Too many Dems are in one of the following tanks and that prevents a unified effort to bring about real reform or stanch the campaign momentum that the repug public relations effort will generate this year:
* Already HUGE recipients of wall street money.
* Believe that wall street and regulators are trustworthy and no reform is needed.
* Too lazy or terrified of actually going out in public representing specific legislative policy, dispute repug charges, or otherwise appear to anyone as being a "meanie" (like Alan Grayson). Taking a position means that a politician has to defend or prove something - and that's too much like work... much easier to nod thoughtfully or to say something like, "I'll let Congress figure something out."
We need more Dems in Congress with moral character and courage.
And a sense of urgency wouldn't hurt, either....
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
When Medical Patents Weaken Health Care
The patent system is now as abused in the technology field as it is in the pharmaceutical field. And for the most part, the abuses are maintained because competitors prefer to respect each other's unethical actions - in other words, "honor among thieves.".
And I don't see how a patient benefit burdens make it any better. After all, who is going to judge the benefit - the approvers who don't want to get sued for denying an applicant? They won't reject them. Or will it be the competitors who will challenge the validity of the application after the fact? Because we know they won't challenge them except in some extreme circumstances.
The only way I see to fix it is to require that applicants submit a full corporate financial statement for all years covering the development of their "innovation" - and detail how much of the R&D expenditures went into the innovation for which they're applying for patent protection. The applicant has to project their expected production costs, price, and sales (outright and licensing) estimates for the innovation or its derivatives.
The applicant is then awarded protection for the patent (assuming it meets technical criteria, of course) with expiration provisions that differ from today. They can then get an award for two things - a period of protection (no set time standard - depends on the innovation, rate of change in the market, etc.) and a return on investment total based exclusively on the R&D spent on the innovation (make it, say 1000%?). So if the applicant spent $100k on development, then they can be protected for a period of time or until they take in $1,000,000 in profit for the innovation - whichever comes first.
If the premise of patent law is to protect investment in innovation, then this is wholly consistent, objective, and measurable. It takes out the unwritten code where infringement is avoided, which hurts consumers. The only hole I see is in calculating a reasonable production cost in order to avoid pricing abuses there.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
And I don't see how a patient benefit burdens make it any better. After all, who is going to judge the benefit - the approvers who don't want to get sued for denying an applicant? They won't reject them. Or will it be the competitors who will challenge the validity of the application after the fact? Because we know they won't challenge them except in some extreme circumstances.
The only way I see to fix it is to require that applicants submit a full corporate financial statement for all years covering the development of their "innovation" - and detail how much of the R&D expenditures went into the innovation for which they're applying for patent protection. The applicant has to project their expected production costs, price, and sales (outright and licensing) estimates for the innovation or its derivatives.
The applicant is then awarded protection for the patent (assuming it meets technical criteria, of course) with expiration provisions that differ from today. They can then get an award for two things - a period of protection (no set time standard - depends on the innovation, rate of change in the market, etc.) and a return on investment total based exclusively on the R&D spent on the innovation (make it, say 1000%?). So if the applicant spent $100k on development, then they can be protected for a period of time or until they take in $1,000,000 in profit for the innovation - whichever comes first.
If the premise of patent law is to protect investment in innovation, then this is wholly consistent, objective, and measurable. It takes out the unwritten code where infringement is avoided, which hurts consumers. The only hole I see is in calculating a reasonable production cost in order to avoid pricing abuses there.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)