I'm well aware of the arguments in favour of protection of intellectual property (that nobody would otherwise bother inventing anything), but have serious doubts given the way that those handed an effectively monopoly by patent law (especially in the case of chemicals and drugs which are notoriously hard to circumvent) set out to maximise the return with scant regard for the common good.
I can't help feeling that while those investing to deliver new inventions should be entitled to some return (as in be paid for their labour), that the current system grossly over rewards this.
If only because to my mind creativity and innovative thought are the property of nobody - they originate from a level of mind that is in effect anyway communal.
Am I the only one that feels that this may on balance be a very positive development? If for example the BRIC (developing economy) countries by and large choose not to honour patents then that in time is surely likely to eliminate the above possibility.
We're well aware of the distortions in medicine, medical practice and medical research created by the enormous power and wealth of the pharmaceutical industry - and by the lure of the enormous profits it permits.
Patent law in my experience is anyway falling into disrepute. In that patents seem increasingly to be granted by far from expert examiners on highly unlikely grounds - with the result that they are often far from clearly defensible.
Except of course by those with the financial clout to go to the courts and all that entails - a further distortion in favour of those with power and money.
The whole patent system is surely a relic of the good old days of privilege and power?
ian
Written by
vajra
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Not being funny, Ian, but judging by your remarks, I take it that you yourself have never produced anything worthy of a patent. Because I do wonder how you would feel, regardless of your social standing, if you invented something out of your own head and then found every Tom, Dick and Harry was allowed to copy it without giving you any credit for your idea.
Of course, I could be wrong, maybe you are just one of nature's gentlemen, with nothing but the good of your fellow men at heart. If so, please forgive me for my hasty conclusion.
For myself, my ideas are like my children. They belong to me and I don't want to see them tossed hither and thither by all and sundry with no consideration for their conception. Perhaps I'm just selfish, but it isn't even a question of money, as far as I'm concerned. These concepts are mine, I gave birth to them, I nurtured them and they belong to me.
However, I am willing to concede that where the pharmacutical industry is concerned, things could be different. And maybe they should be different. And if they didn't make so much money out of their poisonous drugs, maybe they wouldn't produce so many. They are slowly killing us with all their pills and potions, whereas one would imagine their goal was to save lives. But on the other hand, I cannot see that giving all and sundry carte blanche to copy their evil concoctions is a good idea either. What to do? I have no idea.
No prob. Grey. Guess I see the excessive profit in pharmaceuticals as the core of a problem that has seen medicine and medical research follow the money - very much at the expense a more holistic approach to the nature of health and healing.
The resulting tunnel vision has meanwhile totally distorted the culture and practice of western medicine - if there ain't big money in it then almost nobody is interested.
I'm likewise very aware that because I happen to have had a thyroidectomy and suffer from a number of seemingly related medical issues that I'm seen as fair game by both a state 'health' system and the distributors they seem to be in bed with - our national drugs 'support' scheme (which started out as a drug subsidy scheme, but which has become part of an abusive and legally established cartel controlling the distribution of drugs over here) means for example that I get to pay around x10 the Euro price for my thyroid medication.
Money which I can ill afford.
I think I'd prefer to take my chances with a perhaps less wealthy system of medicine doing the right things for the right reasons than with one that's mostly just in it for the money.
I know that many won't see the patent issue my way (we're heavily conditioned to big up matters pertaining to the intellect), but i hold or at least was named (employers in those days took care to secure ownership of everything invented by their employees) on several patents for the development of industrial equipment - I worked for years prior to going down with long term undiagnosed hypothyroidism (another that fell foul of the big pharma promoted stock blood test based methods of diagnosis) as a divisional R&D manager for a US multinational. In addition I developed a number of machines which went on to become if not standards in their industries at least core solutions.
I'm relatively easy about that sort of stuff, in that in the bigger picture none of it is our personal property. We may well find ourselves lucky enough to be the nominal inventor of something - but for sure we don't own the creativity that made it possible. We generally were not even responsible for the vast bulk of the tangible inputs that made it possible - we were just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to pop something incipient into conscious reality....
Ian, I totally agree with all you say about the pharmaceutical aspect. It is a terrible situation. But getting rid of patents wholesale seems to me like the thin end of the wedge. What would be next? Copyright?
I don't have any answers, but the idea makes me uneasy. Could the pharmaceutical industry be made an exception without setting a precident? Nice idea, but...
It's I think as above reasonable and correct that an inventor gets paid for the time and money they put into develop a drug Grey G.
It's the idea that it should confer an effective monopoly for an extended period in something that the greater good suggests should be freely available that bothers me.
Perhaps some form of reasonable royalty payment for a reasonable period - in circumstances where the royalty cannot be refused - might be the basis of something???
Patents don't even help the inventors in most cases. Per my own experience a patent (even if an inventor can get one and isn't forced to hand it over to e.g. an employer) isn't much use unless you have very deep war chest to use in defending it.
As ever in these things it's the big vested interests that gain by this stuff and use it to get richer (that's recourse to law), and rarely ever the little guy...
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
I know that many won't see the patent issue my way (we're heavily conditioned to big up matters pertaining to the intellect), but i hold or at least was named (employers in those days took care to secure ownership of everything invented by their employees) on several patents for the development of industrial equipment - I worked for years prior to going down with long term undiagnosed hypothyroidism (another that fell foul of the big pharma promoted stock blood test based methods of diagnosis) as a divisional R&D manager for a US multinational. In addition I developed a number of machines which went on to become if not standards in their industries at least core solutions. 
Taking a bit of Levo with your T3.
Weight management: that good old medical chestnut, CI-CO 
IS THE ENDOCRINOLOGIST WHO SAID IT'S IN YOUR HEAD RESPONSIBLE FOR TRAINING NEW DOCTORS?
Popular thyroid drug comes under a cloud; company responds (India ONLY)
Levothyroxine Monotherapy and Cancer
