Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Biotech Report Says IP Spurs Innovation

Posted by timothy on from the complicated-incentives-and-disincentives dept.

ananyo writes "A report presented at the 2012 BIO International Convention in Boston, Massachusetts suggests that patents do not stifle progress when they occur at early phases of research, as some have suggested. Over the past decade, increases in patents have been matched by growth in the biotech and pharmaceutical sectors in India, Brazil, Singapore and other countries with emerging economies. The strength of patent rights can be quantified in an index ranging from 0 (no patent rights) to 5 (very strong). Over time, the countries that U.S. biotech and pharmaceutical companies have invested in have moved up the IP barometer, the report (PDF) says."

29 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. IP? by rossdee · · Score: 4, Funny

    Internet Protocol Spurs Innovation

  2. Lets Stick to Software Patents by utkonos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's all focus on software patents rather than all patents in general. The argument is much more cut and dry. If we focus all our energy on getting rid of software patents, I think it would be more beneficial than trying to reform all patent law. Once we've gotten rid of software patents, then we can move to reforming the patent law in regards to areas that are much more gray.

    1. Re:Lets Stick to Software Patents by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Singling out software patents would be selfish -- let's fix this for everyone.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Lets Stick to Software Patents by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It isn't necessarily broken for everyone. In general, the ability to be rewarded for something you invent is a good thing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Lets Stick to Software Patents by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think you could have typed that with a straight face, unless A: you simply don't understand copyright law and/or B: you have your own software patents.

      Software patents should NEVER have been approved. The first one submitted should have been laughed out of the building. All software is covered by one or more copyrights. No software should be covered by patent. End of story.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Lets Stick to Software Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Patents do not reward inventors, they reward bankers for exploiting the inventors.

    5. Re:Lets Stick to Software Patents by Sun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let's keep it to patents that a reasonable engineer from the field cannot read. That is the situation with software. It is not, say, with pharmaceuticals. I don't know how it is with biotech.

      The moment a "patent editor" starts to pile on the claims and to obfuscate the language, that is the point in which you know that patents made the transition from a tool design to protect an inventor to a tool designed to block out competition.

      Shachar

    6. Re:Lets Stick to Software Patents by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The next time you visit Disneyland, or Disneyworld, be sure to thank them for helping to pave the road to copyright hell. They were among the first influential people to begin lobbying congress for extended copyright laws, and other stupid shit.

      And ironically, a substantial part of Disney's success owes itself to recycling material already in the public domain.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    7. Re:Lets Stick to Software Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Singling out software patents would be selfish -- let's fix this for everyone.

      I disagree. Software is fundamentally different.

      The difference is that in 99.99% of cases, software patents are the result of very little research and development expenditures. When Amazon patented "one click purchase", there was essentially zero R&D expense to develop it -- it was basically one software engineer who made an obvious suggestion.

      In the pharmaceutical industry, they spend millions of dollars in development and testing for each individual drug. There, patents are an essential motivator for them to invest the necessary capital up front.

      The solution has always been obvious:

      The patent protection must be proportional to the investment.

      In other words: If you can prove (to an independent auditor) that you spent $X in relevant R&D expenses to develop a non-obvious innovation, then you should get patent protection up to $X * P in revenues. The day you clear $X * P in revenues from that innovation, the patent protection stops.

    8. Re:Lets Stick to Software Patents by utkonos · · Score: 3, Informative

      The idea that software patents should not exist is based on the idea that all software is simply sets of algorithms. Therefore all software can be boiled down to mathematics: algorithms and formulas. According to commonly held ideas about patent law: "You cannot patent a formula."

      Sorry, I posted this a sec ago as AC by accident.

    9. Re:Lets Stick to Software Patents by Znork · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ignoring the monopoly right sleight of hand patents are just another transfer method. Like any tax and spend system, of course they're beneficial for the recepient and if the recipient was the only party to the equation we could just hike taxes and spend on everyone and everything.

      But patents and taxes are not free. They already do harm to everyone else by the funds they transfer to the beneficiaries. So the question becomes, do we gain as a whole by taking from everyone else and giving to the patent holders? Do we gain more by giving monopoly rights than we would by outright state funding?

      There are strong indications that IP rights are far less efficient than even the absolutely worst run government programs in existence. For the money transferred to pharmaceuticals not even 20% are spent on actual R&D, while twice that falls under their marketing budgets. That suggests we'd get far more R&D if we junked patents and created research funds tied to actual research. Basically any system would beat patents. In any and all industries.

    10. Re:Lets Stick to Software Patents by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      All this shows is the biotech patents spur biotech companies, not more actual biotech.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    11. Re:Lets Stick to Software Patents by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 2

      "Lots" in a 7.2 billion is easy. It isn't even close to "most", though. Usually people who invent work for big companies, who don't really have a need for patents anyway. Patents are supposed to give you some time to be the first to exploit your idea, thus avoiding some big corporation from leveraging their massive capital to beat you to the market. What happens is companies either employ the inventors, since they are the ones who have money for R&D, or buy the patents outright and them proceed to abuse them.

  3. in related news by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    people invested in a broken system have enough to lose to profess faith in the broken system

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:in related news by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I like your sig. I would only add that intellectual property is incoherent with nature. Nature is the best example of how ideas are copied, improved and discarded when they don't work anymore. The entire concept of intellectual property is an attempt to disregard a billion years of evolution.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    2. Re:in related news by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Informative

      The entire premise of the article is that patents == innovation, and thus, more patents indicate more innovation. As an example, the article mentions that:

      Similarly, after Taiwan instituted a rule about IP based on government-funded findings, the Bayh-Dole Act, university patenting increased by 354% between 2004 and 2009.

      Clearly, the increase was due to an acceleration of innovative research and not because of an act that made previously un-patentable research now available for patents.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  4. American companies insist on rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    American companies insist on having rights! The fact that they are getting those rights does not mean the rights are doing anyone any good. In fact the pharmaceutical industry is in trouble because they've been leaning on their patents instead of doing basic research. Now the patents are expiring and the companies have nothing else to offer. In that light, the patent system is doing tremendous harm.

  5. Gene patents have stifled innovation by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    My understanding is that patents covering genes themselves have stifled innovation. For example BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes for breast cancer patented by Myriad. Technically Myriad patented the method for discovering these genes; however, they have been using this patent to stifle genetic research.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Gene patents have stifled innovation by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I call BS.

      Myriad's patents do not claim the gene per se, rather an isolated form of the gene.

      In fact there are no patents of "genes" unless they involve isolated genetic material and describe specific functionality of the isolated material, as does the Myriad patent.

  6. In related news by CobaltBlueDW · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bank report says,"Banks are awesome!"

  7. Sponsored by Biotech Industry Organization by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Informative

    I kid you not (I read TFA). At least the have a good acronym (BIO).

  8. Always write white papers for your sponsors... by gavron · · Score: 4, Informative

    This pro-ACTA pro-IP organization writes lots of so-called white-papers.
    This is one more of the same.

    Think of them as a lobbyist organization for the pro-IP side of the world
    including Big Pharma and Microsoft: http://www.pugatch-consilium.com/?page_id=580

    Here's their list of publications which includes pro-ACTA stuff:
    http://www.pugatch-consilium.com/?page_id=590

    This isn't news. It's more astroturfing by the "IP is Awesome" side of the world."
    There's a reason that Microsoft and Big Pharma pays these guys. This paper is one such.

    E

  9. They got it backwards by Hentes · · Score: 2

    Over time, the countries that U.S. biotech and pharmaceutical companies have invested in have moved up the IP barometer

    So it's not patents that help the growth of biomedical research, but American biotech companies help the growth of patents (either by lobbying or US pressure).

  10. What they do not say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "patents do not stifle progress when they occur at early phases of research"

    Implies that they do stifle progress later on.
    Perception is at play here.
    Investors simply want to know that they will control the market; no competition, easy profit.
    This is the ONLY thing patents do if you speak of progress.
    But once entrenched, those interests will do whatever it takes to dominate and control.
    Patents either need to go away completely or be very limited.
    But unfortunately the destructive power of greed will not allow people to "limit" patents.
    So what is the solution?

  11. slavery promotes cotton by Afecks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are two separate questions:

    1. Is intellectual property justified?

    2. Does intellectual property promote creative works?

    Regardless of the answer to the second question, the answer to the first question is "no". Threatening to imprison or kill individuals, which is what all laws ultimately are, is unjustified. No, we don't deserve everything for free. Yes, it's immoral to derive value from someone's hard work without compensation. But immoral does not equal illegal. The government should, at most, be using its monopoly on violence to protect people and their property. Using violence, locking people in cages, destroying their lives, killing them, just to promote something that would exist anyways, is asinine and barbaric.

    1. Re:slavery promotes cotton by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I guess you don't understand the differences between civil and criminal law very well.

    2. Re:slavery promotes cotton by sjames · · Score: 2

      Alas, patents are as likely to aid in doing that as prevent it. Very few inventions actually happen in a vacuum where one and only one person has a flash of inspiration, in spite of the hype.

      Far more often, several people see the same new thing or discovery and have similar inspirations. They then work quite hard for a few years to reduce that inspiration to practice. One of them gets to the patent office first and so can get the courts to actively conspire with him to steal the sweat of the other inventor's brows. They worked no less hard, and they may not have even known about the others' work at all. Their invention is just as much their own effort as the first guy's and is just as deserving of reward.

      That at least suggests a need to alter the form of patents.

      On the other end, we seriously need to re-evaluate the duration of patents. At one time it could take most of the duration of a patent just to get the product to the market. The patent would easily expire while the market was still growing. These days, the invention is often obsolete before the patent expires.

      The third issue is the patent minefield. We have allowed the threshold for patenting to creep low enough that any reasonably competent engineer risks stepping on a landmine even when doing work that doesn't seem particularly innovative.

      The fourth issue, compounding the third is that patents really do seem designed more to obfuscate the invention than to describe it. Enough so that a reasonably competent engineer may not even recognize the patent as being related, much less be able to use it to implement the invention.

      Fifth up is the cost of patent litigation. It's ruinous. For quite some time now, legal wrangling has ceased to be about the perceived validity of the patent and all about how much cheaper it is to pay extortion than it is to litigate.

      Compounding the fifth point, increasingly the patent office has become a rubber stamp, explicitly refusing to do it's job and letting the courts work it out at a much higher cost.

      Balanced against all of that, we have the risk of the copycat coming out with the me too product without any original work of their own. That is the one case where I could support patent protections as long as the points above are fully addressed.

  12. Bad stats, bad! by pubwvj · · Score: 3, Informative

    A correlation does not a causation make.

  13. Confessions of an Econmic Hitman by transporter_ii · · Score: 3, Insightful

    by John Perkins. If you haven't seen it, it is worth seeing (or reading, because there is a book). We go to them and make them an offer they can't refuse: in this pocket, there is enough money to make you and your family wealthy; in this pocket there is a gun...what's it going to be?

    For some reason, America has a strong desire to make the rest of the world "like us." Our foreign policy mirrors that. First we attempt to buy them off. If that doesn't work, we shoot them.

    True freedom means that people are free to make their own choices, for better or for worse. Luckily, the US will step in to make sure everyone makes the right choice...and you better bet your life the right choice is that everyone ends up looking just like us.

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality