Slashdot Mirror


Patents and Eminent Domain

mrbill writes "Interesting take on the Eminent Domain case now before the Supreme Court. Could the same logic behind using Eminent Domain to take real property be used to take a Patent? Apparently some states are contemplating taking drug company patents to force lower drug prices." From the article: "Patents are the key to huge drug-company profits. The industry will fight vociferously to protect them. In West Virginia, where the issue came up last summer, industry lawyers warned a legislative advisory council away from proposing such action on patents, claiming it would be unconstitutional. "

7 of 510 comments (clear)

  1. Skeptical of courts... by ntxb229 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd have to say I'm a little skeptical about this, even if the drug companies did lose. Not to be a troll, but I imagine if they did lose in court they'd do what every other industry does when they lose in court; buy legislation.

  2. fair market value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if a government did apply this to drug patents they would be required to pay fair market value for them which would be roughly equal to the rediculous profit the companies are gaining from their sale. This means that any difference in price would be made up in tax money.

    1. Re:fair market value by eric76 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They definition of "fair market value" is not necessarily fair at all.

      Patents aren't really evil, just misguided, but the power of eminent domain is truly evil.

    2. Re:fair market value by Max+Threshold · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Not really. In eminent domain cases, the government conveniently determines the fair market value of the property, and it's seldom anywhere near its real value.

      Besides, the drug companies' ridiculous profits represent the unfair market value, not the fair market value!

  3. Re:Won't this deter research? by Datasage · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Incentive to do drug research commercially yes. But there are still many drug researchers who are intrinsically motivated and will continue to research at universities or part of non profit orginizations.

    Im not sure about this, but isnt some drug research partially funded by public money? If the public pays for it, why should a corporation get exclusive control over it?

    --
    In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
  4. Re:local leftism is the way to save America? by croddy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I like this idea.

    Because if I'm living in a state that's wasting my taxes on this broadband, healthcare, and other ridiculous shit, I can just move to Nevada.

  5. Re:Profits at a pharmaceutical company by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comparing profit per share as a measure of profitability is ridiculous - you aren't taking into account the number of outstanding shares. Net profit = # of outstanding shares * profit per share.

    Example: MSFT made $0.92 per share last year, BRKA made $4,134.48 per share!!! So Berkshire-Hathaway is way more profitable than Microsoft right? Wrong - Microsoft made about $9 billion last year vs about $4 billion for Berkshire-Hathaway.

    The difference is that Microsoft has TEN BILLION outstanding shares and Berkshire-Hathaway has less than a million. Source for all data is yahoo finance.