<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_26_122212</id>
	<title>Should a New Technology Change the Patent System?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256561160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>linuxizer writes <i>"Congress seems poised to turn an effort to create a pathway for generic biotech drugs, such as Remicade, into the exact opposite. Instead of the 5-year protection that traditional pharmaceuticals get, or the 0-year protection that the <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/06/biologics.shtm">FTC recommends</a>, the bill offers <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.biosimilars28aug28,0,7541644.story">12-year exclusivity with renewability for minor changes</a>.  The issue is highly charged, with activists <a href="http://affordablemedsnow.org/">waging a campaign</a> to change the bill. Yet it also raises interesting questions for other technologies. To what extent do the traditional contours of patent law need to change in response to new technologies with a different set of market realities (biotech drugs are <a href="http://www.aarp.org/research/ppi/health-care/health-costs/articles/fs136\_biologics.html">22 times more expensive on average</a>, and development costs for generics will be substantially higher) and in what direction? Need every new technological category get its own patent rules, and how do those rules get decided?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>linuxizer writes " Congress seems poised to turn an effort to create a pathway for generic biotech drugs , such as Remicade , into the exact opposite .
Instead of the 5-year protection that traditional pharmaceuticals get , or the 0-year protection that the FTC recommends , the bill offers 12-year exclusivity with renewability for minor changes .
The issue is highly charged , with activists waging a campaign to change the bill .
Yet it also raises interesting questions for other technologies .
To what extent do the traditional contours of patent law need to change in response to new technologies with a different set of market realities ( biotech drugs are 22 times more expensive on average , and development costs for generics will be substantially higher ) and in what direction ?
Need every new technological category get its own patent rules , and how do those rules get decided ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>linuxizer writes "Congress seems poised to turn an effort to create a pathway for generic biotech drugs, such as Remicade, into the exact opposite.
Instead of the 5-year protection that traditional pharmaceuticals get, or the 0-year protection that the FTC recommends, the bill offers 12-year exclusivity with renewability for minor changes.
The issue is highly charged, with activists waging a campaign to change the bill.
Yet it also raises interesting questions for other technologies.
To what extent do the traditional contours of patent law need to change in response to new technologies with a different set of market realities (biotech drugs are 22 times more expensive on average, and development costs for generics will be substantially higher) and in what direction?
Need every new technological category get its own patent rules, and how do those rules get decided?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871549</id>
	<title>20 years not 5</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256567280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/ucm134451.htm" title="fda.gov" rel="nofollow">From the FDA</a> [fda.gov]:<p><div class="quote"><p>Brand-name drugs are generally given patent protection for 20 years from the date of submission of the patent. This provides protection for the innovator who laid out the initial costs (including research, development, and marketing expenses) to develop the new drug. However, when the patent expires, other drug companies can introduce competitive generic versions, but only after they have been thoroughly tested by the manufacturer and approved by the FDA.</p></div><p>Traditional pharmaceutical patents last for 20 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the FDA [ fda.gov ] : Brand-name drugs are generally given patent protection for 20 years from the date of submission of the patent .
This provides protection for the innovator who laid out the initial costs ( including research , development , and marketing expenses ) to develop the new drug .
However , when the patent expires , other drug companies can introduce competitive generic versions , but only after they have been thoroughly tested by the manufacturer and approved by the FDA.Traditional pharmaceutical patents last for 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the FDA [fda.gov]:Brand-name drugs are generally given patent protection for 20 years from the date of submission of the patent.
This provides protection for the innovator who laid out the initial costs (including research, development, and marketing expenses) to develop the new drug.
However, when the patent expires, other drug companies can introduce competitive generic versions, but only after they have been thoroughly tested by the manufacturer and approved by the FDA.Traditional pharmaceutical patents last for 20 years.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871671</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256568120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is where I start listing situations where the market fails or is sufficiently vulnerable to be exploited:</p><p>- Natural monopoly.</p><p>- Imperfect information.</p><p>- Positive and negative externalities.</p><p>- Non-rivalrous goods, non-exclusive goods, public goods.</p><p>I could go on. What would happen in a market anarchist system, even assuming the security agencies wouldn't degrade into gangs who would turn the country into Somalia, is that the corporations (in themselves collective constructs) merge or buy each other up until there's only a few corporations left. These become, in effect, non-democratic states, and there you are - now you have a state, but you have no say in it (before the inevitable revolution, at least).</p><p>The free market has exploits - while there are less than with certain other systems, once a body of sufficient power can make use of the exploit, such a body rewrites the rules to favor itself and then, game over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is where I start listing situations where the market fails or is sufficiently vulnerable to be exploited : - Natural monopoly.- Imperfect information.- Positive and negative externalities.- Non-rivalrous goods , non-exclusive goods , public goods.I could go on .
What would happen in a market anarchist system , even assuming the security agencies would n't degrade into gangs who would turn the country into Somalia , is that the corporations ( in themselves collective constructs ) merge or buy each other up until there 's only a few corporations left .
These become , in effect , non-democratic states , and there you are - now you have a state , but you have no say in it ( before the inevitable revolution , at least ) .The free market has exploits - while there are less than with certain other systems , once a body of sufficient power can make use of the exploit , such a body rewrites the rules to favor itself and then , game over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is where I start listing situations where the market fails or is sufficiently vulnerable to be exploited:- Natural monopoly.- Imperfect information.- Positive and negative externalities.- Non-rivalrous goods, non-exclusive goods, public goods.I could go on.
What would happen in a market anarchist system, even assuming the security agencies wouldn't degrade into gangs who would turn the country into Somalia, is that the corporations (in themselves collective constructs) merge or buy each other up until there's only a few corporations left.
These become, in effect, non-democratic states, and there you are - now you have a state, but you have no say in it (before the inevitable revolution, at least).The free market has exploits - while there are less than with certain other systems, once a body of sufficient power can make use of the exploit, such a body rewrites the rules to favor itself and then, game over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871621</id>
	<title>Keep it at five years.</title>
	<author>FrostDust</author>
	<datestamp>1256567820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with exceptions is that when you start making them, suddenly everyone thinks they're special and starts demanding the rules be bent for them too. If this goes through, how soon until the flood of requests from every industry in the country that they be able to get extended patent-protection time?</p><p>If pharmaceuticals are so unique the patent system can't adequately protect them, make them unpatentable and put them under a different type of protection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with exceptions is that when you start making them , suddenly everyone thinks they 're special and starts demanding the rules be bent for them too .
If this goes through , how soon until the flood of requests from every industry in the country that they be able to get extended patent-protection time ? If pharmaceuticals are so unique the patent system ca n't adequately protect them , make them unpatentable and put them under a different type of protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with exceptions is that when you start making them, suddenly everyone thinks they're special and starts demanding the rules be bent for them too.
If this goes through, how soon until the flood of requests from every industry in the country that they be able to get extended patent-protection time?If pharmaceuticals are so unique the patent system can't adequately protect them, make them unpatentable and put them under a different type of protection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871599</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Cassius Corodes</author>
	<datestamp>1256567640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry but that is just retarded. Drugs require years of basic research then years of testing to get approval, and are easy to copy. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug\_development#Cost" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug\_development#Cost</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic\_drugs#Economics" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic\_drugs#Economics</a> [wikipedia.org]. You have to strike a balance between ensuring that drug development is profitable, but not excessively so - not an easy thing to do.<br>
<br>
Also "governments aren't in no way necessary or even beneficial for healthy societies." - are you on drugs? Where are these fabulous government-less utopias? "In a world without such authorities" you would be still be bartering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but that is just retarded .
Drugs require years of basic research then years of testing to get approval , and are easy to copy .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug \ _development # Cost [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic \ _drugs # Economics [ wikipedia.org ] .
You have to strike a balance between ensuring that drug development is profitable , but not excessively so - not an easy thing to do .
Also " governments are n't in no way necessary or even beneficial for healthy societies .
" - are you on drugs ?
Where are these fabulous government-less utopias ?
" In a world without such authorities " you would be still be bartering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but that is just retarded.
Drugs require years of basic research then years of testing to get approval, and are easy to copy.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug\_development#Cost [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic\_drugs#Economics [wikipedia.org].
You have to strike a balance between ensuring that drug development is profitable, but not excessively so - not an easy thing to do.
Also "governments aren't in no way necessary or even beneficial for healthy societies.
" - are you on drugs?
Where are these fabulous government-less utopias?
"In a world without such authorities" you would be still be bartering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872937</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256574540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you realize that a world without patent restrictions did used to exist.  Once mass manufacturing and advertising developed businesses and governments realized there needed to be a system to protect inventors from being driven out of business.  Do a little research and you'll find examples of inventors having their products stolen by an established manufacture right from under them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you realize that a world without patent restrictions did used to exist .
Once mass manufacturing and advertising developed businesses and governments realized there needed to be a system to protect inventors from being driven out of business .
Do a little research and you 'll find examples of inventors having their products stolen by an established manufacture right from under them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you realize that a world without patent restrictions did used to exist.
Once mass manufacturing and advertising developed businesses and governments realized there needed to be a system to protect inventors from being driven out of business.
Do a little research and you'll find examples of inventors having their products stolen by an established manufacture right from under them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872173</id>
	<title>Re:What needs to change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256570760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To encourage invention or innovation, the system MUST go back to the original reason for patent protection in the first place.   The idea is that new ideas should be protected so the patent "owner" can develop said idea and turn it into a product.    If there is no ability or intention to DIRECTLY make a product to take advantage of the protection, then the protection should be removed.</p><p>This means that patent trolls would all go away, since none of them have any intention to make a product based on the patents they own.    It is one thing for a company like AMD or Intel to file a patent and make use of their inventions, and another for someone sitting in an office to buy a patent just so they can file lawsuits against anyone who makes a product that might infringe on the patent in question.</p><p>So, for all of these companies that file patent related lawsuits, they SHOULD be looked at to see if they have taken even a few steps towards making a product.    If there has been no effort made to create a working product based on the technology, they should be fined for filing a lawsuit in the first place.</p></div><p>I've also thought along similar lines to the OP, however, it overlooks one basic issue.</p><p>If patent rights are truly 'use it or lose it', then there will be ZERO incentive for potential licensing partners to come on board.</p><p>For example, why would I pay for an expensive license when I can simply be obstructive and recalcitrant, in the hopes that I can later use your inability to successfully negotiate with me as grounds to oppose your patent in the future, for failing to "work" the patent.</p><p>So any such proposal is going to have to take this into account, which will be very difficult to do.  How does one distinguish the situation above from a negotiation where the patent holder is simply asking for too much?</p><p>- Anonymous Coward -</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To encourage invention or innovation , the system MUST go back to the original reason for patent protection in the first place .
The idea is that new ideas should be protected so the patent " owner " can develop said idea and turn it into a product .
If there is no ability or intention to DIRECTLY make a product to take advantage of the protection , then the protection should be removed.This means that patent trolls would all go away , since none of them have any intention to make a product based on the patents they own .
It is one thing for a company like AMD or Intel to file a patent and make use of their inventions , and another for someone sitting in an office to buy a patent just so they can file lawsuits against anyone who makes a product that might infringe on the patent in question.So , for all of these companies that file patent related lawsuits , they SHOULD be looked at to see if they have taken even a few steps towards making a product .
If there has been no effort made to create a working product based on the technology , they should be fined for filing a lawsuit in the first place.I 've also thought along similar lines to the OP , however , it overlooks one basic issue.If patent rights are truly 'use it or lose it ' , then there will be ZERO incentive for potential licensing partners to come on board.For example , why would I pay for an expensive license when I can simply be obstructive and recalcitrant , in the hopes that I can later use your inability to successfully negotiate with me as grounds to oppose your patent in the future , for failing to " work " the patent.So any such proposal is going to have to take this into account , which will be very difficult to do .
How does one distinguish the situation above from a negotiation where the patent holder is simply asking for too much ? - Anonymous Coward -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To encourage invention or innovation, the system MUST go back to the original reason for patent protection in the first place.
The idea is that new ideas should be protected so the patent "owner" can develop said idea and turn it into a product.
If there is no ability or intention to DIRECTLY make a product to take advantage of the protection, then the protection should be removed.This means that patent trolls would all go away, since none of them have any intention to make a product based on the patents they own.
It is one thing for a company like AMD or Intel to file a patent and make use of their inventions, and another for someone sitting in an office to buy a patent just so they can file lawsuits against anyone who makes a product that might infringe on the patent in question.So, for all of these companies that file patent related lawsuits, they SHOULD be looked at to see if they have taken even a few steps towards making a product.
If there has been no effort made to create a working product based on the technology, they should be fined for filing a lawsuit in the first place.I've also thought along similar lines to the OP, however, it overlooks one basic issue.If patent rights are truly 'use it or lose it', then there will be ZERO incentive for potential licensing partners to come on board.For example, why would I pay for an expensive license when I can simply be obstructive and recalcitrant, in the hopes that I can later use your inability to successfully negotiate with me as grounds to oppose your patent in the future, for failing to "work" the patent.So any such proposal is going to have to take this into account, which will be very difficult to do.
How does one distinguish the situation above from a negotiation where the patent holder is simply asking for too much?- Anonymous Coward -
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871687</id>
	<title>Re: Good Points</title>
	<author>relguj9</author>
	<datestamp>1256568180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is why I would think that Health Insurance companies would be lobbying AGAINST this as well, and they are literally rolling in money.  Their margin benefits greatly from getting generic drugs on the market as fast as possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why I would think that Health Insurance companies would be lobbying AGAINST this as well , and they are literally rolling in money .
Their margin benefits greatly from getting generic drugs on the market as fast as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why I would think that Health Insurance companies would be lobbying AGAINST this as well, and they are literally rolling in money.
Their margin benefits greatly from getting generic drugs on the market as fast as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872017</id>
	<title>I'm going to get ran off for this</title>
	<author>gravis777</author>
	<datestamp>1256570040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am all for the patent system. It CAN help drive innovation. I remember back in business ethincs class in college, I learned that the guy who invented the first photo copier said he never would have invested all the time and money into it if he did not know that he was going to have exclusive rights to make it for, what is it, 18 years?</p><p>That being said, there really needs to be better patent review. There is a difference between patenting something that you spent years of R&amp;D on, versus being a patent troll. However, how it should be reformed, I am not the person to offer proper arguments either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am all for the patent system .
It CAN help drive innovation .
I remember back in business ethincs class in college , I learned that the guy who invented the first photo copier said he never would have invested all the time and money into it if he did not know that he was going to have exclusive rights to make it for , what is it , 18 years ? That being said , there really needs to be better patent review .
There is a difference between patenting something that you spent years of R&amp;D on , versus being a patent troll .
However , how it should be reformed , I am not the person to offer proper arguments either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am all for the patent system.
It CAN help drive innovation.
I remember back in business ethincs class in college, I learned that the guy who invented the first photo copier said he never would have invested all the time and money into it if he did not know that he was going to have exclusive rights to make it for, what is it, 18 years?That being said, there really needs to be better patent review.
There is a difference between patenting something that you spent years of R&amp;D on, versus being a patent troll.
However, how it should be reformed, I am not the person to offer proper arguments either way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871443</id>
	<title>Re:Recoup period</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1256566680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the interest on the loan is 1) to cover the depreciation of the original sum, due to inflation 2) make a  profit from the loan company</p><p>If there was no interest then the loan company could not make money on it, and in fact would effectively lose money<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... so they would not bother, what the borrower does does not matter (they have an agreement with you, so can take you to court to make you pay)</p><p>The patent period new drugs get is there like all patents so the company can recoup the development costs, so they can 1) invest in developing new drugs, 2) make a profit and stay in business</p><p>The patent period on drugs could be modified to zero if it also guaranteed a profit to the inventing company, i.e. all drugs could be generic from day 1 but would be more expensive, at a level defined by government... the current system allows the inventing company to charge whatever they think the market will allow for 5 years, then they effectively get nothing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No ... the interest on the loan is 1 ) to cover the depreciation of the original sum , due to inflation 2 ) make a profit from the loan companyIf there was no interest then the loan company could not make money on it , and in fact would effectively lose money .... so they would not bother , what the borrower does does not matter ( they have an agreement with you , so can take you to court to make you pay ) The patent period new drugs get is there like all patents so the company can recoup the development costs , so they can 1 ) invest in developing new drugs , 2 ) make a profit and stay in businessThe patent period on drugs could be modified to zero if it also guaranteed a profit to the inventing company , i.e .
all drugs could be generic from day 1 but would be more expensive , at a level defined by government... the current system allows the inventing company to charge whatever they think the market will allow for 5 years , then they effectively get nothing .. .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>No ... the interest on the loan is 1) to cover the depreciation of the original sum, due to inflation 2) make a  profit from the loan companyIf there was no interest then the loan company could not make money on it, and in fact would effectively lose money .... so they would not bother, what the borrower does does not matter (they have an agreement with you, so can take you to court to make you pay)The patent period new drugs get is there like all patents so the company can recoup the development costs, so they can 1) invest in developing new drugs, 2) make a profit and stay in businessThe patent period on drugs could be modified to zero if it also guaranteed a profit to the inventing company, i.e.
all drugs could be generic from day 1 but would be more expensive, at a level defined by government... the current system allows the inventing company to charge whatever they think the market will allow for 5 years, then they effectively get nothing ...
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29880499</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry but that is just retarded. Drugs require years of basic research then years of testing to get approval, and are easy to copy. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug\_development#Cost" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug\_development#Cost</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic\_drugs#Economics" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic\_drugs#Economics</a> [wikipedia.org]. You have to strike a balance between ensuring that drug development is profitable, but not excessively so - not an easy thing to do.</p><p>Also "governments aren't in no way necessary or even beneficial for healthy societies." - are you on drugs? Where are these fabulous government-less utopias? "In a world without such authorities" you would be still be bartering.</p></div><p>are u on drugs, cassius??? i'm sure your profiting doctors and pharmacists have u on some meds.</p><p>why must we ensure "drug development is profitable?" we don't ensure the education, fire, and police systems in this country are profitable. back in the day, people did their job because they had a passion for doing it. children wanted to be doctors because the wanted to HELP people. now, doctors are in it for the wealth and social status. fuck the profit motive. when u make profit the motive, greed takes over and puts us in the exact mess we are in needing health care reform.</p><p>as far as i'm concerned, we need PASSIONATE people making our laws and healing our sick, not self-absorbed, greedy fucks like the current situation. how do u get rid of greedy fucks in the system? TAKE OUT THE PROFIT MOTIVE!</p><p>teachers, firemen, and police, generally speaking, perform their jobs at such low pay because they passionately want to help society. these are the type of people we need running our county and healing the sick.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but that is just retarded .
Drugs require years of basic research then years of testing to get approval , and are easy to copy .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug \ _development # Cost [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic \ _drugs # Economics [ wikipedia.org ] .
You have to strike a balance between ensuring that drug development is profitable , but not excessively so - not an easy thing to do.Also " governments are n't in no way necessary or even beneficial for healthy societies .
" - are you on drugs ?
Where are these fabulous government-less utopias ?
" In a world without such authorities " you would be still be bartering.are u on drugs , cassius ? ? ?
i 'm sure your profiting doctors and pharmacists have u on some meds.why must we ensure " drug development is profitable ?
" we do n't ensure the education , fire , and police systems in this country are profitable .
back in the day , people did their job because they had a passion for doing it .
children wanted to be doctors because the wanted to HELP people .
now , doctors are in it for the wealth and social status .
fuck the profit motive .
when u make profit the motive , greed takes over and puts us in the exact mess we are in needing health care reform.as far as i 'm concerned , we need PASSIONATE people making our laws and healing our sick , not self-absorbed , greedy fucks like the current situation .
how do u get rid of greedy fucks in the system ?
TAKE OUT THE PROFIT MOTIVE ! teachers , firemen , and police , generally speaking , perform their jobs at such low pay because they passionately want to help society .
these are the type of people we need running our county and healing the sick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but that is just retarded.
Drugs require years of basic research then years of testing to get approval, and are easy to copy.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug\_development#Cost [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic\_drugs#Economics [wikipedia.org].
You have to strike a balance between ensuring that drug development is profitable, but not excessively so - not an easy thing to do.Also "governments aren't in no way necessary or even beneficial for healthy societies.
" - are you on drugs?
Where are these fabulous government-less utopias?
"In a world without such authorities" you would be still be bartering.are u on drugs, cassius???
i'm sure your profiting doctors and pharmacists have u on some meds.why must we ensure "drug development is profitable?
" we don't ensure the education, fire, and police systems in this country are profitable.
back in the day, people did their job because they had a passion for doing it.
children wanted to be doctors because the wanted to HELP people.
now, doctors are in it for the wealth and social status.
fuck the profit motive.
when u make profit the motive, greed takes over and puts us in the exact mess we are in needing health care reform.as far as i'm concerned, we need PASSIONATE people making our laws and healing our sick, not self-absorbed, greedy fucks like the current situation.
how do u get rid of greedy fucks in the system?
TAKE OUT THE PROFIT MOTIVE!teachers, firemen, and police, generally speaking, perform their jobs at such low pay because they passionately want to help society.
these are the type of people we need running our county and healing the sick.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871547</id>
	<title>Re:What needs to change</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1256567280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would agree with this in part, as long as the attempt to sell the idea to a company counts. A classic example of where the patent system works as intended is the intermittent windshield wiper. The car companies worked to develop an intermittent wiper and were unable to do so. An independent inventor developed the idea and tried to sell it to them. They asked him to demo the idea before they would pay for it. Once they saw how it worked, they developed their own and tried to claim "obviousness". He sued them and collected significant damages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would agree with this in part , as long as the attempt to sell the idea to a company counts .
A classic example of where the patent system works as intended is the intermittent windshield wiper .
The car companies worked to develop an intermittent wiper and were unable to do so .
An independent inventor developed the idea and tried to sell it to them .
They asked him to demo the idea before they would pay for it .
Once they saw how it worked , they developed their own and tried to claim " obviousness " .
He sued them and collected significant damages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would agree with this in part, as long as the attempt to sell the idea to a company counts.
A classic example of where the patent system works as intended is the intermittent windshield wiper.
The car companies worked to develop an intermittent wiper and were unable to do so.
An independent inventor developed the idea and tried to sell it to them.
They asked him to demo the idea before they would pay for it.
Once they saw how it worked, they developed their own and tried to claim "obviousness".
He sued them and collected significant damages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872091</id>
	<title>Re:All the same</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256570400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If something is complicated enough to deserve patent protection, then it's complicated enough that others won't be able to easily copy the idea and compete.  If an idea is trivially copied, then it's not deserving of patent protection in the first place.  So all patents should be accorded the same protection: none.</p></div><p>The complicated part about pharmaceutical drugs is finding which compound works in the first place and modifying it so it is safe and effective.</p><p>The easier part is making it.</p><p>Your argument is ridiculous in this context.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If something is complicated enough to deserve patent protection , then it 's complicated enough that others wo n't be able to easily copy the idea and compete .
If an idea is trivially copied , then it 's not deserving of patent protection in the first place .
So all patents should be accorded the same protection : none.The complicated part about pharmaceutical drugs is finding which compound works in the first place and modifying it so it is safe and effective.The easier part is making it.Your argument is ridiculous in this context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If something is complicated enough to deserve patent protection, then it's complicated enough that others won't be able to easily copy the idea and compete.
If an idea is trivially copied, then it's not deserving of patent protection in the first place.
So all patents should be accorded the same protection: none.The complicated part about pharmaceutical drugs is finding which compound works in the first place and modifying it so it is safe and effective.The easier part is making it.Your argument is ridiculous in this context.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29880901</id>
	<title>1 thing that is important with this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256579940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this research government funded or not?</p><p>Cause I personally get tired of watching us sink millions upon millions of taxpayer money into the R&amp;D for a drug only to give a 3rd party exclusive rights to that drug and even giving them the patents.</p><p>I say that any drug or research generated via government funding is owned by the people and no company can leverage a patent on it. It is paid for by the taxpayer so it is owned by them and basically open for anyone drug manufacturer to use. It would really put a control on some things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this research government funded or not ? Cause I personally get tired of watching us sink millions upon millions of taxpayer money into the R&amp;D for a drug only to give a 3rd party exclusive rights to that drug and even giving them the patents.I say that any drug or research generated via government funding is owned by the people and no company can leverage a patent on it .
It is paid for by the taxpayer so it is owned by them and basically open for anyone drug manufacturer to use .
It would really put a control on some things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this research government funded or not?Cause I personally get tired of watching us sink millions upon millions of taxpayer money into the R&amp;D for a drug only to give a 3rd party exclusive rights to that drug and even giving them the patents.I say that any drug or research generated via government funding is owned by the people and no company can leverage a patent on it.
It is paid for by the taxpayer so it is owned by them and basically open for anyone drug manufacturer to use.
It would really put a control on some things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872721</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is so EASY...</title>
	<author>abarrieris5eV</author>
	<datestamp>1256573340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The primary issue I see with this is the huge record keeping and auditing overhead.  The USPTO would end up making the IRS look efficient.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The primary issue I see with this is the huge record keeping and auditing overhead .
The USPTO would end up making the IRS look efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The primary issue I see with this is the huge record keeping and auditing overhead.
The USPTO would end up making the IRS look efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873581</id>
	<title>This Is About Regulatory Exclusivity, Not Patents</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1256577660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even a cursory reading of the linked articles would show that this has <em>almost nothing</em> to do with patent protection, which lasts for 20 years from the date of filing regardless of the subject matter.  This is all about regulatory exclusivity from the FDA.  An example of regulatory exclusivity is <a href="http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/SmallBusinessAssistance/ucm069962.htm" title="fda.gov">new drug product exclusivity</a> [fda.gov], which generally lasts for 5 years for completely new drugs and 3 years for new formulations of existing drugs.  Another kind is the 180 day <a href="http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/SmallBusinessAssistance/ucm069964.htm" title="fda.gov">generic exclusivity</a> [fda.gov] for the first generic to market, which encourages generics to be made by giving them a small window of high profitability.</p><p>The issue here is whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologic#Recombinant\_DNA\_biologics" title="wikipedia.org">biologic drugs</a> [wikipedia.org] should be given a longer than usual regulatory exclusivity period given that (so the argument goes) they are a new, experimental technology that is harder to develop than traditional small molecule drugs.</p><p>You might ask "if a drug is patented, then why is a (shorter) period of exclusivity even necessary?"  Here's an example: inventor discovers a new compound that might be a useful drug.  A patent is filed in 2000.  Then 10 years go by while the inventor struggles to find the optimal dose and delivery mechanism.  Now in 2010 the inventor's startup starts looking for a partner to bring it through trials and into production.  5 years later, human trials start.  3 years later the drug is approved by the FDA for sale.  Now it's 2018 and the patent only has two years left.  If the manufacturer has to recoup all of its costs in just 2 years, the price will have to be extremely high, which will limit the drug's availability.  So the regulatory exclusivity period gives drug makers a guaranteed 5 years in which to recoup their costs.</p><p>So that's the argument for having an exclusivity period. There are also arguments against it, of course, but the main point is that all of this is only tangentially related to patent protection and has nothing whatever to do with a special patent rule for biologics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even a cursory reading of the linked articles would show that this has almost nothing to do with patent protection , which lasts for 20 years from the date of filing regardless of the subject matter .
This is all about regulatory exclusivity from the FDA .
An example of regulatory exclusivity is new drug product exclusivity [ fda.gov ] , which generally lasts for 5 years for completely new drugs and 3 years for new formulations of existing drugs .
Another kind is the 180 day generic exclusivity [ fda.gov ] for the first generic to market , which encourages generics to be made by giving them a small window of high profitability.The issue here is whether biologic drugs [ wikipedia.org ] should be given a longer than usual regulatory exclusivity period given that ( so the argument goes ) they are a new , experimental technology that is harder to develop than traditional small molecule drugs.You might ask " if a drug is patented , then why is a ( shorter ) period of exclusivity even necessary ?
" Here 's an example : inventor discovers a new compound that might be a useful drug .
A patent is filed in 2000 .
Then 10 years go by while the inventor struggles to find the optimal dose and delivery mechanism .
Now in 2010 the inventor 's startup starts looking for a partner to bring it through trials and into production .
5 years later , human trials start .
3 years later the drug is approved by the FDA for sale .
Now it 's 2018 and the patent only has two years left .
If the manufacturer has to recoup all of its costs in just 2 years , the price will have to be extremely high , which will limit the drug 's availability .
So the regulatory exclusivity period gives drug makers a guaranteed 5 years in which to recoup their costs.So that 's the argument for having an exclusivity period .
There are also arguments against it , of course , but the main point is that all of this is only tangentially related to patent protection and has nothing whatever to do with a special patent rule for biologics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even a cursory reading of the linked articles would show that this has almost nothing to do with patent protection, which lasts for 20 years from the date of filing regardless of the subject matter.
This is all about regulatory exclusivity from the FDA.
An example of regulatory exclusivity is new drug product exclusivity [fda.gov], which generally lasts for 5 years for completely new drugs and 3 years for new formulations of existing drugs.
Another kind is the 180 day generic exclusivity [fda.gov] for the first generic to market, which encourages generics to be made by giving them a small window of high profitability.The issue here is whether biologic drugs [wikipedia.org] should be given a longer than usual regulatory exclusivity period given that (so the argument goes) they are a new, experimental technology that is harder to develop than traditional small molecule drugs.You might ask "if a drug is patented, then why is a (shorter) period of exclusivity even necessary?
"  Here's an example: inventor discovers a new compound that might be a useful drug.
A patent is filed in 2000.
Then 10 years go by while the inventor struggles to find the optimal dose and delivery mechanism.
Now in 2010 the inventor's startup starts looking for a partner to bring it through trials and into production.
5 years later, human trials start.
3 years later the drug is approved by the FDA for sale.
Now it's 2018 and the patent only has two years left.
If the manufacturer has to recoup all of its costs in just 2 years, the price will have to be extremely high, which will limit the drug's availability.
So the regulatory exclusivity period gives drug makers a guaranteed 5 years in which to recoup their costs.So that's the argument for having an exclusivity period.
There are also arguments against it, of course, but the main point is that all of this is only tangentially related to patent protection and has nothing whatever to do with a special patent rule for biologics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871317</id>
	<title>how do those rules get decided?</title>
	<author>Fizzol</author>
	<datestamp>1256565840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They get decided whichever way is more profitable for the corporation and more expensive for the consumer, such is always the way with US health care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They get decided whichever way is more profitable for the corporation and more expensive for the consumer , such is always the way with US health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They get decided whichever way is more profitable for the corporation and more expensive for the consumer, such is always the way with US health care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873667</id>
	<title>Fundamentally ignorant of the business</title>
	<author>FallLine</author>
	<datestamp>1256578080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several MAJOR flaws in your argument that, essentially, companies should only be able to retain exclusivity until they recoup the strict costs of their R&amp;D on their successful projects.</p><p>First, the real costs of R&amp;D extend will beyond just the one successful project, but generally also several failed ones.  In order to break even on R&amp;D in general, they need to recoup it on just a few of their successes.  In the pharmaceutical industry, this ratio tends to be less than 1 success for every 10 drugs (and this is really only accounting for drugs that gain approval... not market success).</p><p>Second, the R&amp;D costs of a product are generally just a small fraction of the costs to actually create a successful product.  Companies need to spend considerable sums promoting a product before they can break even, not to mention legal, manufacturing capacity, various other overhead, etc.  All of these monies are put at risk for an uncertain outcome and generally take several years to pay off after market entry.</p><p>Third, you absolutely MUST provide strong incentives to take risk.  The higher the risk, the higher the reward needs to be.  This is well established by many years of economic and financial research.  Who would invest in a drug company that produces novel drugs when you can essentially make the same profit by investing in a generic manufacturer with far less risk and with a far shorter timeline?  Why invest in drugs at all when there are safer businesses still?</p><p>Fourth, you need to account for the time-value of money.  Even if your investment was essentially risk free, you would demand an appropriate rate of return because you could invest that money in other places.  A savings account would be far more liquid and likely have less risk in practical terms (not to mention other preferable investments).</p><p>Fifth, accounting for costs is not this simple.  What is the cost for me, an entrepreneur, to drop out of the job market for several years when I can earn 100K+/yr salary in a risk-free job?  Founders would simply never take that risk if we could only MAYBE break even if everything pans out.  What about the engineers and developers I hire that accept less salary in return from an equity interest in the business (i.e., potentially large rewards in exchange for a riskier job and less salary today)?  You would essentially need to dramatically increase the compensation of all such employees in excess of what it is today.</p><p>Sixth, this would give a huge edge to larger and better funded companies that could swoop into a business with an expired patent and reduce the profit potential to near zero under your regime (presuming you accounted for a bunch of the above problems).</p><p>I could name several other critical issues, but suffice it to say that your idea is a total non-starter and demonstrates an ignorance for why the current system generally works far better than you imagine (like most people on slashdot).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several MAJOR flaws in your argument that , essentially , companies should only be able to retain exclusivity until they recoup the strict costs of their R&amp;D on their successful projects.First , the real costs of R&amp;D extend will beyond just the one successful project , but generally also several failed ones .
In order to break even on R&amp;D in general , they need to recoup it on just a few of their successes .
In the pharmaceutical industry , this ratio tends to be less than 1 success for every 10 drugs ( and this is really only accounting for drugs that gain approval... not market success ) .Second , the R&amp;D costs of a product are generally just a small fraction of the costs to actually create a successful product .
Companies need to spend considerable sums promoting a product before they can break even , not to mention legal , manufacturing capacity , various other overhead , etc .
All of these monies are put at risk for an uncertain outcome and generally take several years to pay off after market entry.Third , you absolutely MUST provide strong incentives to take risk .
The higher the risk , the higher the reward needs to be .
This is well established by many years of economic and financial research .
Who would invest in a drug company that produces novel drugs when you can essentially make the same profit by investing in a generic manufacturer with far less risk and with a far shorter timeline ?
Why invest in drugs at all when there are safer businesses still ? Fourth , you need to account for the time-value of money .
Even if your investment was essentially risk free , you would demand an appropriate rate of return because you could invest that money in other places .
A savings account would be far more liquid and likely have less risk in practical terms ( not to mention other preferable investments ) .Fifth , accounting for costs is not this simple .
What is the cost for me , an entrepreneur , to drop out of the job market for several years when I can earn 100K + /yr salary in a risk-free job ?
Founders would simply never take that risk if we could only MAYBE break even if everything pans out .
What about the engineers and developers I hire that accept less salary in return from an equity interest in the business ( i.e. , potentially large rewards in exchange for a riskier job and less salary today ) ?
You would essentially need to dramatically increase the compensation of all such employees in excess of what it is today.Sixth , this would give a huge edge to larger and better funded companies that could swoop into a business with an expired patent and reduce the profit potential to near zero under your regime ( presuming you accounted for a bunch of the above problems ) .I could name several other critical issues , but suffice it to say that your idea is a total non-starter and demonstrates an ignorance for why the current system generally works far better than you imagine ( like most people on slashdot ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several MAJOR flaws in your argument that, essentially, companies should only be able to retain exclusivity until they recoup the strict costs of their R&amp;D on their successful projects.First, the real costs of R&amp;D extend will beyond just the one successful project, but generally also several failed ones.
In order to break even on R&amp;D in general, they need to recoup it on just a few of their successes.
In the pharmaceutical industry, this ratio tends to be less than 1 success for every 10 drugs (and this is really only accounting for drugs that gain approval... not market success).Second, the R&amp;D costs of a product are generally just a small fraction of the costs to actually create a successful product.
Companies need to spend considerable sums promoting a product before they can break even, not to mention legal, manufacturing capacity, various other overhead, etc.
All of these monies are put at risk for an uncertain outcome and generally take several years to pay off after market entry.Third, you absolutely MUST provide strong incentives to take risk.
The higher the risk, the higher the reward needs to be.
This is well established by many years of economic and financial research.
Who would invest in a drug company that produces novel drugs when you can essentially make the same profit by investing in a generic manufacturer with far less risk and with a far shorter timeline?
Why invest in drugs at all when there are safer businesses still?Fourth, you need to account for the time-value of money.
Even if your investment was essentially risk free, you would demand an appropriate rate of return because you could invest that money in other places.
A savings account would be far more liquid and likely have less risk in practical terms (not to mention other preferable investments).Fifth, accounting for costs is not this simple.
What is the cost for me, an entrepreneur, to drop out of the job market for several years when I can earn 100K+/yr salary in a risk-free job?
Founders would simply never take that risk if we could only MAYBE break even if everything pans out.
What about the engineers and developers I hire that accept less salary in return from an equity interest in the business (i.e., potentially large rewards in exchange for a riskier job and less salary today)?
You would essentially need to dramatically increase the compensation of all such employees in excess of what it is today.Sixth, this would give a huge edge to larger and better funded companies that could swoop into a business with an expired patent and reduce the profit potential to near zero under your regime (presuming you accounted for a bunch of the above problems).I could name several other critical issues, but suffice it to say that your idea is a total non-starter and demonstrates an ignorance for why the current system generally works far better than you imagine (like most people on slashdot).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29878845</id>
	<title>Re:Longer patents = cheaper branded drugs?</title>
	<author>TakeyMcTaker</author>
	<datestamp>1256559180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) New drugs cost a lot of money to do R&amp;D, and then to get through all the clinical studies and FDA approval.</p></div><p>This argument completely ignores how far these clinical trials are already subsidized by a mix of government, private, and non-profit grants.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2) New drugs require the drug companies to market to both doctors and patients</p></div><p>This argument is completely false in the cases most worthy of any government protections: if the drug is really that new and effective, it will market itself via the clinical trial results alone.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3) The costs of R&amp;D, trials, approval, marketing, *and* reasonable return-on-investement currently have to mostly be done within that 5 year window</p></div><p>This is assuming that the drug isn't held as a Trade Secret until just before commercial release, making the patent period equal to the market period. This also assumes the drug is really all that new, and not just a remix or increment on older well-known drugs or coctails. Drugs are rarely all that "novel", because the mechanisms of truly new drugs can't be trusted not to create bad reactions. Most drugs are also derived from natural or organic materials and processes, which also brings their novelty and non-obviousness into question.</p><p>I'd personally much rather pay for the R&amp;D and clinical trials of life-saving devices, procedures, and pharmaceuticals via taxes, as we are already doing anyway. That sounds better right now than continuing to be taxed by monopoly rents, via health insurance Trust markets, as we are now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) New drugs cost a lot of money to do R&amp;D , and then to get through all the clinical studies and FDA approval.This argument completely ignores how far these clinical trials are already subsidized by a mix of government , private , and non-profit grants.2 ) New drugs require the drug companies to market to both doctors and patientsThis argument is completely false in the cases most worthy of any government protections : if the drug is really that new and effective , it will market itself via the clinical trial results alone.3 ) The costs of R&amp;D , trials , approval , marketing , * and * reasonable return-on-investement currently have to mostly be done within that 5 year windowThis is assuming that the drug is n't held as a Trade Secret until just before commercial release , making the patent period equal to the market period .
This also assumes the drug is really all that new , and not just a remix or increment on older well-known drugs or coctails .
Drugs are rarely all that " novel " , because the mechanisms of truly new drugs ca n't be trusted not to create bad reactions .
Most drugs are also derived from natural or organic materials and processes , which also brings their novelty and non-obviousness into question.I 'd personally much rather pay for the R&amp;D and clinical trials of life-saving devices , procedures , and pharmaceuticals via taxes , as we are already doing anyway .
That sounds better right now than continuing to be taxed by monopoly rents , via health insurance Trust markets , as we are now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) New drugs cost a lot of money to do R&amp;D, and then to get through all the clinical studies and FDA approval.This argument completely ignores how far these clinical trials are already subsidized by a mix of government, private, and non-profit grants.2) New drugs require the drug companies to market to both doctors and patientsThis argument is completely false in the cases most worthy of any government protections: if the drug is really that new and effective, it will market itself via the clinical trial results alone.3) The costs of R&amp;D, trials, approval, marketing, *and* reasonable return-on-investement currently have to mostly be done within that 5 year windowThis is assuming that the drug isn't held as a Trade Secret until just before commercial release, making the patent period equal to the market period.
This also assumes the drug is really all that new, and not just a remix or increment on older well-known drugs or coctails.
Drugs are rarely all that "novel", because the mechanisms of truly new drugs can't be trusted not to create bad reactions.
Most drugs are also derived from natural or organic materials and processes, which also brings their novelty and non-obviousness into question.I'd personally much rather pay for the R&amp;D and clinical trials of life-saving devices, procedures, and pharmaceuticals via taxes, as we are already doing anyway.
That sounds better right now than continuing to be taxed by monopoly rents, via health insurance Trust markets, as we are now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872193</id>
	<title>Did you even RTFA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256570880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Federal Trade Commission released a fact-finding report in June estimating that follow-on biologics [<i>this means generics</i>] would take eight to 10 years to develop and cost $100 million to $200 million. Due to high production costs and slow market acquisition, the FTC recommended zero years of market exclusivity for biologics, a far cry from the currently proposed 12 years."</p><p>So a legislative protection of "0" is <i>equivalent to</i> 8-10 years (plus $100-200 million) because of technological limitations.  Furthermore (and this is REALLY IMPORTANT), setting the legislative protection period lower (rather than higher as proposed by Congress) than the technological protection period means that there is now a huge incentive for somebody to invest in inventing significant advances in the production/development of biologics which will, in turn, result in faster production of more medications.</p><p>Let me say that again in case you missed it -- <b>legislating a 12 year (plus renew ad-infinitum) protection timeframe for the current biologics will delay the discovery of not-yet-invented drugs.</b>  It seems, to me, that that's clearly in diametric opposition to a goal of promoting advances in science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Federal Trade Commission released a fact-finding report in June estimating that follow-on biologics [ this means generics ] would take eight to 10 years to develop and cost $ 100 million to $ 200 million .
Due to high production costs and slow market acquisition , the FTC recommended zero years of market exclusivity for biologics , a far cry from the currently proposed 12 years .
" So a legislative protection of " 0 " is equivalent to 8-10 years ( plus $ 100-200 million ) because of technological limitations .
Furthermore ( and this is REALLY IMPORTANT ) , setting the legislative protection period lower ( rather than higher as proposed by Congress ) than the technological protection period means that there is now a huge incentive for somebody to invest in inventing significant advances in the production/development of biologics which will , in turn , result in faster production of more medications.Let me say that again in case you missed it -- legislating a 12 year ( plus renew ad-infinitum ) protection timeframe for the current biologics will delay the discovery of not-yet-invented drugs .
It seems , to me , that that 's clearly in diametric opposition to a goal of promoting advances in science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Federal Trade Commission released a fact-finding report in June estimating that follow-on biologics [this means generics] would take eight to 10 years to develop and cost $100 million to $200 million.
Due to high production costs and slow market acquisition, the FTC recommended zero years of market exclusivity for biologics, a far cry from the currently proposed 12 years.
"So a legislative protection of "0" is equivalent to 8-10 years (plus $100-200 million) because of technological limitations.
Furthermore (and this is REALLY IMPORTANT), setting the legislative protection period lower (rather than higher as proposed by Congress) than the technological protection period means that there is now a huge incentive for somebody to invest in inventing significant advances in the production/development of biologics which will, in turn, result in faster production of more medications.Let me say that again in case you missed it -- legislating a 12 year (plus renew ad-infinitum) protection timeframe for the current biologics will delay the discovery of not-yet-invented drugs.
It seems, to me, that that's clearly in diametric opposition to a goal of promoting advances in science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872827</id>
	<title>Re:Stop intervening in the market place</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256574000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A lot of this stuff is simply too expensive and we need to figure out ways to make drug research less expensive.</i></p><p>Most of the cost of drugs isn't research, it's profits. But I'm ok with 20 year patents; I wish copyrights were as sane a length.</p><p>Doctors are part of the problem. Back when I was on Paxil, the patent ran out on it. I'd been paying a $20 co-pay on a bottle (no idea what retail price was, that's another reason drugs are so expensive), as soon as the patent ran out I got generics for $5.</p><p>Next time I saw the doctor she changed the prescription to PaxilCR, which was newly patented -- and didn't work for me at all, while the old generic paroxitine did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of this stuff is simply too expensive and we need to figure out ways to make drug research less expensive.Most of the cost of drugs is n't research , it 's profits .
But I 'm ok with 20 year patents ; I wish copyrights were as sane a length.Doctors are part of the problem .
Back when I was on Paxil , the patent ran out on it .
I 'd been paying a $ 20 co-pay on a bottle ( no idea what retail price was , that 's another reason drugs are so expensive ) , as soon as the patent ran out I got generics for $ 5.Next time I saw the doctor she changed the prescription to PaxilCR , which was newly patented -- and did n't work for me at all , while the old generic paroxitine did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of this stuff is simply too expensive and we need to figure out ways to make drug research less expensive.Most of the cost of drugs isn't research, it's profits.
But I'm ok with 20 year patents; I wish copyrights were as sane a length.Doctors are part of the problem.
Back when I was on Paxil, the patent ran out on it.
I'd been paying a $20 co-pay on a bottle (no idea what retail price was, that's another reason drugs are so expensive), as soon as the patent ran out I got generics for $5.Next time I saw the doctor she changed the prescription to PaxilCR, which was newly patented -- and didn't work for me at all, while the old generic paroxitine did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873069</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1256575260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife works in pharmaceutical research. She's my source of information on how many drug trials are performed in the US versus other countries.</p><p>It doesn't matter where the companies are headquartered, it matters where they do their research and manufacturing. And the lion's share of that is done in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife works in pharmaceutical research .
She 's my source of information on how many drug trials are performed in the US versus other countries.It does n't matter where the companies are headquartered , it matters where they do their research and manufacturing .
And the lion 's share of that is done in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife works in pharmaceutical research.
She's my source of information on how many drug trials are performed in the US versus other countries.It doesn't matter where the companies are headquartered, it matters where they do their research and manufacturing.
And the lion's share of that is done in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29879927</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1256567580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You have to strike a balance between ensuring that drug development is profitable, but not excessively so - not an easy thing to do.</p></div></blockquote><p>Why does it have to be profitable? Why not publicly fund such vital research?

</p><p>If you objection is that you're opposed to a government role in development of goods, then you can't favor patents and remain logically consistent. We are subsidizing research by private companies by creating artificial monopolies, letting big phrama rake in wads of cash from us by pointing guns at anyone who copies drugs they've patented; why not just subsidize researchers directly by handing out wads of cash? Pay the money in direct taxes to the government rather than by indirect taxes to patent holders.

</p><p>If you think that only the profit motive can lead to scientific discovery, please explain how we've come to know about quarks and exoplanets. Or to take a more relevant example, Salk never patented his polio vaccine; as he said, "Could you patent the sun?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to strike a balance between ensuring that drug development is profitable , but not excessively so - not an easy thing to do.Why does it have to be profitable ?
Why not publicly fund such vital research ?
If you objection is that you 're opposed to a government role in development of goods , then you ca n't favor patents and remain logically consistent .
We are subsidizing research by private companies by creating artificial monopolies , letting big phrama rake in wads of cash from us by pointing guns at anyone who copies drugs they 've patented ; why not just subsidize researchers directly by handing out wads of cash ?
Pay the money in direct taxes to the government rather than by indirect taxes to patent holders .
If you think that only the profit motive can lead to scientific discovery , please explain how we 've come to know about quarks and exoplanets .
Or to take a more relevant example , Salk never patented his polio vaccine ; as he said , " Could you patent the sun ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to strike a balance between ensuring that drug development is profitable, but not excessively so - not an easy thing to do.Why does it have to be profitable?
Why not publicly fund such vital research?
If you objection is that you're opposed to a government role in development of goods, then you can't favor patents and remain logically consistent.
We are subsidizing research by private companies by creating artificial monopolies, letting big phrama rake in wads of cash from us by pointing guns at anyone who copies drugs they've patented; why not just subsidize researchers directly by handing out wads of cash?
Pay the money in direct taxes to the government rather than by indirect taxes to patent holders.
If you think that only the profit motive can lead to scientific discovery, please explain how we've come to know about quarks and exoplanets.
Or to take a more relevant example, Salk never patented his polio vaccine; as he said, "Could you patent the sun?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873527</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1256577240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is exactly the reason democracy fails.</p></div><p>Democracy fails because everyone gets to vote - including the lazy idiots who have absolutely no idea who or what they're voting for.  Democracy requires an informed populace in order to work.  Our populace doesn't care enough to be informed.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In a world without such authorities, the success of companies would be measured solely by their ability to provide the best service to their customers.</p></div><p>Wrong.</p><p>Governments are 100\% necessary for the functioning of a healthy society.  You ever read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Jungle" title="wikipedia.org">The Jungle</a> [wikipedia.org]?  Ever hear the term <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake\_oil" title="wikipedia.org">snake oil</a> [wikipedia.org]? There's a reason the FDA exists.</p><p>Companies are not concerned about the well-being of society, they're concerned with making money.  A business will do whatever it can to make money.  Without restraints or regulations, a business can be downright harmful to a society.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Without artificial restrictions, such as patents or copyrights, there'd never be an opportunity for a company not to try to improve their services. A popular argument against removing patent and copyright laws is that a company has to invest significant amounts of time and money in inventing new products (such as medicine in this article's context) and that the patent would allow them to make profit out of their investment. I believe, that if a certain product really requires years of exclusive research it also isn't possible for competing companies to copy in a timeframe that wouldn't allow for the original inventor to gain reasonable profit. Nevertheless, if another company is able to provide better selling service regarding another company's invention, why not allow it? After all, we should be concerned about mankind's collective well-being and not the profit of select companies.</p></div><p>Patents and copyrights are a sticky subject, especially here on Slashdot.  In some cases, they seem kind of silly - like patenting a new gene sequence you discovered in a critter, or patenting a software algorithm.  In other cases, like drugs, they make more sense.</p><p>Developing a drug requires literally years research and costs literally millions of dollars.  Then you've got a few more years and millions of dollars to get through FDA testing.</p><p>Once you've developed a drug, however, it's a very simple process to manufacture it.  You're just combining chemicals and compounds in vats and then shaping it into pills or packaging it in bottles.  Once someone's done all the work to develop a drug, anyone (with the right factory) can take that formula and easily mass-produce it.</p><p>If there was absolutely no patent protection for drug companies, there'd be absolutely no reason for them to do any R&amp;D.  Why would they spend multiple millions of dollars to develop a drug; only to have the competition take their formula and start manufacturing the same thing without all those dollars spent in R&amp;D?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly the reason democracy fails.Democracy fails because everyone gets to vote - including the lazy idiots who have absolutely no idea who or what they 're voting for .
Democracy requires an informed populace in order to work .
Our populace does n't care enough to be informed.In a world without such authorities , the success of companies would be measured solely by their ability to provide the best service to their customers.Wrong.Governments are 100 \ % necessary for the functioning of a healthy society .
You ever read The Jungle [ wikipedia.org ] ?
Ever hear the term snake oil [ wikipedia.org ] ?
There 's a reason the FDA exists.Companies are not concerned about the well-being of society , they 're concerned with making money .
A business will do whatever it can to make money .
Without restraints or regulations , a business can be downright harmful to a society.Without artificial restrictions , such as patents or copyrights , there 'd never be an opportunity for a company not to try to improve their services .
A popular argument against removing patent and copyright laws is that a company has to invest significant amounts of time and money in inventing new products ( such as medicine in this article 's context ) and that the patent would allow them to make profit out of their investment .
I believe , that if a certain product really requires years of exclusive research it also is n't possible for competing companies to copy in a timeframe that would n't allow for the original inventor to gain reasonable profit .
Nevertheless , if another company is able to provide better selling service regarding another company 's invention , why not allow it ?
After all , we should be concerned about mankind 's collective well-being and not the profit of select companies.Patents and copyrights are a sticky subject , especially here on Slashdot .
In some cases , they seem kind of silly - like patenting a new gene sequence you discovered in a critter , or patenting a software algorithm .
In other cases , like drugs , they make more sense.Developing a drug requires literally years research and costs literally millions of dollars .
Then you 've got a few more years and millions of dollars to get through FDA testing.Once you 've developed a drug , however , it 's a very simple process to manufacture it .
You 're just combining chemicals and compounds in vats and then shaping it into pills or packaging it in bottles .
Once someone 's done all the work to develop a drug , anyone ( with the right factory ) can take that formula and easily mass-produce it.If there was absolutely no patent protection for drug companies , there 'd be absolutely no reason for them to do any R&amp;D .
Why would they spend multiple millions of dollars to develop a drug ; only to have the competition take their formula and start manufacturing the same thing without all those dollars spent in R&amp;D ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly the reason democracy fails.Democracy fails because everyone gets to vote - including the lazy idiots who have absolutely no idea who or what they're voting for.
Democracy requires an informed populace in order to work.
Our populace doesn't care enough to be informed.In a world without such authorities, the success of companies would be measured solely by their ability to provide the best service to their customers.Wrong.Governments are 100\% necessary for the functioning of a healthy society.
You ever read The Jungle [wikipedia.org]?
Ever hear the term snake oil [wikipedia.org]?
There's a reason the FDA exists.Companies are not concerned about the well-being of society, they're concerned with making money.
A business will do whatever it can to make money.
Without restraints or regulations, a business can be downright harmful to a society.Without artificial restrictions, such as patents or copyrights, there'd never be an opportunity for a company not to try to improve their services.
A popular argument against removing patent and copyright laws is that a company has to invest significant amounts of time and money in inventing new products (such as medicine in this article's context) and that the patent would allow them to make profit out of their investment.
I believe, that if a certain product really requires years of exclusive research it also isn't possible for competing companies to copy in a timeframe that wouldn't allow for the original inventor to gain reasonable profit.
Nevertheless, if another company is able to provide better selling service regarding another company's invention, why not allow it?
After all, we should be concerned about mankind's collective well-being and not the profit of select companies.Patents and copyrights are a sticky subject, especially here on Slashdot.
In some cases, they seem kind of silly - like patenting a new gene sequence you discovered in a critter, or patenting a software algorithm.
In other cases, like drugs, they make more sense.Developing a drug requires literally years research and costs literally millions of dollars.
Then you've got a few more years and millions of dollars to get through FDA testing.Once you've developed a drug, however, it's a very simple process to manufacture it.
You're just combining chemicals and compounds in vats and then shaping it into pills or packaging it in bottles.
Once someone's done all the work to develop a drug, anyone (with the right factory) can take that formula and easily mass-produce it.If there was absolutely no patent protection for drug companies, there'd be absolutely no reason for them to do any R&amp;D.
Why would they spend multiple millions of dollars to develop a drug; only to have the competition take their formula and start manufacturing the same thing without all those dollars spent in R&amp;D?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872169</id>
	<title>Re:All the same</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1256570760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents don't reward "complexity".  They reward innovation.</p><p>An invention can be extremely innovative, and yet easy to copy once you have one.</p><p>There are plenty of good arguments both for and against patents.  Pretending the underlying issue patents address doesn't exist is not one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents do n't reward " complexity " .
They reward innovation.An invention can be extremely innovative , and yet easy to copy once you have one.There are plenty of good arguments both for and against patents .
Pretending the underlying issue patents address does n't exist is not one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents don't reward "complexity".
They reward innovation.An invention can be extremely innovative, and yet easy to copy once you have one.There are plenty of good arguments both for and against patents.
Pretending the underlying issue patents address doesn't exist is not one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872449</id>
	<title>Re:What needs to change</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1256571960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>To encourage invention or innovation, the system MUST go back to the original reason for patent protection in the first place.</p></div></blockquote><p>To protect revenue streams, prop up failing business models and raise barriers to entry (all under the guise of "encourag[ing] invention or innovation"), the system works just fine as it is, thank you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To encourage invention or innovation , the system MUST go back to the original reason for patent protection in the first place.To protect revenue streams , prop up failing business models and raise barriers to entry ( all under the guise of " encourag [ ing ] invention or innovation " ) , the system works just fine as it is , thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To encourage invention or innovation, the system MUST go back to the original reason for patent protection in the first place.To protect revenue streams, prop up failing business models and raise barriers to entry (all under the guise of "encourag[ing] invention or innovation"), the system works just fine as it is, thank you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873457</id>
	<title>New tech? No. More intelligent people.</title>
	<author>Tolkien</author>
	<datestamp>1256576880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Without having even glanced at the summary, I have your new technology right here:<br><br>if (patent.isBraindeadObvious()) {<br>&nbsp; patentOffice.deny(patent);<br>}</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without having even glanced at the summary , I have your new technology right here : if ( patent.isBraindeadObvious ( ) ) {   patentOffice.deny ( patent ) ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without having even glanced at the summary, I have your new technology right here:if (patent.isBraindeadObvious()) {  patentOffice.deny(patent);}</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872561</id>
	<title>Should a New Technology Change the Patent System?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256572440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course not.  However, this has nothing to do with new technology.  It's quid pro quo for supporting healthcare "reform".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course not .
However , this has nothing to do with new technology .
It 's quid pro quo for supporting healthcare " reform " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course not.
However, this has nothing to do with new technology.
It's quid pro quo for supporting healthcare "reform".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872047</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is so EASY...</title>
	<author>sigmundur</author>
	<datestamp>1256570160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess that by reading the first comment about lobby system you understand why that will only happen after hell has frozen over and melted a couple of times...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that by reading the first comment about lobby system you understand why that will only happen after hell has frozen over and melted a couple of times.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that by reading the first comment about lobby system you understand why that will only happen after hell has frozen over and melted a couple of times...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29875469</id>
	<title>Re:20 years not 5</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256586240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is true. It should be noted that a patent is submitted when the drug company files an Investigational New Drug (IND) with the FDA (this is typically after animal testing, etc). They then have to go through Phase I (safety in healthy humans), Phase II (safety and efficacy in target populations), and Phase III (bigger and longer Phase II studies) clinical trials before they can file a New Drug Application (NDA). If they get approved, then they can market the drug. On average, I believe it takes a drug 12 years to get from IND to pharmacy shelves. So that leaves about 8 years of patent exclusivity. The summary is wrong and everyone quoting is, of course, wrong.</p><p>Your friendly neighborhood pharmacist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true .
It should be noted that a patent is submitted when the drug company files an Investigational New Drug ( IND ) with the FDA ( this is typically after animal testing , etc ) .
They then have to go through Phase I ( safety in healthy humans ) , Phase II ( safety and efficacy in target populations ) , and Phase III ( bigger and longer Phase II studies ) clinical trials before they can file a New Drug Application ( NDA ) .
If they get approved , then they can market the drug .
On average , I believe it takes a drug 12 years to get from IND to pharmacy shelves .
So that leaves about 8 years of patent exclusivity .
The summary is wrong and everyone quoting is , of course , wrong.Your friendly neighborhood pharmacist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true.
It should be noted that a patent is submitted when the drug company files an Investigational New Drug (IND) with the FDA (this is typically after animal testing, etc).
They then have to go through Phase I (safety in healthy humans), Phase II (safety and efficacy in target populations), and Phase III (bigger and longer Phase II studies) clinical trials before they can file a New Drug Application (NDA).
If they get approved, then they can market the drug.
On average, I believe it takes a drug 12 years to get from IND to pharmacy shelves.
So that leaves about 8 years of patent exclusivity.
The summary is wrong and everyone quoting is, of course, wrong.Your friendly neighborhood pharmacist</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29874283</id>
	<title>3 years. Use it, or LOSE it.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1256581020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thats as good as it goes. if something is so fucking valuable that it 'justifies' 13 years of 'patent duration', that means it can make heaps of money. that means, if you want to make money, you should USE it and make that money.</p><p>noone should be allowed to patent stuff, hoard them and just wait, working on other things or waiting for someone to use a similar thing and troll on them. this is knowledge. if you invented something, and are not using it, you shouldnt be able to bar mankind's progress when someone else invents it through their own means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thats as good as it goes .
if something is so fucking valuable that it 'justifies ' 13 years of 'patent duration ' , that means it can make heaps of money .
that means , if you want to make money , you should USE it and make that money.noone should be allowed to patent stuff , hoard them and just wait , working on other things or waiting for someone to use a similar thing and troll on them .
this is knowledge .
if you invented something , and are not using it , you shouldnt be able to bar mankind 's progress when someone else invents it through their own means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thats as good as it goes.
if something is so fucking valuable that it 'justifies' 13 years of 'patent duration', that means it can make heaps of money.
that means, if you want to make money, you should USE it and make that money.noone should be allowed to patent stuff, hoard them and just wait, working on other things or waiting for someone to use a similar thing and troll on them.
this is knowledge.
if you invented something, and are not using it, you shouldnt be able to bar mankind's progress when someone else invents it through their own means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871413</id>
	<title>Can anyone explain the US system?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256566500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone know how the US drug patent system works? It seems very different from my foggy memory of the system in the UK which I think is 20-25 years for drugs.</p><p>Anyway patent extension through minor changes is nothing new the drug companies have been at that one for years. Its why you get MR (modified release) slapped on the end of your medicines even though the benefit of many MR preparations isn't that great except for patient compliance issues.</p><p>I always thought medicines got a raw deal with patent law compared to say copyright law.<br>Something so important, difficult to develop, costly (billions of dollars in development) and strictly regulated gets less protection than Mickey Mouse.</p><p>Now im not saying I'd like longer medicine patents, generics do a great job of driving prices down on something that is more necessity than luxury, but I find it strange that art which can take one uneducated dude all of 5 seconds to come up with is given more protection than discoveries that take 100's of highly educated people years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone know how the US drug patent system works ?
It seems very different from my foggy memory of the system in the UK which I think is 20-25 years for drugs.Anyway patent extension through minor changes is nothing new the drug companies have been at that one for years .
Its why you get MR ( modified release ) slapped on the end of your medicines even though the benefit of many MR preparations is n't that great except for patient compliance issues.I always thought medicines got a raw deal with patent law compared to say copyright law.Something so important , difficult to develop , costly ( billions of dollars in development ) and strictly regulated gets less protection than Mickey Mouse.Now im not saying I 'd like longer medicine patents , generics do a great job of driving prices down on something that is more necessity than luxury , but I find it strange that art which can take one uneducated dude all of 5 seconds to come up with is given more protection than discoveries that take 100 's of highly educated people years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone know how the US drug patent system works?
It seems very different from my foggy memory of the system in the UK which I think is 20-25 years for drugs.Anyway patent extension through minor changes is nothing new the drug companies have been at that one for years.
Its why you get MR (modified release) slapped on the end of your medicines even though the benefit of many MR preparations isn't that great except for patient compliance issues.I always thought medicines got a raw deal with patent law compared to say copyright law.Something so important, difficult to develop, costly (billions of dollars in development) and strictly regulated gets less protection than Mickey Mouse.Now im not saying I'd like longer medicine patents, generics do a great job of driving prices down on something that is more necessity than luxury, but I find it strange that art which can take one uneducated dude all of 5 seconds to come up with is given more protection than discoveries that take 100's of highly educated people years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872621</id>
	<title>Re:Longer patents = cheaper branded drugs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256572800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could charge less for 12 years to recoup the same cash I could get in 5 with higher prices.</p><p>Or, because I am an Evil Corporation (tm), I can charge the same, since that is what the market is accustomed to bearing, and make 7 more years of profit.</p><p>Where is the incentive to lower prices?  It doesnt exist.  For this same reason, prices raise quickly under market pressure (see fuel prices during holidays), but come down slower, since the only push to go down is competition.  A government granted monopoly would have 0 incentive to bring the price down, until there are generics available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could charge less for 12 years to recoup the same cash I could get in 5 with higher prices.Or , because I am an Evil Corporation ( tm ) , I can charge the same , since that is what the market is accustomed to bearing , and make 7 more years of profit.Where is the incentive to lower prices ?
It doesnt exist .
For this same reason , prices raise quickly under market pressure ( see fuel prices during holidays ) , but come down slower , since the only push to go down is competition .
A government granted monopoly would have 0 incentive to bring the price down , until there are generics available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could charge less for 12 years to recoup the same cash I could get in 5 with higher prices.Or, because I am an Evil Corporation (tm), I can charge the same, since that is what the market is accustomed to bearing, and make 7 more years of profit.Where is the incentive to lower prices?
It doesnt exist.
For this same reason, prices raise quickly under market pressure (see fuel prices during holidays), but come down slower, since the only push to go down is competition.
A government granted monopoly would have 0 incentive to bring the price down, until there are generics available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29878107</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Libertarian001</author>
	<datestamp>1256554440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Won't matter if you're a copay or a percentage, you'll be taking that $100/dose because it's your health and you can't exactly put a price on your health."</p><p>One wouldn't have thought so, but here we are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Wo n't matter if you 're a copay or a percentage , you 'll be taking that $ 100/dose because it 's your health and you ca n't exactly put a price on your health .
" One would n't have thought so , but here we are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Won't matter if you're a copay or a percentage, you'll be taking that $100/dose because it's your health and you can't exactly put a price on your health.
"One wouldn't have thought so, but here we are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873531</id>
	<title>Re:Recoup period</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1256577300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Without a recoup period, there is no incentive to develop new treatments.</p></div><p>That's not entirely true.  There are incentives to develop new treatments... like, you know, curing people.  There might even be business models which fund developments of new treatments.  It's just that there might not be business models which provide enough funding to find these treatments quickly, and what business models there are might include trying to keep trade secrets, which means that the treatments might not be widely available, and people wouldn't be able to do significant research based on those discoveries.
</p><p>It's worth keeping in mind that the purpose of patents wasn't originally to guarantee inventors a return on their investment in research.  The idea was that it was an exchange: the government guarantees you a limited period of exclusive rights to the invention, and in return you publicly disclose how your invention works, and the public gets to use it once your exclusivity ends.
</p><p>Personally, I don't really have a problem with copyrights or patents, just so long as we keep in mind that the purpose is to enrich the public's store of IP rather than to enrich the originators of the IP.  We just give the originators something in trade for their contributions: limited control over their ideas for a limited time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without a recoup period , there is no incentive to develop new treatments.That 's not entirely true .
There are incentives to develop new treatments... like , you know , curing people .
There might even be business models which fund developments of new treatments .
It 's just that there might not be business models which provide enough funding to find these treatments quickly , and what business models there are might include trying to keep trade secrets , which means that the treatments might not be widely available , and people would n't be able to do significant research based on those discoveries .
It 's worth keeping in mind that the purpose of patents was n't originally to guarantee inventors a return on their investment in research .
The idea was that it was an exchange : the government guarantees you a limited period of exclusive rights to the invention , and in return you publicly disclose how your invention works , and the public gets to use it once your exclusivity ends .
Personally , I do n't really have a problem with copyrights or patents , just so long as we keep in mind that the purpose is to enrich the public 's store of IP rather than to enrich the originators of the IP .
We just give the originators something in trade for their contributions : limited control over their ideas for a limited time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without a recoup period, there is no incentive to develop new treatments.That's not entirely true.
There are incentives to develop new treatments... like, you know, curing people.
There might even be business models which fund developments of new treatments.
It's just that there might not be business models which provide enough funding to find these treatments quickly, and what business models there are might include trying to keep trade secrets, which means that the treatments might not be widely available, and people wouldn't be able to do significant research based on those discoveries.
It's worth keeping in mind that the purpose of patents wasn't originally to guarantee inventors a return on their investment in research.
The idea was that it was an exchange: the government guarantees you a limited period of exclusive rights to the invention, and in return you publicly disclose how your invention works, and the public gets to use it once your exclusivity ends.
Personally, I don't really have a problem with copyrights or patents, just so long as we keep in mind that the purpose is to enrich the public's store of IP rather than to enrich the originators of the IP.
We just give the originators something in trade for their contributions: limited control over their ideas for a limited time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871407</id>
	<title>Copyright laws need a look too</title>
	<author>jonesxxx</author>
	<datestamp>1256566500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should also ask are the copyright laws legitimate?

The original copyright laws originated in Britain in 1710 as an act &ldquo;for the encouragement of learning&rdquo; and &ldquo;for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books&rdquo;.

It's right that they protect musicians too but when a music company can contrive for some teenage nit wit to be hyped in all the music media and then sell millions of copies of some ditty at a replication cost so close to nothing that it may as well be free can this be fair? Hasn't the music industry neglected it's initial reason for being and now become interested only in supporting itself and neglecting the msuci?

Isn't it ripping everyone off?

Let the audience decide

<a href="http://tinyurl.com/yj7zbok" title="tinyurl.com" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/yj7zbok</a> [tinyurl.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should also ask are the copyright laws legitimate ?
The original copyright laws originated in Britain in 1710 as an act    for the encouragement of learning    and    for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books    .
It 's right that they protect musicians too but when a music company can contrive for some teenage nit wit to be hyped in all the music media and then sell millions of copies of some ditty at a replication cost so close to nothing that it may as well be free can this be fair ?
Has n't the music industry neglected it 's initial reason for being and now become interested only in supporting itself and neglecting the msuci ?
Is n't it ripping everyone off ?
Let the audience decide http : //tinyurl.com/yj7zbok [ tinyurl.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should also ask are the copyright laws legitimate?
The original copyright laws originated in Britain in 1710 as an act “for the encouragement of learning” and “for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books”.
It's right that they protect musicians too but when a music company can contrive for some teenage nit wit to be hyped in all the music media and then sell millions of copies of some ditty at a replication cost so close to nothing that it may as well be free can this be fair?
Hasn't the music industry neglected it's initial reason for being and now become interested only in supporting itself and neglecting the msuci?
Isn't it ripping everyone off?
Let the audience decide

http://tinyurl.com/yj7zbok [tinyurl.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872375</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is so EASY...</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1256571720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The solution to the never ending patent rubbish that is coming out is:</p><p>1) All R&amp;D needs to be logged (in terms of cost).
2) All patents are protected and valid until the net profit of selling any item has reached the level of costs, or 1 year if no progress on the the patent has been made to monetize anything.
3) After R&amp;D costs are covered, the patent becomes public knowledge and usable in any capacity by anyone.</p></div><p>Let's see how this would work with a reasonable example:<br>
1) Company starts working on developing new product on Jan. 1, 2000.<br>
2) Company finishes development on Jan 1, 2002 (2 years R&amp;D, and, say, $1 million in costs)<br>
3) Company gets patent after reasonable time for examination/search/etc. on Jan 1, 2005.<br>
4) Company markets product and makes $1 million in profits over 5 years, causing patent to expire on Jan 1, 2010.</p><p>
The company has now broken even, for a 0\% return on investment over 10 years.</p><p>
I think you need to go back to the drawing board.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution to the never ending patent rubbish that is coming out is : 1 ) All R&amp;D needs to be logged ( in terms of cost ) .
2 ) All patents are protected and valid until the net profit of selling any item has reached the level of costs , or 1 year if no progress on the the patent has been made to monetize anything .
3 ) After R&amp;D costs are covered , the patent becomes public knowledge and usable in any capacity by anyone.Let 's see how this would work with a reasonable example : 1 ) Company starts working on developing new product on Jan. 1 , 2000 .
2 ) Company finishes development on Jan 1 , 2002 ( 2 years R&amp;D , and , say , $ 1 million in costs ) 3 ) Company gets patent after reasonable time for examination/search/etc .
on Jan 1 , 2005 .
4 ) Company markets product and makes $ 1 million in profits over 5 years , causing patent to expire on Jan 1 , 2010 .
The company has now broken even , for a 0 \ % return on investment over 10 years .
I think you need to go back to the drawing board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution to the never ending patent rubbish that is coming out is:1) All R&amp;D needs to be logged (in terms of cost).
2) All patents are protected and valid until the net profit of selling any item has reached the level of costs, or 1 year if no progress on the the patent has been made to monetize anything.
3) After R&amp;D costs are covered, the patent becomes public knowledge and usable in any capacity by anyone.Let's see how this would work with a reasonable example:
1) Company starts working on developing new product on Jan. 1, 2000.
2) Company finishes development on Jan 1, 2002 (2 years R&amp;D, and, say, $1 million in costs)
3) Company gets patent after reasonable time for examination/search/etc.
on Jan 1, 2005.
4) Company markets product and makes $1 million in profits over 5 years, causing patent to expire on Jan 1, 2010.
The company has now broken even, for a 0\% return on investment over 10 years.
I think you need to go back to the drawing board.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871607</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256567760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was under the impression that drugs were quite easy to "copy" once discovered, and that the expense was in discovering and vetting them through trials. This also seems to hold true for many other industries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that drugs were quite easy to " copy " once discovered , and that the expense was in discovering and vetting them through trials .
This also seems to hold true for many other industries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that drugs were quite easy to "copy" once discovered, and that the expense was in discovering and vetting them through trials.
This also seems to hold true for many other industries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29879323</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256562360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, oh, I know! Burning Man, and Somalia!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , oh , I know !
Burning Man , and Somalia !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, oh, I know!
Burning Man, and Somalia!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871369</id>
	<title>Longer patents = cheaper branded drugs?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1256566320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, I'm probably being far too charitable here, but it occurs to me that at least the *possibility* exists that granting longer than 5 years on drug patents *might* lead to cheaper branded drugs? 12 years might still be a bit too long, but here's my reasoning. . .</p><p>1) New drugs cost a lot of money to do R&amp;D, and then to get through all the clinical studies and FDA approval.</p><p>2) New drugs require the drug companies to market to both doctors and patients (although, it could be argued they should be doing less marketing to patients, and more to doctors, but that's a bit off-topic for this thread). My point is, there is a 'ramp up' period to get drugs up to their 'natural' demand level (by which I mean that enough doctors and patients know about the drug that it is probably being properly prescribed to most of the patient population that needs it). This probably takes 2-5 years, I imagine.</p><p>3) The costs of R&amp;D, trials, approval, marketing, *and* reasonable return-on-investement currently have to mostly be done within that 5 year window, which means that the cost, per patient, for the drugs, it would seem to me, must *necessarily* be quite high.</p><p>Now, if you allow the drug companies to amortize all of those 'startup' costs for the new drug over a period of say, 8-10 years, shouldn't they be able to reduce the cost-per-patient pretty substantially (assuming that the unit manufacturing costs aren't a substantial fraction [i.e. greater than 75\%] of the 'retail' price the patients end up paying, which I kind of think is probably true for most drugs)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , I 'm probably being far too charitable here , but it occurs to me that at least the * possibility * exists that granting longer than 5 years on drug patents * might * lead to cheaper branded drugs ?
12 years might still be a bit too long , but here 's my reasoning .
. .1 ) New drugs cost a lot of money to do R&amp;D , and then to get through all the clinical studies and FDA approval.2 ) New drugs require the drug companies to market to both doctors and patients ( although , it could be argued they should be doing less marketing to patients , and more to doctors , but that 's a bit off-topic for this thread ) .
My point is , there is a 'ramp up ' period to get drugs up to their 'natural ' demand level ( by which I mean that enough doctors and patients know about the drug that it is probably being properly prescribed to most of the patient population that needs it ) .
This probably takes 2-5 years , I imagine.3 ) The costs of R&amp;D , trials , approval , marketing , * and * reasonable return-on-investement currently have to mostly be done within that 5 year window , which means that the cost , per patient , for the drugs , it would seem to me , must * necessarily * be quite high.Now , if you allow the drug companies to amortize all of those 'startup ' costs for the new drug over a period of say , 8-10 years , should n't they be able to reduce the cost-per-patient pretty substantially ( assuming that the unit manufacturing costs are n't a substantial fraction [ i.e .
greater than 75 \ % ] of the 'retail ' price the patients end up paying , which I kind of think is probably true for most drugs ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, I'm probably being far too charitable here, but it occurs to me that at least the *possibility* exists that granting longer than 5 years on drug patents *might* lead to cheaper branded drugs?
12 years might still be a bit too long, but here's my reasoning.
. .1) New drugs cost a lot of money to do R&amp;D, and then to get through all the clinical studies and FDA approval.2) New drugs require the drug companies to market to both doctors and patients (although, it could be argued they should be doing less marketing to patients, and more to doctors, but that's a bit off-topic for this thread).
My point is, there is a 'ramp up' period to get drugs up to their 'natural' demand level (by which I mean that enough doctors and patients know about the drug that it is probably being properly prescribed to most of the patient population that needs it).
This probably takes 2-5 years, I imagine.3) The costs of R&amp;D, trials, approval, marketing, *and* reasonable return-on-investement currently have to mostly be done within that 5 year window, which means that the cost, per patient, for the drugs, it would seem to me, must *necessarily* be quite high.Now, if you allow the drug companies to amortize all of those 'startup' costs for the new drug over a period of say, 8-10 years, shouldn't they be able to reduce the cost-per-patient pretty substantially (assuming that the unit manufacturing costs aren't a substantial fraction [i.e.
greater than 75\%] of the 'retail' price the patients end up paying, which I kind of think is probably true for most drugs)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873637</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is so EASY...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1256577900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) All R&amp;D needs to be logged (in terms of cost).</p></div><p>... and they'll pad those costs more than lawyers pad their time.  Or haven't you heard that the <a href="http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/05/lucasfilm-tells-darth-vader-that-return-of-the-jedi-hasnt-made-a-profit/" title="slashfilm.com">Star Wars movies still haven't made a profit</a> [slashfilm.com]?
</p><p>(Even if the Star Wars story is fake or exaggerated, the movie and music business do these sorts of "creative accounting" all the time.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) All R&amp;D needs to be logged ( in terms of cost ) .... and they 'll pad those costs more than lawyers pad their time .
Or have n't you heard that the Star Wars movies still have n't made a profit [ slashfilm.com ] ?
( Even if the Star Wars story is fake or exaggerated , the movie and music business do these sorts of " creative accounting " all the time .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) All R&amp;D needs to be logged (in terms of cost).... and they'll pad those costs more than lawyers pad their time.
Or haven't you heard that the Star Wars movies still haven't made a profit [slashfilm.com]?
(Even if the Star Wars story is fake or exaggerated, the movie and music business do these sorts of "creative accounting" all the time.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871491</id>
	<title>Stop intervening in the market place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256566980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone has it in their heads that drug companies should get a special monopoly because drugs are so expensive.  Maybe we need to knock off the special breaks and accept what our pricing signals are telling us.  A lot of this stuff is simply too expensive and we need to figure out ways to make drug research less expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone has it in their heads that drug companies should get a special monopoly because drugs are so expensive .
Maybe we need to knock off the special breaks and accept what our pricing signals are telling us .
A lot of this stuff is simply too expensive and we need to figure out ways to make drug research less expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone has it in their heads that drug companies should get a special monopoly because drugs are so expensive.
Maybe we need to knock off the special breaks and accept what our pricing signals are telling us.
A lot of this stuff is simply too expensive and we need to figure out ways to make drug research less expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29874677</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is so EASY...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256582760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easily gamed by faking the numbers.</p><p>The staff alone are trivial to game.  Sure they cost us $x per hour but if they weren't working on this project we could contract them out and they'd bring in $3x.  That's our opportunity cost so we'll list that as our cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easily gamed by faking the numbers.The staff alone are trivial to game .
Sure they cost us $ x per hour but if they were n't working on this project we could contract them out and they 'd bring in $ 3x .
That 's our opportunity cost so we 'll list that as our cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easily gamed by faking the numbers.The staff alone are trivial to game.
Sure they cost us $x per hour but if they weren't working on this project we could contract them out and they'd bring in $3x.
That's our opportunity cost so we'll list that as our cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871723</id>
	<title>Oh, how I loathe ...</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1256568480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over the years my feelings at the sight of the manifestations of shameless, corporate greed have gone from outrage to anger, and has now reached the state of pure, unadulterated loathing. It really becomes harder and harder to see anything redeeming about it, whether it is the underhanded dealings from the entertainment industry and the RIAA, or the sick greed of the likes of the medicine and GMO industry. It doesn't to be that way, it really doesn't, and it will end, one way or another.</p><p>There is a growing tension between the magnitude of greed of the moneygrabbers and the very real needs of the rapidly growing class of the very poor in the world. Historically these tensions have always resulted in a breakdown of some sort; often a revolution, but one can still hope, I guess, that those in power will simply throw out the idea of patents altogether, or at least recreate the concept from scratch.</p><p>I am not against companies making a reasonable profit, but they already do that and more, so much more. I have long been convinced that private companies are not suited for handling important, public services - to which research and production of medicine belong, IMO. People's suffering should not be the object of profiteering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the years my feelings at the sight of the manifestations of shameless , corporate greed have gone from outrage to anger , and has now reached the state of pure , unadulterated loathing .
It really becomes harder and harder to see anything redeeming about it , whether it is the underhanded dealings from the entertainment industry and the RIAA , or the sick greed of the likes of the medicine and GMO industry .
It does n't to be that way , it really does n't , and it will end , one way or another.There is a growing tension between the magnitude of greed of the moneygrabbers and the very real needs of the rapidly growing class of the very poor in the world .
Historically these tensions have always resulted in a breakdown of some sort ; often a revolution , but one can still hope , I guess , that those in power will simply throw out the idea of patents altogether , or at least recreate the concept from scratch.I am not against companies making a reasonable profit , but they already do that and more , so much more .
I have long been convinced that private companies are not suited for handling important , public services - to which research and production of medicine belong , IMO .
People 's suffering should not be the object of profiteering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the years my feelings at the sight of the manifestations of shameless, corporate greed have gone from outrage to anger, and has now reached the state of pure, unadulterated loathing.
It really becomes harder and harder to see anything redeeming about it, whether it is the underhanded dealings from the entertainment industry and the RIAA, or the sick greed of the likes of the medicine and GMO industry.
It doesn't to be that way, it really doesn't, and it will end, one way or another.There is a growing tension between the magnitude of greed of the moneygrabbers and the very real needs of the rapidly growing class of the very poor in the world.
Historically these tensions have always resulted in a breakdown of some sort; often a revolution, but one can still hope, I guess, that those in power will simply throw out the idea of patents altogether, or at least recreate the concept from scratch.I am not against companies making a reasonable profit, but they already do that and more, so much more.
I have long been convinced that private companies are not suited for handling important, public services - to which research and production of medicine belong, IMO.
People's suffering should not be the object of profiteering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29875347</id>
	<title>Re:This is Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256585820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should not confuse <i>you</i> not understanding how antibodies and protein receptors with <i>everyone</i> not understanding them. Some people are educated differently than you in these fields. They don't come up with chimeric monoclonal antibodies on accident, without knowing what they're doing. Come on, now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should not confuse you not understanding how antibodies and protein receptors with everyone not understanding them .
Some people are educated differently than you in these fields .
They do n't come up with chimeric monoclonal antibodies on accident , without knowing what they 're doing .
Come on , now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should not confuse you not understanding how antibodies and protein receptors with everyone not understanding them.
Some people are educated differently than you in these fields.
They don't come up with chimeric monoclonal antibodies on accident, without knowing what they're doing.
Come on, now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872285</id>
	<title>Compulsory licensing</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1256571300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about rather than giving 'inventors' of a drug an exclusivity period, the law gives them a compulsory license deal. Here's how it would play out:</p><p>A drug company discovers a compound or treatment process (or creates one - unlikely but not unheard of). They then register with some regulatory organization - possibly the USPTO, possibly some other more suitable entity.</p><p>At this point they receive a first rights license within that country and are guaranteed a significant percentage of any profit generated from that formula for a period of 10 years.</p><p>Any other company can produce and sell the formula but must go through the same trials as the original company but will have to pay the licensing fee to the registered company.</p><p>The benefits of this are manyfold.</p><p>Not all research groups are suited to carrying out drug trials and setting up manufacturing. These companies can register a discovery and simply allow other companies to take them to market which equals a fair competition for those companies who are suited and means that the research group has an incentive and cashflow to continue doing research. Additionally this means they can continue to focus on research and not be forced to a) sell their research at an undervalued rate to big pharma or b) not have to waste energy on duplicating the infrastructure of big pharma just to bring a drug to market.</p><p>Companies that both do research and marketing (this includes the trials and manufacturing) will receive compensation for their discovery but will have to compete on the marketing. They will have an initial advantage as they are initially more prepared for all aspects, but if the drug is highly useful then other companies will have incentive to license and bring the drug to market as well.</p><p>Companies that did not do the research can assess the drug's viability and profitability and decide whether it is something they can bring to market independently and still make a profit while paying the licensing fee to the registered company.</p><p>Consumers benefit the most because this provides competition in the market, allows more research groups to be profitable and opens the door to all kinds of discoveries that currently are passed over by large organizations which must decide which drugs to put their resources behind... it is likely that some drugs currently do not make it to market because they are in budget conflict with other more highly profitable drugs... with a system as outlined above these 2nd tier drugs could find a home with a smaller pharma marketing company and yet the registered company would still profit from the licensing revenue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about rather than giving 'inventors ' of a drug an exclusivity period , the law gives them a compulsory license deal .
Here 's how it would play out : A drug company discovers a compound or treatment process ( or creates one - unlikely but not unheard of ) .
They then register with some regulatory organization - possibly the USPTO , possibly some other more suitable entity.At this point they receive a first rights license within that country and are guaranteed a significant percentage of any profit generated from that formula for a period of 10 years.Any other company can produce and sell the formula but must go through the same trials as the original company but will have to pay the licensing fee to the registered company.The benefits of this are manyfold.Not all research groups are suited to carrying out drug trials and setting up manufacturing .
These companies can register a discovery and simply allow other companies to take them to market which equals a fair competition for those companies who are suited and means that the research group has an incentive and cashflow to continue doing research .
Additionally this means they can continue to focus on research and not be forced to a ) sell their research at an undervalued rate to big pharma or b ) not have to waste energy on duplicating the infrastructure of big pharma just to bring a drug to market.Companies that both do research and marketing ( this includes the trials and manufacturing ) will receive compensation for their discovery but will have to compete on the marketing .
They will have an initial advantage as they are initially more prepared for all aspects , but if the drug is highly useful then other companies will have incentive to license and bring the drug to market as well.Companies that did not do the research can assess the drug 's viability and profitability and decide whether it is something they can bring to market independently and still make a profit while paying the licensing fee to the registered company.Consumers benefit the most because this provides competition in the market , allows more research groups to be profitable and opens the door to all kinds of discoveries that currently are passed over by large organizations which must decide which drugs to put their resources behind... it is likely that some drugs currently do not make it to market because they are in budget conflict with other more highly profitable drugs... with a system as outlined above these 2nd tier drugs could find a home with a smaller pharma marketing company and yet the registered company would still profit from the licensing revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about rather than giving 'inventors' of a drug an exclusivity period, the law gives them a compulsory license deal.
Here's how it would play out:A drug company discovers a compound or treatment process (or creates one - unlikely but not unheard of).
They then register with some regulatory organization - possibly the USPTO, possibly some other more suitable entity.At this point they receive a first rights license within that country and are guaranteed a significant percentage of any profit generated from that formula for a period of 10 years.Any other company can produce and sell the formula but must go through the same trials as the original company but will have to pay the licensing fee to the registered company.The benefits of this are manyfold.Not all research groups are suited to carrying out drug trials and setting up manufacturing.
These companies can register a discovery and simply allow other companies to take them to market which equals a fair competition for those companies who are suited and means that the research group has an incentive and cashflow to continue doing research.
Additionally this means they can continue to focus on research and not be forced to a) sell their research at an undervalued rate to big pharma or b) not have to waste energy on duplicating the infrastructure of big pharma just to bring a drug to market.Companies that both do research and marketing (this includes the trials and manufacturing) will receive compensation for their discovery but will have to compete on the marketing.
They will have an initial advantage as they are initially more prepared for all aspects, but if the drug is highly useful then other companies will have incentive to license and bring the drug to market as well.Companies that did not do the research can assess the drug's viability and profitability and decide whether it is something they can bring to market independently and still make a profit while paying the licensing fee to the registered company.Consumers benefit the most because this provides competition in the market, allows more research groups to be profitable and opens the door to all kinds of discoveries that currently are passed over by large organizations which must decide which drugs to put their resources behind... it is likely that some drugs currently do not make it to market because they are in budget conflict with other more highly profitable drugs... with a system as outlined above these 2nd tier drugs could find a home with a smaller pharma marketing company and yet the registered company would still profit from the licensing revenue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873329</id>
	<title>Re:People without the Money Burn a Witch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is also about ensuring the proper incentives remain in place to allow the creation of new drugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is also about ensuring the proper incentives remain in place to allow the creation of new drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is also about ensuring the proper incentives remain in place to allow the creation of new drugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256566440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly the reason democracy fails.
People need to realize, that governments aren't in no way necessary or even beneficial for healthy societies. In a world without such authorities, the success of companies would be measured solely by their ability to provide the best service to their customers. Without artificial restrictions, such as patents or copyrights, there'd never be an opportunity for a company not to try to improve their services.
A popular argument against removing patent and copyright laws is that a company has to invest significant amounts of time and money in inventing new products (such as medicine in this article's context) and that the patent would allow them to make profit out of their investment. I believe, that if a certain product really requires years of exclusive research it also isn't possible for competing companies to copy in a timeframe that wouldn't allow for the original inventor to gain reasonable profit. Nevertheless, if another company is able to provide better selling service regarding another company's invention, why not allow it? After all, we should be concerned about mankind's collective well-being and not the profit of select companies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly the reason democracy fails .
People need to realize , that governments are n't in no way necessary or even beneficial for healthy societies .
In a world without such authorities , the success of companies would be measured solely by their ability to provide the best service to their customers .
Without artificial restrictions , such as patents or copyrights , there 'd never be an opportunity for a company not to try to improve their services .
A popular argument against removing patent and copyright laws is that a company has to invest significant amounts of time and money in inventing new products ( such as medicine in this article 's context ) and that the patent would allow them to make profit out of their investment .
I believe , that if a certain product really requires years of exclusive research it also is n't possible for competing companies to copy in a timeframe that would n't allow for the original inventor to gain reasonable profit .
Nevertheless , if another company is able to provide better selling service regarding another company 's invention , why not allow it ?
After all , we should be concerned about mankind 's collective well-being and not the profit of select companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly the reason democracy fails.
People need to realize, that governments aren't in no way necessary or even beneficial for healthy societies.
In a world without such authorities, the success of companies would be measured solely by their ability to provide the best service to their customers.
Without artificial restrictions, such as patents or copyrights, there'd never be an opportunity for a company not to try to improve their services.
A popular argument against removing patent and copyright laws is that a company has to invest significant amounts of time and money in inventing new products (such as medicine in this article's context) and that the patent would allow them to make profit out of their investment.
I believe, that if a certain product really requires years of exclusive research it also isn't possible for competing companies to copy in a timeframe that wouldn't allow for the original inventor to gain reasonable profit.
Nevertheless, if another company is able to provide better selling service regarding another company's invention, why not allow it?
After all, we should be concerned about mankind's collective well-being and not the profit of select companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871261</id>
	<title>All the same</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256565420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If something is complicated enough to deserve patent protection, then it's complicated enough that others won't be able to easily copy the idea and compete.  If an idea is trivially copied, then it's not deserving of patent protection in the first place.  So all patents should be accorded the same protection: none.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If something is complicated enough to deserve patent protection , then it 's complicated enough that others wo n't be able to easily copy the idea and compete .
If an idea is trivially copied , then it 's not deserving of patent protection in the first place .
So all patents should be accorded the same protection : none .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If something is complicated enough to deserve patent protection, then it's complicated enough that others won't be able to easily copy the idea and compete.
If an idea is trivially copied, then it's not deserving of patent protection in the first place.
So all patents should be accorded the same protection: none.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237</id>
	<title>People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256565180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Apparently the author of the summary is unfamiliar with lobbying so here goes the simplest explanation I can think of for it.<p><div class="quote"><p>Need every new technological category get its own patent rules, and how do those rules get decided?</p></div><p>Depends on the leaders of that category.  The people with the most money will give tiny amounts of that money to the lawmakers.  Then a bill is introduced and these weird rules probably get tagged onto some bill that has a much more important focus (like health care or one of the various wars we are engaged in).  Since all the lawmakers received money from the the people with money, nobody objects.  <br> <br>

Here's <a href="http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=5618158718+6+1+0&amp;WAISaction=retrieve" title="gpo.gov">one of many examples</a> [gpo.gov] in which a bill titled "Affordable Health Choices Act" gets tiny peppering of patent law attached to it like this (which is in regards to the category 'interchangeable biological products'):</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... (i) a final court decision on all patents in suit in an action instituted under subsection (l)(6) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first approved interchangeable biosimilar biological product; or<br> <br> (ii) the dismissal with or without prejudice of an action instituted under subsection (l)(6) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first approved interchangeable biosimilar biological product;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>What's worse is that no voter immediately cares.  Everyone cares more about things that <i>directly</i> affect them--like their health or their kin dying on some god forsaken soil.  The immediate threat of these lobbyists is not only unseen but no one is held accountable down the line.  You have to get someone not too politically savvy to be the poster child/target for this stuff if it's a whole bill you're introducing -- like Sonny Bono on copyright extension.  Oh and there's another neat little thing in American politics where if you vote for that bill and then something like this gets added and you vote against the bill, your opponents label you as a "flip flopper", "waffler" or "indecisive."  <br> <br>

Now, I paint a picture where opposition to lobbyists never arises because no one makes it a serious issue.  But there are a few examples of this working positively.  Example is the generic drug manufacturers do actually have some money and realize they are getting the short end of the stick so you have these lobbying wars occasionally.  The really ironic thing is that name brand drugs are more expensive for the consumer.  But often the consumer is on a health plan where they pay a small percentage or a copay on their drugs.  If it is a copay and the consumer buys the $100/dose Calvin Klein drugs instead of the $1/dose Walmart drugs, someone (like your health care provider) is paying a lot more.  Now, imagine what kind of state our health care would be in when there can't be any generic drugs for 12 years?  Won't matter if you're a copay or a percentage, you'll be taking that $100/dose because it's your health and you can't exactly put a price on your health.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the author of the summary is unfamiliar with lobbying so here goes the simplest explanation I can think of for it.Need every new technological category get its own patent rules , and how do those rules get decided ? Depends on the leaders of that category .
The people with the most money will give tiny amounts of that money to the lawmakers .
Then a bill is introduced and these weird rules probably get tagged onto some bill that has a much more important focus ( like health care or one of the various wars we are engaged in ) .
Since all the lawmakers received money from the the people with money , nobody objects .
Here 's one of many examples [ gpo.gov ] in which a bill titled " Affordable Health Choices Act " gets tiny peppering of patent law attached to it like this ( which is in regards to the category 'interchangeable biological products ' ) : ... ( i ) a final court decision on all patents in suit in an action instituted under subsection ( l ) ( 6 ) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first approved interchangeable biosimilar biological product ; or ( ii ) the dismissal with or without prejudice of an action instituted under subsection ( l ) ( 6 ) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first approved interchangeable biosimilar biological product ; ...What 's worse is that no voter immediately cares .
Everyone cares more about things that directly affect them--like their health or their kin dying on some god forsaken soil .
The immediate threat of these lobbyists is not only unseen but no one is held accountable down the line .
You have to get someone not too politically savvy to be the poster child/target for this stuff if it 's a whole bill you 're introducing -- like Sonny Bono on copyright extension .
Oh and there 's another neat little thing in American politics where if you vote for that bill and then something like this gets added and you vote against the bill , your opponents label you as a " flip flopper " , " waffler " or " indecisive .
" Now , I paint a picture where opposition to lobbyists never arises because no one makes it a serious issue .
But there are a few examples of this working positively .
Example is the generic drug manufacturers do actually have some money and realize they are getting the short end of the stick so you have these lobbying wars occasionally .
The really ironic thing is that name brand drugs are more expensive for the consumer .
But often the consumer is on a health plan where they pay a small percentage or a copay on their drugs .
If it is a copay and the consumer buys the $ 100/dose Calvin Klein drugs instead of the $ 1/dose Walmart drugs , someone ( like your health care provider ) is paying a lot more .
Now , imagine what kind of state our health care would be in when there ca n't be any generic drugs for 12 years ?
Wo n't matter if you 're a copay or a percentage , you 'll be taking that $ 100/dose because it 's your health and you ca n't exactly put a price on your health .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Apparently the author of the summary is unfamiliar with lobbying so here goes the simplest explanation I can think of for it.Need every new technological category get its own patent rules, and how do those rules get decided?Depends on the leaders of that category.
The people with the most money will give tiny amounts of that money to the lawmakers.
Then a bill is introduced and these weird rules probably get tagged onto some bill that has a much more important focus (like health care or one of the various wars we are engaged in).
Since all the lawmakers received money from the the people with money, nobody objects.
Here's one of many examples [gpo.gov] in which a bill titled "Affordable Health Choices Act" gets tiny peppering of patent law attached to it like this (which is in regards to the category 'interchangeable biological products'): ... (i) a final court decision on all patents in suit in an action instituted under subsection (l)(6) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first approved interchangeable biosimilar biological product; or  (ii) the dismissal with or without prejudice of an action instituted under subsection (l)(6) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first approved interchangeable biosimilar biological product; ...What's worse is that no voter immediately cares.
Everyone cares more about things that directly affect them--like their health or their kin dying on some god forsaken soil.
The immediate threat of these lobbyists is not only unseen but no one is held accountable down the line.
You have to get someone not too politically savvy to be the poster child/target for this stuff if it's a whole bill you're introducing -- like Sonny Bono on copyright extension.
Oh and there's another neat little thing in American politics where if you vote for that bill and then something like this gets added and you vote against the bill, your opponents label you as a "flip flopper", "waffler" or "indecisive.
"   

Now, I paint a picture where opposition to lobbyists never arises because no one makes it a serious issue.
But there are a few examples of this working positively.
Example is the generic drug manufacturers do actually have some money and realize they are getting the short end of the stick so you have these lobbying wars occasionally.
The really ironic thing is that name brand drugs are more expensive for the consumer.
But often the consumer is on a health plan where they pay a small percentage or a copay on their drugs.
If it is a copay and the consumer buys the $100/dose Calvin Klein drugs instead of the $1/dose Walmart drugs, someone (like your health care provider) is paying a lot more.
Now, imagine what kind of state our health care would be in when there can't be any generic drugs for 12 years?
Won't matter if you're a copay or a percentage, you'll be taking that $100/dose because it's your health and you can't exactly put a price on your health.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29875327</id>
	<title>Re:20 years not 5</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256585640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod up the parent.  The author of the article has completely misstated the debate by presuming that traditional patent protection lasts only 5 years.  Congress is proposing less time for follow on biologics than would otherwise be available to innovators if the invention was purely pharmaceutical in nature, and so is apparently trying to strike a balance between no protection (currently the state of affairs), and full patent protection (20 years from the filing date).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod up the parent .
The author of the article has completely misstated the debate by presuming that traditional patent protection lasts only 5 years .
Congress is proposing less time for follow on biologics than would otherwise be available to innovators if the invention was purely pharmaceutical in nature , and so is apparently trying to strike a balance between no protection ( currently the state of affairs ) , and full patent protection ( 20 years from the filing date ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod up the parent.
The author of the article has completely misstated the debate by presuming that traditional patent protection lasts only 5 years.
Congress is proposing less time for follow on biologics than would otherwise be available to innovators if the invention was purely pharmaceutical in nature, and so is apparently trying to strike a balance between no protection (currently the state of affairs), and full patent protection (20 years from the filing date).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872333</id>
	<title>Re:Recoup period</title>
	<author>GigaHurtsMyRobot</author>
	<datestamp>1256571540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With all the money we donate to charities 'for the cure' or for research,  I'd think the incentive would be to help people and the funding would come from numerous sources, least of which needs to be the sick person or their insurance company.  Kind of like the open source movement where most people aren't doing it for the money, they're doing it for the greater good and maybe a bit of recognition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all the money we donate to charities 'for the cure ' or for research , I 'd think the incentive would be to help people and the funding would come from numerous sources , least of which needs to be the sick person or their insurance company .
Kind of like the open source movement where most people are n't doing it for the money , they 're doing it for the greater good and maybe a bit of recognition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all the money we donate to charities 'for the cure' or for research,  I'd think the incentive would be to help people and the funding would come from numerous sources, least of which needs to be the sick person or their insurance company.
Kind of like the open source movement where most people aren't doing it for the money, they're doing it for the greater good and maybe a bit of recognition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29874731</id>
	<title>Re:Recoup period</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1256583000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>drugs (like software) can't simply be copied and resold, if you develop a new drug you have a good 3/4 years of no competition while a competitor gets reverse engineers it and gets approval for his version, after that you have the fact that your drugs are tried and tested and you've been producing it for 3/4 years.</p></div><p>I don't think you know what you're talking about and neither do the mods.</p><p>In the USA, if a generic pill is shown to be identical in function to the original,<br>the generic pill can use the original's drug trials as proof of efficacy.</p><p>Not to mention that reverse engineering most drugs is a trivial act.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>drugs ( like software ) ca n't simply be copied and resold , if you develop a new drug you have a good 3/4 years of no competition while a competitor gets reverse engineers it and gets approval for his version , after that you have the fact that your drugs are tried and tested and you 've been producing it for 3/4 years.I do n't think you know what you 're talking about and neither do the mods.In the USA , if a generic pill is shown to be identical in function to the original,the generic pill can use the original 's drug trials as proof of efficacy.Not to mention that reverse engineering most drugs is a trivial act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>drugs (like software) can't simply be copied and resold, if you develop a new drug you have a good 3/4 years of no competition while a competitor gets reverse engineers it and gets approval for his version, after that you have the fact that your drugs are tried and tested and you've been producing it for 3/4 years.I don't think you know what you're talking about and neither do the mods.In the USA, if a generic pill is shown to be identical in function to the original,the generic pill can use the original's drug trials as proof of efficacy.Not to mention that reverse engineering most drugs is a trivial act.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29880853</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256579100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Oh, and incidentally, one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place, so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers.</p></div></blockquote><p>That is so stupid it makes my head hurt. If you think that is true then riddle me this, why do the drug companies even bother exporting if it so unprofitable?</p><p>Personally, I don't think drug companies are stupid, they're just run by people who only care about their bonuses. By extension, they aren't going to do anything that won't increase profit (or pass up the opportunity for new "we're the only ones who get to make this" laws).</p><blockquote><div><p>And if you're going to insist that companies spend billions of dollars proving their products work, then you have to also protect them and their ability to turn a profit on those products or else no one else will ever develop any.</p></div></blockquote><p>You have a rather bleak outlook apparently, since you seem believe that no-one cares about other people's suffering which is why things like charity or non-commercial projects/research don't exist... Oh, wait...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , and incidentally , one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place , so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers.That is so stupid it makes my head hurt .
If you think that is true then riddle me this , why do the drug companies even bother exporting if it so unprofitable ? Personally , I do n't think drug companies are stupid , they 're just run by people who only care about their bonuses .
By extension , they are n't going to do anything that wo n't increase profit ( or pass up the opportunity for new " we 're the only ones who get to make this " laws ) .And if you 're going to insist that companies spend billions of dollars proving their products work , then you have to also protect them and their ability to turn a profit on those products or else no one else will ever develop any.You have a rather bleak outlook apparently , since you seem believe that no-one cares about other people 's suffering which is why things like charity or non-commercial projects/research do n't exist... Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, and incidentally, one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place, so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers.That is so stupid it makes my head hurt.
If you think that is true then riddle me this, why do the drug companies even bother exporting if it so unprofitable?Personally, I don't think drug companies are stupid, they're just run by people who only care about their bonuses.
By extension, they aren't going to do anything that won't increase profit (or pass up the opportunity for new "we're the only ones who get to make this" laws).And if you're going to insist that companies spend billions of dollars proving their products work, then you have to also protect them and their ability to turn a profit on those products or else no one else will ever develop any.You have a rather bleak outlook apparently, since you seem believe that no-one cares about other people's suffering which is why things like charity or non-commercial projects/research don't exist... Oh, wait...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872129</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Marcika</author>
	<datestamp>1256570640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a reason why the majority of drug research is done in the US: we don't force drug companies to give away their products for free. Oh, and incidentally, one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place, so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers. </p></div><p>Oh really? Please provide citations for this Fox News talking point. I'm quite sure that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_pharmaceutical\_companies" title="wikipedia.org">6 of the 10 largest global pharma companies are European.</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>The reason why you pay thrice as much as "those slackers" is you screwed up health-insurance supervision: Big Pharma bribes doctors to prescribe brand-name medication at hugely inflated prices, and neither the patient cares (since he's not paying for it) nor the insurance industry (since they can just jack up their rates).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a reason why the majority of drug research is done in the US : we do n't force drug companies to give away their products for free .
Oh , and incidentally , one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place , so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers .
Oh really ?
Please provide citations for this Fox News talking point .
I 'm quite sure that 6 of the 10 largest global pharma companies are European .
[ wikipedia.org ] The reason why you pay thrice as much as " those slackers " is you screwed up health-insurance supervision : Big Pharma bribes doctors to prescribe brand-name medication at hugely inflated prices , and neither the patient cares ( since he 's not paying for it ) nor the insurance industry ( since they can just jack up their rates ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a reason why the majority of drug research is done in the US: we don't force drug companies to give away their products for free.
Oh, and incidentally, one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place, so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers.
Oh really?
Please provide citations for this Fox News talking point.
I'm quite sure that 6 of the 10 largest global pharma companies are European.
[wikipedia.org] The reason why you pay thrice as much as "those slackers" is you screwed up health-insurance supervision: Big Pharma bribes doctors to prescribe brand-name medication at hugely inflated prices, and neither the patient cares (since he's not paying for it) nor the insurance industry (since they can just jack up their rates).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873109</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is so EASY...</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1256575440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a massive loophole in your proposal:<br>1. If the pharma companies are responsible for tracking the R&amp;D costs, then they will make darn sure that the R&amp;D costs are as high as they can be without drawing suspicion from whatever agency is enforcing these rules.<br>2. Thanks to Hollywood accounting, the net profit of any good can be $0 (or $1 if you make a "no profit = no patent" rule) if the company producing the good wants it to be.<br>3. Ergo, the R&amp;D costs can either never be covered, or won't be covered in anyone's natural lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a massive loophole in your proposal : 1 .
If the pharma companies are responsible for tracking the R&amp;D costs , then they will make darn sure that the R&amp;D costs are as high as they can be without drawing suspicion from whatever agency is enforcing these rules.2 .
Thanks to Hollywood accounting , the net profit of any good can be $ 0 ( or $ 1 if you make a " no profit = no patent " rule ) if the company producing the good wants it to be.3 .
Ergo , the R&amp;D costs can either never be covered , or wo n't be covered in anyone 's natural lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a massive loophole in your proposal:1.
If the pharma companies are responsible for tracking the R&amp;D costs, then they will make darn sure that the R&amp;D costs are as high as they can be without drawing suspicion from whatever agency is enforcing these rules.2.
Thanks to Hollywood accounting, the net profit of any good can be $0 (or $1 if you make a "no profit = no patent" rule) if the company producing the good wants it to be.3.
Ergo, the R&amp;D costs can either never be covered, or won't be covered in anyone's natural lifetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29879069</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamentally ignorant of the business</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1256560500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot the creative accounting that this would inspire. I have worked with Hollywood companies; I can guarantee you that this scheme would lead to perpetual patents, as somehow the R&amp;D costs would never be paid off. Maybe not for every invention, but for a lot of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the creative accounting that this would inspire .
I have worked with Hollywood companies ; I can guarantee you that this scheme would lead to perpetual patents , as somehow the R&amp;D costs would never be paid off .
Maybe not for every invention , but for a lot of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the creative accounting that this would inspire.
I have worked with Hollywood companies; I can guarantee you that this scheme would lead to perpetual patents, as somehow the R&amp;D costs would never be paid off.
Maybe not for every invention, but for a lot of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871367</id>
	<title>Re:Recoup period</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1256566260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah its not like FTC know anything about trade! (did you even <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/06/biologics.shtm" title="ftc.gov">read</a> [ftc.gov] their argument.)</p><p>Do you have any idea how long it takes to get drugs approved for use by the public? drugs (like software) can't simply be copied and resold, if you develop a new drug you have a good 3/4 years of no competition while a competitor gets reverse engineers it and gets approval for his version, after that you have the fact that your drugs are tried and tested and you've been producing it for 3/4 years. Patents are useful in many sectors, but medicine is even less one of them than software (especially when you consider the human cost).</p><p>IF the drug approval process was faster AND it was easy to reverse engineer drugs THEN patents are needed in medicine (probably 5 years), but until then the drug company's can shove the any proposal up their respective asses!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah its not like FTC know anything about trade !
( did you even read [ ftc.gov ] their argument .
) Do you have any idea how long it takes to get drugs approved for use by the public ?
drugs ( like software ) ca n't simply be copied and resold , if you develop a new drug you have a good 3/4 years of no competition while a competitor gets reverse engineers it and gets approval for his version , after that you have the fact that your drugs are tried and tested and you 've been producing it for 3/4 years .
Patents are useful in many sectors , but medicine is even less one of them than software ( especially when you consider the human cost ) .IF the drug approval process was faster AND it was easy to reverse engineer drugs THEN patents are needed in medicine ( probably 5 years ) , but until then the drug company 's can shove the any proposal up their respective asses !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah its not like FTC know anything about trade!
(did you even read [ftc.gov] their argument.
)Do you have any idea how long it takes to get drugs approved for use by the public?
drugs (like software) can't simply be copied and resold, if you develop a new drug you have a good 3/4 years of no competition while a competitor gets reverse engineers it and gets approval for his version, after that you have the fact that your drugs are tried and tested and you've been producing it for 3/4 years.
Patents are useful in many sectors, but medicine is even less one of them than software (especially when you consider the human cost).IF the drug approval process was faster AND it was easy to reverse engineer drugs THEN patents are needed in medicine (probably 5 years), but until then the drug company's can shove the any proposal up their respective asses!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29878575</id>
	<title>Re:Recoup period</title>
	<author>TakeyMcTaker</author>
	<datestamp>1256557380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The general "reimbursement for R&amp;D" claim about the need for patents is completely bogus. I have not seen one proof that such costs can't be made up via early-mover and brand establishment advantage, through a mix of first-to-market and Trade Secret status. Trade Secret status alone requires costly reverse-engineering for others to enter the market without independent invention, and if the reverse-engineering is cheap why is the patent worthwhile exactly? When I say "worthwhile" I don't mean to the monopoly rent seeker but to the public, which is the entity (via government) that is granting this "temporary" monopoly via patents. What other incentive does the public have to grant these temporary monopolies?</p><p>I personally think the long history of the USPTO has shown the entire current patent system to be counter-productive, and in no way keeping the original Constitutional intent of "progress" in the "useful arts and sciences." Instead what we have is an endless parade of trolls seeking monopoly rents on minor increments or remixes of past inventions instead of real novel, non-obvious, and truly *new* discoveries.</p><p>I think it should be replaced with a Registered Trademark System, which doesn't contain unenforceable "obviousness" tests, and doesn't punish independent invention where referencing the other work wasn't needed -- in most cases they were just "beat to the punch" in getting the patent first, if they bothered to apply at all. The only punishable offenses should be direct industrial espionage, or licensing Registered Trade Secrets only to use the RTS materials without following through on the licensing contract agreement. Otherwise real inventors shouldn't be forced to read through the USPTO's long history of non-inventive patents, just to avoid overlap that might lead to litigation, whether the overlapping patents are truly valid or not.</p><p>To match the patent system, once the Registered Trade Secrets expire, they should go to the public domain. The same net benefit of "progress" in the public domain data is gained, without all these hurtful unenforceable "obviousness" tests ruining everything. The RTS obviousness test becomes: if anyone can recreate or reverse-engineer the product with nothing more than the summary abstract and/or the available market product, the invention is obvious.</p><p>The USPTO has proven nothing except its own corruption and incompetence, and violated Constitutional intent via rampant market counter-progress, and thus should be dissolved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The general " reimbursement for R&amp;D " claim about the need for patents is completely bogus .
I have not seen one proof that such costs ca n't be made up via early-mover and brand establishment advantage , through a mix of first-to-market and Trade Secret status .
Trade Secret status alone requires costly reverse-engineering for others to enter the market without independent invention , and if the reverse-engineering is cheap why is the patent worthwhile exactly ?
When I say " worthwhile " I do n't mean to the monopoly rent seeker but to the public , which is the entity ( via government ) that is granting this " temporary " monopoly via patents .
What other incentive does the public have to grant these temporary monopolies ? I personally think the long history of the USPTO has shown the entire current patent system to be counter-productive , and in no way keeping the original Constitutional intent of " progress " in the " useful arts and sciences .
" Instead what we have is an endless parade of trolls seeking monopoly rents on minor increments or remixes of past inventions instead of real novel , non-obvious , and truly * new * discoveries.I think it should be replaced with a Registered Trademark System , which does n't contain unenforceable " obviousness " tests , and does n't punish independent invention where referencing the other work was n't needed -- in most cases they were just " beat to the punch " in getting the patent first , if they bothered to apply at all .
The only punishable offenses should be direct industrial espionage , or licensing Registered Trade Secrets only to use the RTS materials without following through on the licensing contract agreement .
Otherwise real inventors should n't be forced to read through the USPTO 's long history of non-inventive patents , just to avoid overlap that might lead to litigation , whether the overlapping patents are truly valid or not.To match the patent system , once the Registered Trade Secrets expire , they should go to the public domain .
The same net benefit of " progress " in the public domain data is gained , without all these hurtful unenforceable " obviousness " tests ruining everything .
The RTS obviousness test becomes : if anyone can recreate or reverse-engineer the product with nothing more than the summary abstract and/or the available market product , the invention is obvious.The USPTO has proven nothing except its own corruption and incompetence , and violated Constitutional intent via rampant market counter-progress , and thus should be dissolved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The general "reimbursement for R&amp;D" claim about the need for patents is completely bogus.
I have not seen one proof that such costs can't be made up via early-mover and brand establishment advantage, through a mix of first-to-market and Trade Secret status.
Trade Secret status alone requires costly reverse-engineering for others to enter the market without independent invention, and if the reverse-engineering is cheap why is the patent worthwhile exactly?
When I say "worthwhile" I don't mean to the monopoly rent seeker but to the public, which is the entity (via government) that is granting this "temporary" monopoly via patents.
What other incentive does the public have to grant these temporary monopolies?I personally think the long history of the USPTO has shown the entire current patent system to be counter-productive, and in no way keeping the original Constitutional intent of "progress" in the "useful arts and sciences.
" Instead what we have is an endless parade of trolls seeking monopoly rents on minor increments or remixes of past inventions instead of real novel, non-obvious, and truly *new* discoveries.I think it should be replaced with a Registered Trademark System, which doesn't contain unenforceable "obviousness" tests, and doesn't punish independent invention where referencing the other work wasn't needed -- in most cases they were just "beat to the punch" in getting the patent first, if they bothered to apply at all.
The only punishable offenses should be direct industrial espionage, or licensing Registered Trade Secrets only to use the RTS materials without following through on the licensing contract agreement.
Otherwise real inventors shouldn't be forced to read through the USPTO's long history of non-inventive patents, just to avoid overlap that might lead to litigation, whether the overlapping patents are truly valid or not.To match the patent system, once the Registered Trade Secrets expire, they should go to the public domain.
The same net benefit of "progress" in the public domain data is gained, without all these hurtful unenforceable "obviousness" tests ruining everything.
The RTS obviousness test becomes: if anyone can recreate or reverse-engineer the product with nothing more than the summary abstract and/or the available market product, the invention is obvious.The USPTO has proven nothing except its own corruption and incompetence, and violated Constitutional intent via rampant market counter-progress, and thus should be dissolved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873247</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1256575920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What's worse is that no voter immediately cares.</i> <p>
Not about the issue itself - that may in many cases too difficult to access, the implications too hard to understand. However voters do care about corruption - they realize that a corrupt government is always a bad government. So this may be the way to discuss these issues publically: a few companies benefit from this amendment to the detriment of many other people - this is indicative of corruption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's worse is that no voter immediately cares .
Not about the issue itself - that may in many cases too difficult to access , the implications too hard to understand .
However voters do care about corruption - they realize that a corrupt government is always a bad government .
So this may be the way to discuss these issues publically : a few companies benefit from this amendment to the detriment of many other people - this is indicative of corruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's worse is that no voter immediately cares.
Not about the issue itself - that may in many cases too difficult to access, the implications too hard to understand.
However voters do care about corruption - they realize that a corrupt government is always a bad government.
So this may be the way to discuss these issues publically: a few companies benefit from this amendment to the detriment of many other people - this is indicative of corruption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871447</id>
	<title>Re:Recoup period</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256566740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I have the patent on that.  Oh wait, it expired the day I got it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I have the patent on that .
Oh wait , it expired the day I got it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I have the patent on that.
Oh wait, it expired the day I got it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873741</id>
	<title>Re:Longer patents = cheaper branded drugs?</title>
	<author>vorpal^</author>
	<datestamp>1256578380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sincerely doubt that this is the case with Remicade on any level. Perhaps it cost a lot in R&amp;D (I don't know), but given that it filled several niches very quickly that were desperate to be filled due to a lack of suitable medications or medications without tremendously terrible side effects (autoimmune disorders like Crohn's Disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis, all of which are terrible nightmares of diseases), there was near instantaneous demand for Remicade once it passed clinical trials and was established as a suitable treatment for these conditions.</p><p>Given that my Remicade treatments cost in the ballpark of $80,000 / year (and that's in Canada), and Remicade is one of the highest grossing drugs of all time, I'd say they're making fistfuls of cash. I can't wait until Remicade goes generic to see how this will influence price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sincerely doubt that this is the case with Remicade on any level .
Perhaps it cost a lot in R&amp;D ( I do n't know ) , but given that it filled several niches very quickly that were desperate to be filled due to a lack of suitable medications or medications without tremendously terrible side effects ( autoimmune disorders like Crohn 's Disease , ulcerative colitis , rheumatoid arthritis , and ankylosing spondylitis , all of which are terrible nightmares of diseases ) , there was near instantaneous demand for Remicade once it passed clinical trials and was established as a suitable treatment for these conditions.Given that my Remicade treatments cost in the ballpark of $ 80,000 / year ( and that 's in Canada ) , and Remicade is one of the highest grossing drugs of all time , I 'd say they 're making fistfuls of cash .
I ca n't wait until Remicade goes generic to see how this will influence price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sincerely doubt that this is the case with Remicade on any level.
Perhaps it cost a lot in R&amp;D (I don't know), but given that it filled several niches very quickly that were desperate to be filled due to a lack of suitable medications or medications without tremendously terrible side effects (autoimmune disorders like Crohn's Disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis, all of which are terrible nightmares of diseases), there was near instantaneous demand for Remicade once it passed clinical trials and was established as a suitable treatment for these conditions.Given that my Remicade treatments cost in the ballpark of $80,000 / year (and that's in Canada), and Remicade is one of the highest grossing drugs of all time, I'd say they're making fistfuls of cash.
I can't wait until Remicade goes generic to see how this will influence price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871823</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1256568960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without the FDA, the research time on these drugs would be cut from 22 years to less than one. Of course, then you'd have every charlatan out there peddling his snake oil as the latest and greatest cancer cure. And without any research to back up their claims, no one would be able to judge whether or not those claims were true until after trying the drug. And if you're going to insist that companies spend billions of dollars proving their products work, then you have to also protect them and their ability to turn a profit on those products or else no one else will ever develop any.</p><p>There's a reason why the majority of drug research is done in the US: we don't force drug companies to give away their products for free. Oh, and incidentally, one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place, so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers. Too bad Congress doesn't enact an export tariff on prescription drugs, we'd make enough off that to pay for healthcare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without the FDA , the research time on these drugs would be cut from 22 years to less than one .
Of course , then you 'd have every charlatan out there peddling his snake oil as the latest and greatest cancer cure .
And without any research to back up their claims , no one would be able to judge whether or not those claims were true until after trying the drug .
And if you 're going to insist that companies spend billions of dollars proving their products work , then you have to also protect them and their ability to turn a profit on those products or else no one else will ever develop any.There 's a reason why the majority of drug research is done in the US : we do n't force drug companies to give away their products for free .
Oh , and incidentally , one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place , so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers .
Too bad Congress does n't enact an export tariff on prescription drugs , we 'd make enough off that to pay for healthcare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without the FDA, the research time on these drugs would be cut from 22 years to less than one.
Of course, then you'd have every charlatan out there peddling his snake oil as the latest and greatest cancer cure.
And without any research to back up their claims, no one would be able to judge whether or not those claims were true until after trying the drug.
And if you're going to insist that companies spend billions of dollars proving their products work, then you have to also protect them and their ability to turn a profit on those products or else no one else will ever develop any.There's a reason why the majority of drug research is done in the US: we don't force drug companies to give away their products for free.
Oh, and incidentally, one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place, so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers.
Too bad Congress doesn't enact an export tariff on prescription drugs, we'd make enough off that to pay for healthcare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871563</id>
	<title>Re:Longer patents = cheaper branded drugs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256567400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're assuming that someone with what amounts to a monopoly on a drug will somehow eventually want less profit and voluntarily drop their prices?  Speaking of drugs, can I have some of what you're having?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming that someone with what amounts to a monopoly on a drug will somehow eventually want less profit and voluntarily drop their prices ?
Speaking of drugs , can I have some of what you 're having ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming that someone with what amounts to a monopoly on a drug will somehow eventually want less profit and voluntarily drop their prices?
Speaking of drugs, can I have some of what you're having?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871249</id>
	<title>This is Slashdot</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1256565300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course not, unless by 'change' you mean 'abolish.'</p><p>But for these sorts of pharmaceuticals, I have to question the wisdom of allowing patents at all. Nobody really properly understands how most of this works, it's almost entirely statistics. That's not to trivialize the importance of new drugs, but patent exclusivity will discourage widespread use, reducing the statistical information we can glean from the new drugs, and making combining treatments much less safe.</p><p>Of course, the same argument works fairly well against the current pharmaceutical patent system, but again, this <i>is</i> Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course not , unless by 'change ' you mean 'abolish .
'But for these sorts of pharmaceuticals , I have to question the wisdom of allowing patents at all .
Nobody really properly understands how most of this works , it 's almost entirely statistics .
That 's not to trivialize the importance of new drugs , but patent exclusivity will discourage widespread use , reducing the statistical information we can glean from the new drugs , and making combining treatments much less safe.Of course , the same argument works fairly well against the current pharmaceutical patent system , but again , this is Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course not, unless by 'change' you mean 'abolish.
'But for these sorts of pharmaceuticals, I have to question the wisdom of allowing patents at all.
Nobody really properly understands how most of this works, it's almost entirely statistics.
That's not to trivialize the importance of new drugs, but patent exclusivity will discourage widespread use, reducing the statistical information we can glean from the new drugs, and making combining treatments much less safe.Of course, the same argument works fairly well against the current pharmaceutical patent system, but again, this is Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871307</id>
	<title>What needs to change</title>
	<author>Targon</author>
	<datestamp>1256565780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To encourage invention or innovation, the system MUST go back to the original reason for patent protection in the first place.   The idea is that new ideas should be protected so the patent "owner" can develop said idea and turn it into a product.    If there is no ability or intention to DIRECTLY make a product to take advantage of the protection, then the protection should be removed.</p><p>This means that patent trolls would all go away, since none of them have any intention to make a product based on the patents they own.    It is one thing for a company like AMD or Intel to file a patent and make use of their inventions, and another for someone sitting in an office to buy a patent just so they can file lawsuits against anyone who makes a product that might infringe on the patent in question.</p><p>So, for all of these companies that file patent related lawsuits, they SHOULD be looked at to see if they have taken even a few steps towards making a product.    If there has been no effort made to create a working product based on the technology, they should be fined for filing a lawsuit in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To encourage invention or innovation , the system MUST go back to the original reason for patent protection in the first place .
The idea is that new ideas should be protected so the patent " owner " can develop said idea and turn it into a product .
If there is no ability or intention to DIRECTLY make a product to take advantage of the protection , then the protection should be removed.This means that patent trolls would all go away , since none of them have any intention to make a product based on the patents they own .
It is one thing for a company like AMD or Intel to file a patent and make use of their inventions , and another for someone sitting in an office to buy a patent just so they can file lawsuits against anyone who makes a product that might infringe on the patent in question.So , for all of these companies that file patent related lawsuits , they SHOULD be looked at to see if they have taken even a few steps towards making a product .
If there has been no effort made to create a working product based on the technology , they should be fined for filing a lawsuit in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To encourage invention or innovation, the system MUST go back to the original reason for patent protection in the first place.
The idea is that new ideas should be protected so the patent "owner" can develop said idea and turn it into a product.
If there is no ability or intention to DIRECTLY make a product to take advantage of the protection, then the protection should be removed.This means that patent trolls would all go away, since none of them have any intention to make a product based on the patents they own.
It is one thing for a company like AMD or Intel to file a patent and make use of their inventions, and another for someone sitting in an office to buy a patent just so they can file lawsuits against anyone who makes a product that might infringe on the patent in question.So, for all of these companies that file patent related lawsuits, they SHOULD be looked at to see if they have taken even a few steps towards making a product.
If there has been no effort made to create a working product based on the technology, they should be fined for filing a lawsuit in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872883</id>
	<title>Re:People without the Money Burn a Witch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256574240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't worry if I was them.  Sick people can't move very fast and get tired easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't worry if I was them .
Sick people ca n't move very fast and get tired easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't worry if I was them.
Sick people can't move very fast and get tired easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871627</id>
	<title>Matter Printers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256567880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neal Stephenson's book, "The Diamond Age," really got me thinking about matter printers. They're already here and they'll just keep getting better and better.  In the near future, you'll be buying a bag of carbon pellets at the hardware store.  Then, along with the design software, you'll be able to matter-print physical items.  Recycling will probably get easier, also.  As time progresses, the matter printers will get cheaper and more sophisticated.  They will then become ubiquitous.  Such devices could really change economies.</p><p>If music piracy was bad, matter piracy will be worse.  It will be difficult for patent and copyright holders to police their work.  Consumers who own matter printers may be able to pressure their governments to relieve them from existing restrictions.  On the other hand, merchants will pressure for more invasive restrictions.</p><p>I don't know where the future will go with this, but it sure will be interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neal Stephenson 's book , " The Diamond Age , " really got me thinking about matter printers .
They 're already here and they 'll just keep getting better and better .
In the near future , you 'll be buying a bag of carbon pellets at the hardware store .
Then , along with the design software , you 'll be able to matter-print physical items .
Recycling will probably get easier , also .
As time progresses , the matter printers will get cheaper and more sophisticated .
They will then become ubiquitous .
Such devices could really change economies.If music piracy was bad , matter piracy will be worse .
It will be difficult for patent and copyright holders to police their work .
Consumers who own matter printers may be able to pressure their governments to relieve them from existing restrictions .
On the other hand , merchants will pressure for more invasive restrictions.I do n't know where the future will go with this , but it sure will be interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neal Stephenson's book, "The Diamond Age," really got me thinking about matter printers.
They're already here and they'll just keep getting better and better.
In the near future, you'll be buying a bag of carbon pellets at the hardware store.
Then, along with the design software, you'll be able to matter-print physical items.
Recycling will probably get easier, also.
As time progresses, the matter printers will get cheaper and more sophisticated.
They will then become ubiquitous.
Such devices could really change economies.If music piracy was bad, matter piracy will be worse.
It will be difficult for patent and copyright holders to police their work.
Consumers who own matter printers may be able to pressure their governments to relieve them from existing restrictions.
On the other hand, merchants will pressure for more invasive restrictions.I don't know where the future will go with this, but it sure will be interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293</id>
	<title>Recoup period</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1256565660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without a recoup period, there is no incentive to develop new treatments. 5 years is probably a good balance. 12 is probably too long. And 0 is the type of braindead proposal you'd get at a discussion site like Digg or Fark.</p><p>When you buy your house, a lot of your money is ostensibly tossed down the drain to pay for the interest on your loan. However, this interest is actually the cost to you to borrow that money. So the lower the interest, the lower your cost to borrow money. If you had no interest to pay and had no incentive to pay back a loan on time, there simply wouldn't be a loan market. No one would lend to you because there would be no hope of getting any return on their investment. Just as you expect use of money as the benefit of borrowing, they expect a small rate of interest to recompense them for their loss of the use of the money.</p><p>In many ways, the financial and pharmalogical industries are very similar in this regard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without a recoup period , there is no incentive to develop new treatments .
5 years is probably a good balance .
12 is probably too long .
And 0 is the type of braindead proposal you 'd get at a discussion site like Digg or Fark.When you buy your house , a lot of your money is ostensibly tossed down the drain to pay for the interest on your loan .
However , this interest is actually the cost to you to borrow that money .
So the lower the interest , the lower your cost to borrow money .
If you had no interest to pay and had no incentive to pay back a loan on time , there simply would n't be a loan market .
No one would lend to you because there would be no hope of getting any return on their investment .
Just as you expect use of money as the benefit of borrowing , they expect a small rate of interest to recompense them for their loss of the use of the money.In many ways , the financial and pharmalogical industries are very similar in this regard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without a recoup period, there is no incentive to develop new treatments.
5 years is probably a good balance.
12 is probably too long.
And 0 is the type of braindead proposal you'd get at a discussion site like Digg or Fark.When you buy your house, a lot of your money is ostensibly tossed down the drain to pay for the interest on your loan.
However, this interest is actually the cost to you to borrow that money.
So the lower the interest, the lower your cost to borrow money.
If you had no interest to pay and had no incentive to pay back a loan on time, there simply wouldn't be a loan market.
No one would lend to you because there would be no hope of getting any return on their investment.
Just as you expect use of money as the benefit of borrowing, they expect a small rate of interest to recompense them for their loss of the use of the money.In many ways, the financial and pharmalogical industries are very similar in this regard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872897</id>
	<title>Re:20 years not 5</title>
	<author>gabebear</author>
	<datestamp>1256574300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There seems to be a lot of confusion going on here. The summary is really bad.
<br> <br>
Drugs have to be approved by the FDA before they can be sold, which is where this new law comes in. Follow-on/generic drugs don't have to go through the HUGE amount of work to be approved by the FDA if they can prove their drugs are "identical in dose, strength, route of administration, safety, efficacy, and intended use."
<br> <br>
You get a patent for 20 years, but drug patents usually have a 5-10 year of useful life after developing them and getting approval to sell them. Usually the patent is on some formulation of known existing chemicals and not on the active ingredient. Because it's usually so much easier/cheaper to make the follow-on/generic drugs, the FDA grants a 5 year monopoly to the first company that gets a drug to market where generics don't just have to prove they are identical to a current drug.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic\_drug" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic\_drug</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug\_Price\_Competition\_and\_Patent\_Term\_Restoration\_Act" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug\_Price\_Competition\_and\_Patent\_Term\_Restoration\_Act</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be a lot of confusion going on here .
The summary is really bad .
Drugs have to be approved by the FDA before they can be sold , which is where this new law comes in .
Follow-on/generic drugs do n't have to go through the HUGE amount of work to be approved by the FDA if they can prove their drugs are " identical in dose , strength , route of administration , safety , efficacy , and intended use .
" You get a patent for 20 years , but drug patents usually have a 5-10 year of useful life after developing them and getting approval to sell them .
Usually the patent is on some formulation of known existing chemicals and not on the active ingredient .
Because it 's usually so much easier/cheaper to make the follow-on/generic drugs , the FDA grants a 5 year monopoly to the first company that gets a drug to market where generics do n't just have to prove they are identical to a current drug .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic \ _drug [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug \ _Price \ _Competition \ _and \ _Patent \ _Term \ _Restoration \ _Act [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems to be a lot of confusion going on here.
The summary is really bad.
Drugs have to be approved by the FDA before they can be sold, which is where this new law comes in.
Follow-on/generic drugs don't have to go through the HUGE amount of work to be approved by the FDA if they can prove their drugs are "identical in dose, strength, route of administration, safety, efficacy, and intended use.
"
 
You get a patent for 20 years, but drug patents usually have a 5-10 year of useful life after developing them and getting approval to sell them.
Usually the patent is on some formulation of known existing chemicals and not on the active ingredient.
Because it's usually so much easier/cheaper to make the follow-on/generic drugs, the FDA grants a 5 year monopoly to the first company that gets a drug to market where generics don't just have to prove they are identical to a current drug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic\_drug [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug\_Price\_Competition\_and\_Patent\_Term\_Restoration\_Act [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29902015</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is so EASY...</title>
	<author>austin987</author>
	<datestamp>1256721300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all drugs are viable in the market. Under your proposal, those R&amp;D costs are lost, and cannot be recovered by drugs that do well and are more profitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all drugs are viable in the market .
Under your proposal , those R&amp;D costs are lost , and can not be recovered by drugs that do well and are more profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all drugs are viable in the market.
Under your proposal, those R&amp;D costs are lost, and cannot be recovered by drugs that do well and are more profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753</id>
	<title>The answer is so EASY...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256568600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution to the never ending patent rubbish that is coming out is:</p><p>1) All R&amp;D needs to be logged (in terms of cost).<br>2) All patents are protected and valid until the net profit of selling any item has reached the level of costs, or 1 year if no progress on the the patent has been made to monetize anything.<br>3) After R&amp;D costs are covered, the patent becomes public knowledge and usable in any capacity by anyone.<br>4) Any litigation from a patent holder can only be back tracked 1 year prior to the declaration of accusation.  No, oh you've been abusing my patent since 1985, cough up Billions please...</p><p>This will help innovation of new products based on older patents by opening them up as soon as they become viable.<br>This will stop people sitting on patents (trolls).</p><p>You may ask about well, if on the day the patent opens some foreign firm floods the market in cheap XYZ drug...Well, no...Because said company may not develop until the patent has been released...Thus, the lawyers will be happy because they can still litigate companies who abuse this rule, patent holders will have a lead time to get profits, future innovators can innovate still and the whole world will advance much much quicker...</p><p>And no, I have not thought through everything and I am sure there are some holes in this that a eagle-eyed slashdotter will notice...but it could be a good starting point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution to the never ending patent rubbish that is coming out is : 1 ) All R&amp;D needs to be logged ( in terms of cost ) .2 ) All patents are protected and valid until the net profit of selling any item has reached the level of costs , or 1 year if no progress on the the patent has been made to monetize anything.3 ) After R&amp;D costs are covered , the patent becomes public knowledge and usable in any capacity by anyone.4 ) Any litigation from a patent holder can only be back tracked 1 year prior to the declaration of accusation .
No , oh you 've been abusing my patent since 1985 , cough up Billions please...This will help innovation of new products based on older patents by opening them up as soon as they become viable.This will stop people sitting on patents ( trolls ) .You may ask about well , if on the day the patent opens some foreign firm floods the market in cheap XYZ drug...Well , no...Because said company may not develop until the patent has been released...Thus , the lawyers will be happy because they can still litigate companies who abuse this rule , patent holders will have a lead time to get profits , future innovators can innovate still and the whole world will advance much much quicker...And no , I have not thought through everything and I am sure there are some holes in this that a eagle-eyed slashdotter will notice...but it could be a good starting point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution to the never ending patent rubbish that is coming out is:1) All R&amp;D needs to be logged (in terms of cost).2) All patents are protected and valid until the net profit of selling any item has reached the level of costs, or 1 year if no progress on the the patent has been made to monetize anything.3) After R&amp;D costs are covered, the patent becomes public knowledge and usable in any capacity by anyone.4) Any litigation from a patent holder can only be back tracked 1 year prior to the declaration of accusation.
No, oh you've been abusing my patent since 1985, cough up Billions please...This will help innovation of new products based on older patents by opening them up as soon as they become viable.This will stop people sitting on patents (trolls).You may ask about well, if on the day the patent opens some foreign firm floods the market in cheap XYZ drug...Well, no...Because said company may not develop until the patent has been released...Thus, the lawyers will be happy because they can still litigate companies who abuse this rule, patent holders will have a lead time to get profits, future innovators can innovate still and the whole world will advance much much quicker...And no, I have not thought through everything and I am sure there are some holes in this that a eagle-eyed slashdotter will notice...but it could be a good starting point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29883777</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256658180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[citation needed]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29874637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29874637</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256582580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh, and incidentally, one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place, so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers.</p></div><p>The main reason drugs cost so much is because the USA is one of the few countries that allows direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.<br>Last I checked, pharma spending on advertising was 2 or 3 times its spending on basic R&amp;D.</p><p>In case you don't understand: <b>2/3rds to 3/4ths the price of a prescription drug is advertising.</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , and incidentally , one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place , so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers.The main reason drugs cost so much is because the USA is one of the few countries that allows direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.Last I checked , pharma spending on advertising was 2 or 3 times its spending on basic R&amp;D.In case you do n't understand : 2/3rds to 3/4ths the price of a prescription drug is advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, and incidentally, one of the reasons drugs cost so much here is because other countries do put price controls in place, so we end up carrying the burden for those slackers.The main reason drugs cost so much is because the USA is one of the few countries that allows direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.Last I checked, pharma spending on advertising was 2 or 3 times its spending on basic R&amp;D.In case you don't understand: 2/3rds to 3/4ths the price of a prescription drug is advertising.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872873</id>
	<title>-1, Just Plain Dumb</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1256574180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the sillier posts I've seen on Slashdot in a while. <i>Developing</i> a new drug requires doing many, many trials to see which compounds might work, then doing many, many more trials to make sure they don't actually kill the patient or induce intolerable side effects. The end result is a proven process to create a drug that you can be reasonably sure is safe and effective. <i>Copying</i> this drug just means implementing the already proven process. How could this not be cheaper? If it wasn't, there'd be no generic drug industry.</p><p>Look, I'm no big fan of the patent system in the US, but making uninformed statements like this are doing nothing to help the situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the sillier posts I 've seen on Slashdot in a while .
Developing a new drug requires doing many , many trials to see which compounds might work , then doing many , many more trials to make sure they do n't actually kill the patient or induce intolerable side effects .
The end result is a proven process to create a drug that you can be reasonably sure is safe and effective .
Copying this drug just means implementing the already proven process .
How could this not be cheaper ?
If it was n't , there 'd be no generic drug industry.Look , I 'm no big fan of the patent system in the US , but making uninformed statements like this are doing nothing to help the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the sillier posts I've seen on Slashdot in a while.
Developing a new drug requires doing many, many trials to see which compounds might work, then doing many, many more trials to make sure they don't actually kill the patient or induce intolerable side effects.
The end result is a proven process to create a drug that you can be reasonably sure is safe and effective.
Copying this drug just means implementing the already proven process.
How could this not be cheaper?
If it wasn't, there'd be no generic drug industry.Look, I'm no big fan of the patent system in the US, but making uninformed statements like this are doing nothing to help the situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871355</id>
	<title>People without the Money Burn a Witch</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1256566200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, we are not talking about geeks not having their OSS fix here, it is about sick people not getting their drugs. People without money are never heard of unless they retort to violence. This can be very dangerous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , we are not talking about geeks not having their OSS fix here , it is about sick people not getting their drugs .
People without money are never heard of unless they retort to violence .
This can be very dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, we are not talking about geeks not having their OSS fix here, it is about sick people not getting their drugs.
People without money are never heard of unless they retort to violence.
This can be very dangerous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872685</id>
	<title>Emergence of "Kitchen Table Genetic Therapies"?</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1256573160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene\_therapy" title="wikipedia.org">Genetic Therapies</a> [wikipedia.org] at our door step, does America really need to artificially maintain a <a href="http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/10/congresswoman-deny-pfizer-any-federal-funding/" title="pharmalot.com">Pharmaceutical Industry</a> [pharmalot.com]?  Wouldn't our time be better spent having <a href="http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human\_Genome/medicine/genetherapy.shtml" title="ornl.gov">University Researchers</a> [ornl.gov] take publicly known data and start applying it to a Genetic Therapy Solutions?  Rather that having Federal Funds channeled to be used as a crutch for the mercantile facade of pharmaceutical distribution,  why not channel that money to University Researchers for Genetic Therapies?  The FDA is more than capable of administering Logistics of these types of solutions.  Personally, I think the Pharmaceutical Industries finest minds should maybe find more fulfillment elsewhere in life than advertising to minors, <a href="http://www.zestra.com/?9gtype=search&amp;9gkw=orgasm\%20cream&amp;9gad=3493833068&amp;gclid=CL\_Kzfz72p0CFQ9fswodp0FZrA" title="zestra.com">Vaginal Pleasure Cremes</a> [zestra.com] on TV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With Genetic Therapies [ wikipedia.org ] at our door step , does America really need to artificially maintain a Pharmaceutical Industry [ pharmalot.com ] ?
Would n't our time be better spent having University Researchers [ ornl.gov ] take publicly known data and start applying it to a Genetic Therapy Solutions ?
Rather that having Federal Funds channeled to be used as a crutch for the mercantile facade of pharmaceutical distribution , why not channel that money to University Researchers for Genetic Therapies ?
The FDA is more than capable of administering Logistics of these types of solutions .
Personally , I think the Pharmaceutical Industries finest minds should maybe find more fulfillment elsewhere in life than advertising to minors , Vaginal Pleasure Cremes [ zestra.com ] on TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Genetic Therapies [wikipedia.org] at our door step, does America really need to artificially maintain a Pharmaceutical Industry [pharmalot.com]?
Wouldn't our time be better spent having University Researchers [ornl.gov] take publicly known data and start applying it to a Genetic Therapy Solutions?
Rather that having Federal Funds channeled to be used as a crutch for the mercantile facade of pharmaceutical distribution,  why not channel that money to University Researchers for Genetic Therapies?
The FDA is more than capable of administering Logistics of these types of solutions.
Personally, I think the Pharmaceutical Industries finest minds should maybe find more fulfillment elsewhere in life than advertising to minors, Vaginal Pleasure Cremes [zestra.com] on TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872709</id>
	<title>Re:People with the Money Call the Shots</title>
	<author>pjt33</author>
	<datestamp>1256573280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Too bad Congress doesn't enact an export tariff on prescription drugs, we'd make enough off that to pay for healthcare.</p></div><p>Or the countries which currently import drugs from the US would remove their patent protection for pharmaceuticals and US pharmaceutical companies would lose their current export market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad Congress does n't enact an export tariff on prescription drugs , we 'd make enough off that to pay for healthcare.Or the countries which currently import drugs from the US would remove their patent protection for pharmaceuticals and US pharmaceutical companies would lose their current export market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad Congress doesn't enact an export tariff on prescription drugs, we'd make enough off that to pay for healthcare.Or the countries which currently import drugs from the US would remove their patent protection for pharmaceuticals and US pharmaceutical companies would lose their current export market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872653</id>
	<title>Re:Longer patents = cheaper branded drugs?</title>
	<author>toppavak</author>
	<datestamp>1256572980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not a longer patent period. What this is an extension of the period that a pharma company can retain exclusive access to its clinical trial data. Without this data, a generics manufacturer couldn't get a drug to market because they would have to repeat all of the original clinical trials- something which would be extremely cost prohibitive. This bill would extend the time during which the FDA would not release the raw data from the trials to the public so that even though the patent on a drug may have expired, no generics could enter the market. This is in essence granting a 12 year extended monopoly to biologics manufacturers because they whined (and spent) enough despite that their principal justification for the extension (generics are more expensive to develop than small molecules and thus warrant a longer monopoly) has been shown to be false.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a longer patent period .
What this is an extension of the period that a pharma company can retain exclusive access to its clinical trial data .
Without this data , a generics manufacturer could n't get a drug to market because they would have to repeat all of the original clinical trials- something which would be extremely cost prohibitive .
This bill would extend the time during which the FDA would not release the raw data from the trials to the public so that even though the patent on a drug may have expired , no generics could enter the market .
This is in essence granting a 12 year extended monopoly to biologics manufacturers because they whined ( and spent ) enough despite that their principal justification for the extension ( generics are more expensive to develop than small molecules and thus warrant a longer monopoly ) has been shown to be false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a longer patent period.
What this is an extension of the period that a pharma company can retain exclusive access to its clinical trial data.
Without this data, a generics manufacturer couldn't get a drug to market because they would have to repeat all of the original clinical trials- something which would be extremely cost prohibitive.
This bill would extend the time during which the FDA would not release the raw data from the trials to the public so that even though the patent on a drug may have expired, no generics could enter the market.
This is in essence granting a 12 year extended monopoly to biologics manufacturers because they whined (and spent) enough despite that their principal justification for the extension (generics are more expensive to develop than small molecules and thus warrant a longer monopoly) has been shown to be false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872159</id>
	<title>Simple answer:</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1256570700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Need every new technological category get its own patent rules, and how do those rules get decided?"</p><p>The legal answer is that Congress decides both of these issues (unless it decides to grant extended rulemaking authority to the PTO).  (Currently the USPTO only has limited rulemaking authority which probably would not extend to substantive issues like term of protection).</p><p>The economic answer is that every economist will give you a different answer.</p><p>The Slashdot answer is that we don't need patents at all, for anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Need every new technological category get its own patent rules , and how do those rules get decided ?
" The legal answer is that Congress decides both of these issues ( unless it decides to grant extended rulemaking authority to the PTO ) .
( Currently the USPTO only has limited rulemaking authority which probably would not extend to substantive issues like term of protection ) .The economic answer is that every economist will give you a different answer.The Slashdot answer is that we do n't need patents at all , for anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Need every new technological category get its own patent rules, and how do those rules get decided?
"The legal answer is that Congress decides both of these issues (unless it decides to grant extended rulemaking authority to the PTO).
(Currently the USPTO only has limited rulemaking authority which probably would not extend to substantive issues like term of protection).The economic answer is that every economist will give you a different answer.The Slashdot answer is that we don't need patents at all, for anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29875347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29878845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29874731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29880853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29875327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29875469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29878107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29874677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29878575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29879927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29883777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29874637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29879069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29902015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29879323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29880499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_122212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_122212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29878575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29874731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_122212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_122212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_122212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_122212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_122212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_122212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29878845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_122212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29875347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_122212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29902015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29879069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29874677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_122212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29878107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871823
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872129
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873069
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872709
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29880853
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29874637
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29883777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871599
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29880499
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29879927
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29879323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871671
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871607
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871355
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29873247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_122212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_122212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29871549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29875327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29875469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_122212.29872897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
