Slashdot Mirror
SARS Researcher Files Preemptive Patent Application
ocean-navigator writes " CP Press is reporting that the B.C. Cancer institute has filed a defensive patent application to ensure the information remains in the public domain. The lead scientist asked specifically for his name to NOT be on the application, as he feels that he made a discovery, not an invention. Nice to see a few people with principles, in my own backyard too!"
That's been happening ever since the railroad tycoons of the 1800s. Since then, unions took the first steps in splitting wealth more evenly. Teddy Rooseveldt made progress, and FDR's "New Deal" directly targetted the poor segments of America.
The way I see it, society has tended to improve, not decay.
What's this Submit thingy do?
That statement is simply not true in the U.S. In general, a non-obvious invention is patentable to the original inventor(s) after public dissemination as long as the patent application is filed within one year of the date of the original public disclosure (35 USC 102). Under 35 USC 102(a), the key date is the date of "invention", which can be proved by laboratory records, and will almost always necessarily predate the date of public disclosure. Under 35 USC 102(b), the key "bar" date is determined by the date the invention is patented, described in a printed publication (in the US or abroad), or is in use or on sale (in the US only). Here, the barring activity must be one year prior to the date of patent filing.
In the present case, the only statutory impediment raised by prior art would be that these scientists were not the first inventors under section 102(a).
If you had read the article, you would see that the issue at hand is patenting the actual genetic code of the virus. They're not talking about patenting a drug to cure it. The reason people have such a dislike for the drug companies is that they try and patent viruses, and animal genomes. Most people in their right minds can't figure out how the companies can claim patents (whether royalty free or not) to something that they didn't invent! Nature invented the virus, not some guy in a lab (unless this is a whole biological attach, but that I doubt). They're doing it all backwards -- getting a blueprint from the finished product, as opposed to making blueprints to a new product.
Let the drug companies recoup their costs for inventing usefull drugs to cure disease, etc. But patenting virus genomes is nothing more than a money grab, even if it's ostensibly "to keep the information in the public domain".
Just using an example based on my experience working with devices that can have millions of dollars R&D and yet still be sold for pennies
Look at the ICs on any circuit board. Chances are good some of the most expensive parts are sold for about $5 to $10 a piece, the cheapest would run for about a penny per 2 to 8 parts on one die. To produce those parts requires a fabrication plant, which could range from millions for something fairly low end all the way to billions for state of the art--I'm including equipment, by the way. You need to pay for the people to work in these plants. You need to pay for engineers to design, test/verify, and market your part--and its infrastructure. You need to pay for mask layout and pcb layout techs. You also pay environmental fees.
Luckily, your plant can be fabricating lots and lots of different parts all at once. Each can range in terms of R&D from several hundreds of thousands of dollars well into the tens of millions. Now, after all that money's spent how much did those ICs finally go for, again?
Limited run and special case stuff can be expensive, several dollars a piece, but the price quickly drops. Mass production parts are sold at good prices to capture marketshare in hopes of long lifetimes.
That last sentence should have particular meaning in this argument. As your production capability rises, YOUR cost per part DROPS. As production pushes to infinity, YOUR cost per part reaches down towards ZERO.
Now let's apply this knowledge to drugs. Say it's a drug that covers 14 day treatment. How much did they spend on R&D of this one drug? Should we guesstimate $2 to $5 million maybe $10 million--supposing the big capital expenditures are already paid? I wish I could get more exact numbers, if someone in biotech could enlighten me, that would be helpful. So right now we're looking at 14 pills per patient. If we sold it at $1 per pill, we'd need about 750k patients to recoup our expenditures with some profit, that number gets smaller as you push the cost per pill up. What happens if you have MILLIONS of patients PER YEAR? Are you then justified in selling it at $1 or $2 per pill, knowing that your R&D is ALREADY PAID FOR in that first year? Keep in mind you've got what, 7 years to reap your rewards?
I'd have no problems with some of the high cost if the number of patients is small. But don't try to sell me on drugs that go for $10 a pill when you have millions needing them.
To address your last comment. Well, why do researchers at universities go into finding cures for disease? Maybe they have it themselves, maybe they have friends and family who have it. Sounds to me like research would get done if there's profit or not (as in not for profit work vs gratis) involved so long as they can find someone (including gov't) with money to fund them.
So, when's lunch?