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. "
I'm so bugged with this whole paptent issue. I will tell you why. I was once developing a IM Bot for MSN messenger using perl. I was almost towards the end of coding the bot. Thats when I hear that the IM bot technology is patented by ActiveBuddy. I had to stop development. I wish they had a better model to protect software inventions
fuvoo: watch something
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.
because the drug companies wouldnt lower prices. Although I would say that this would easily be overturned/outlawed by the bought and paid for Congress. Although if they were to take patents for drugs, whats to stop them for taking patents for everything else?
Its a shame that the states are doing what the federal govt. should be doing these days.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
The summary above refers to Susette Kelo v. City of New London. The city is attempting to use eminent domain to take some land from people, and sell it to a private developer to develop. (I emphasize private because the case hinges on that) Cnn had a good write up here
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
> Since the drug companies invest so much in research due to the potential profit, wouldn't reducing the potential profit reduce the incentives for research?
I don't know whether it's true or not, but critics claim that the drug companies spend 10x as much on advertising as they do on research.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Actually, Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution gives Congress authority to grant patents and copyrights. However, it is not specifically denied to the states - it is up to Congress, under the Supremacy Clause, to decide whether to allow states to regulate the same areas. For example, states had independent copyright laws until the 1970s, until Congress took that power away. With that said, it's a meaningless issue here, as the Federal government has in fact blocked parallel state rulemaking regarding patents.
However, the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the 11th amendment make it hard to prosecute state governments for patent or copyright infringement. So a statewide agency could just start making patented drugs, and it would be hard to stope them
The Law gives, the law takes away" was the court's basic argument.... It will be really funny to find out what happens when the Congress wants to "take away" This could be good or bad, after all, When We want to get copyright back under control we'll have the same basic argument again by the *IAA's...
Hopefully the court will keep tooting it's horn!! This jsut the IP trap we need to get the IP situation under control... then all we have to do is convice lawmakers... their decisions will stick.
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.
With good reason, since the concept of eminent domain is not actually part of the constitution.
That's funny, I could have sworn that an amendment to the Constitution addressed the taking of private property for public use:
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis mine.)
You might actually try reading the Constitution and some of the laws you like to talk about. Seriously, you might learn something. Now, what were you saying?
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
I don't know whether it's true or not, but critics claim that the drug companies spend 10x as much on advertising as they do on research.
There's no need to discuss these things theoretically, when all publicly traded companies have to make SEC filings of their financial statements.
According to Pfizer's most recent 10-Q filing, for instance, they incurred "selling, informational, and administrative expenses" of $4,036 million (or 31.5% of revenues), and "research and development expenses" of $1,888 million (or 14.7% of revenues). The former category includes much more than advertising (administrative expenses include accounting, payroll, facilities maintenance, etc.) Nevertheless, total administrative and marketing expenses were only about twice as much as R&D costs.
People like to talk about the rapacious profits of drug companies. Well, go and look at the numbers for yourself: Pfizer's earnings per share are $1.19; Eli Lilly's are $1.66; Merck's are $2.90. By way of comparison, American Electric Power is $1.51, Wal-Mart is $2.41, Staples is $1.40, Home Depot is $2.26, Anheuser-Busch is $2.77.
Drug companies are not massively more profitable than everything else. People who think that they are should simply invest in them and benefit from the price-gouging which they are supposedly inflicting upon the public.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.