all look bad. Many liberals can engage in a civil discussion and respect other people’s opinions. You bad mouth conservatives all the time and when someone states their opinion and it doesn’t fit your views you get hateful and demonize them.
You need to grow up a little and discuss ideas like a mature adult.

Well now Mr Zechman, now that I think I have your attention. We shall take a stroll back to my original comment, which said…
.

“A patent is a similar document. It is an instrument that identifies me as the owner of this new idea or thing I discovered.

.
The same instrument whether it be a patent for a specific product, commodity or THING. So too does a Land Patent for Real Estate, describe an instrument used to prove ownership. A comparitive, but NOT the same thing.
.
I am very familiar with patent law. I understand the restriction on time that patent law for products, goods, or ideas provides. Which is a very good thing as you pointed out earlier. It is also good in that it provides for the recoup of the capital investment potentially, as well as you said “to give a head start”. Most “inventors” and “creators” of ideas hope that it is more of recoup of their time and capital investment. If it only provided for the “head start” we would not see as much innovation and discovery as we currently experience.
.
Without those considerations, we would not see the innovation and discovery we do, and have seen in this country for the past 230+ years.
.
Big Macs anyone??? And, thank you Mr Zechman for your time and trouble to read this comment, as well as all the others. Enjoy your big Mac.

newfreedomblog:

If it only provided for the “head start” we would not see as much innovation and discovery as we currently experience.
.
Without those considerations, we would not see the innovation and discovery we do, and have seen in this country for the past 230+ years.

I disagree, and unless you have empirical data to back up this assertion, we probably shall continue to be at odds.
.
That said, if you actually are a limited government conservative, and care about the Bill of Rights, then we probably have some ideas in common, since I’m a neo-neo-liberal, and not a “Benevolent Democrat” or a Third Way centrist.

3xfire3 — My comments were precisely on topic. I merely pointed out that newfreedomrusty is a blog-whore. That is a demonstrable fact. After that, I merely picked apart his ridiculous statement. If you have a different view, feel free to express it.
..
It seems that your problem is with the facts. If I have made an error of fact, feel free to dispute it. Also, feel free to point out where I was “crud” too.

“The sharp increase in patent challenges under an opposition system would entail other costs as well: By creating more uncertainty among investors about the long-term value of the patents produced by their R&D investments, it could reduce those investments and the pace of innovation.”

.
http://www.bio.org/reg/media/Patent_Reform_Study.pdf
.

“The three legislative proposals considered in this study would undermine the value of long-lived patents, which could seriously undercut investment in R&D and slow the pace and quality of innovation in the United States, especially in patent-intensive industries such as biotechnology and other life science areas. The proposals to change the rules for apportioning damages for patent infringements could substantially reduce the costs of infringing on the patent rights of others, and thereby increase the incidence of those infringements. In so doing, the new rules will reduce the average returns on developing new products and technologies, which in turn will dampen the investments to develop them and the consequent pace of innovation. The changes also would shift much of the legal burden in infringement cases from the infringer to the patent holder, by explicitly prohibiting damages based on the market value of the infringing product or process, unless the patent owner ―shows that the patent’s specific contribution over the prior art is the predominant basis for market demand for an infringing product or process.‖ The result in many cases may well be that the infringer will pay limited damages and continue the infringement, because under the new rules it could make good business sense. The net effect will be a damage calculation process that is more complex, expensive and time-consuming for the courts, and produces judgments that are cheaper for infringers, than today. These results will inevitably discourage investment, especially in high-cost and high-risk areas of research such as efforts to develop next-generation biologic therapies, treatments and technologies.”

.
While you can find other studies which show that patent protection does the exact opposite. This study is more sourced than any other study that shows a more lax patent process actually spurs innovation and invention.
.
I see the patent process as a Govenment regulation of the free market process. However, I believe in the case of patent law, it does protent individuals for their creativity and innovation. To me, as protecting our basic rights under the constitution protects the individual, this also falls under those protections of our rights.

Really?
.
Are you simply unaware that you’re quoting from a “patent reform study” produced by BIO.org…Biotechnology Industry Organization.
.
You know, like PhRMA is for the pharmaceutical industry ?
.
The interested party? The industry in question?
.
Is this a joke?
.
Are you really holding these shill’s dreck as “empirical evidence” that, paid expense being the purpose of patent law, without the government’s considerations of full capital recoup for investors, “we would not see the innovation and discovery we do, and have seen in this country for the past 230+ years?”
.
This must be a joke.