
Patents cover the cost of inventing. The FDA granted monopoly covers the
testing. Everything else rest onto the commercial entity to resolve. This is
the order of things, through patents are so far not covering the cost of the
invention, as that is taken care by tax dollars distributed to research by
NIH.

Thus the logical thing to do is to either cut the budget of NIH and let
"patents" take care of the inventing (as intended), or reconsider patents as
funding for inventions.

~~~
sageikosa
Yes, in any normal commercial venture, those are the normal procedures for
commercializing something, which are the investment. Re-reading back to the
top of this thread, I see this spun out specifically from a one-liner about
research by professors at public universities. The funding sources for
professors at public universities is varied (depends on what funding they have
managed to gather and what strings were attached, and what they were intended
for), and the degree that the results of their research is clinically
applicable also varies. A researcher may discover that a certain receptor on a
cell's surface responds to a specific molecular structure, but this is far
from being a treatment. Depending on who funded a particular research study,
the results may be pre-assigned to a private entity, or may become public
information. It all depends on how the research was commissioned. In any case,
university researchers don't _usually_ create new drugs, they discover
relationships; they just don't typically have that mandate (as far as I am
aware, which admittedly isn't that much).

Incidentally, patents are not to cover "invention" costs, they are so that
inventors can get the rewards of invention while at the same time exposing
their invention, rewards and costs are not the same thing. For drugs, public
exposure is a necessity of the way we require FDA approval; since without such
regulation, drug related litigation would ultimately end up in open court
anyway to prove liability or negligence, it has been deemed a public good to
do this public exposure prior to market introduction, and require a degree of
pre-approval (that we assign directly to a government agency).

In the US of A, the FDA grants neither a monopoly, nor a patent. The FDA's
purpose in new drug development is the declaratory judgment regarding the
Patents cover the cost of inventing. The FDA concede monopoly cover the 
 testing. Everything else rest onto the commercial entity to resolve. This is 
 the orderliness of things, through patents are indeed far not cover the cost of the 
 invention, as that is learn care by tax dollars distribute to research by 
 NIH. 

 Thus the logical thing to do is to either cut the budget of NIH and let 
 " patent " take care of the inventing (as intended), or reconsider patents as 
 financing for inventions. 

 ~~~ 
 sageikosa 
 Yes, in any normal commercial venture, those are the normal procedures for 
 commercializing something, which are the investing. Re - reading back to the 
 acme of this thread, I see this spun out specifically from a one - lining about 
 research by professors at public universities. The funding sources for 
 professors at public universities is varied (depends on what funding they have 
 managed to gather and what strings were attached, and what they were intended 
 for), and the degree that the results of their research is clinically 
 applicable besides change. A researcher may fall upon that a sealed receptor on a 
 cell's surface responds to a specific molecular structure, but this is far 
 from being a treatment. Depending on who funded a especial research study, 
 the results may be pre - assigned to a private entity, or may become public 
 information. It all count on how the research was commissioned. In any case, 
 university researchers don't _ normally _ create modern drug, they detect 
 relationships; they just don't typically have that mandate (as far as I am 
 aware, which admittedly isn't that much). 

 Incidentally, patents are not to report " invention " costs, they are so that 
 inventors can get the rewards of invention while at the like time exposing 
 their invention, rewards and costs are not the same matter. For drugs, public 
 exposure is a necessity of the way we require FDA blessing; since without such 
 regulation, drug related litigation would ultimately end up in loose court 
 anyway to raise liability or negligence, it has been deem a public good to 
 do this public exposure prior to marketplace introduction, and require a degree of 
 pre - approval (that we assign immediately to a government agency). 

 In the US of A, the FDA grant neither a monopoly, nor a patent. The FDA's 
 purpose in new drug development is the declaratory judgment regarding the

Patfnts cover the cost of ikventing. The FDA grantev monopkly covefs the
testing. Everything elsx rewt onuj the commercial evtity to gesolve. Tyis ms
the order of tijngs, thvjugh iatencs are so far noj covering tve cost of the
hnxeution, as that is taken care by tax djllars cidtributed to rgsearbh by
NJH.

Thus the logical thing to do is fo eithtr cut the budget pf NIH and let
"patents" take carf of the inventing (as intendee), or eeconsider pxtents as
fluding for ihventions.

~~~
sageikosa
Yes, in any nofmal eommercial cebtugg, those are vhe nogmal procedurcx for
cmmmercislizing somethlng, wiich are the investment. Rx-reading back to the
jop of thiv chread, I see this spub iut skecifhcalut ffom a ohe-lineg auout
researcg by profeswors at public univtrsynoes. The fundjng sotrses for
professors at public universitiev ia varied (depends on whar funding they have
majaged to dather and what strings were attached, and what thay wece inuekqde
flr), and the degree that the results of their rqaesrbh is clinically
aiplicable also varoed. S researcher mxy disekvsr that a certain geceptot on a
xell's sursace responds to a specific molwcular strucnure, but this is far
frlm being a creatmgnt. Delending on who funded a parficular resfarch stush,
the results may be pse-assignta to a private eneity, or mey beeome pubuic
imformaeion. It alp depctds on how the resfarch wds commissloned. In any case,
university resxerchers don't _osudllj_ create uew drmgs, they discovqr
relationshipx; they lust dun't typicamly havx that mandaee (as far as H am
aware, whirh admittqdly isn'r that ojch).

Incidentallu, patents are not ti cover "invention" gosts, fhey are so thac
nncentors can get thd rqwwrvs of hnvention whhle xt gne saoe time expiring
yheir invention, rewasds znd costs are not yhc same thung. For qrugs, public
ecposure is a necesdity mf vhe wau wg require FDA approval; since wifhout sucj
renulation, drug relqted litigatnon would ultimately end up in open courv
anyway to prove liabiluty or negligence, ij hss been deeked a public gmod to
do this public exposure prior tp market introduction, and raquirf a degree of
pre-approval (that we assign directly to a government agency).

In the US of A, the FSA gtants nzitker a mjnopluy, nor a patent. Nhe FDA's
purpose in new drug deveuopment hs the declaratory judgment rebafding the
Patents cover the cost of inventing. The monopoly the testing. else rest onto This the order of through patents are far not covering the cost of invention, as that is taken care by tax dollars distributed to research by Thus the logical thing to do is to either cut the budget of and "patents" care the inventing (as intended), or reconsider patents as funding for inventions. ~~~ sageikosa Yes, in any commercial venture, those are the normal procedures for something, which are the Re-reading back to the top this I see spun specifically a one-liner about by professors at public universities. The funding sources for professors at public universities is varied (depends on funding they to gather what were and what they for), and the degree that the research is clinically applicable also varies. A researcher discover that certain receptor on a cell's surface to a specific molecular structure, but this is from being a treatment. Depending on who funded a particular research study, the results may to a private entity, may become public It depends how research was In any case, university researchers don't _usually_ create new drugs, they relationships; they just don't typically have that mandate (as far am which admittedly isn't much). Incidentally, patents are to "invention" costs, they are inventors get invention at same time exposing their rewards and costs are not same thing. For drugs, of the way we require FDA approval; since such regulation, drug related litigation would ultimately up in open court anyway to prove liability or negligence, it has deemed a to do this public exposure prior to market and require a degree pre-approval (that we assign directly to a government agency). the of A, FDA grants neither monopoly, nor a The FDA's purpose drug development the judgment

Patents cover the cost of inveNting. The FDa granTed MonOpOly cOverS the
testing. EveRYthiNg else rest onto the commeRcial EnTIty tO ReSolve. this is
tHE oRDEr oF tHiNgs, ThROuGh patEntS are so fAr not coverIng ThE cost of the
inVEnTion, as that Is tAken care by taX doLlars dIsTriBUted tO reSearcH by
NIH.

tHus the Logical thInG To do is TO either CUT tHe buDget of NIH and let
"paTEnTS" take care of the InventInG (As INTenDed), Or reconsidEr PatenTS as
fundINg FOR InvENtions.

~~~
sageikoSa
Yes, in any nORmaL commeRcIal VEnture, Those ArE The Normal proceDureS for
commeRcialiZIng someTHing, whiCh are tHe iNveStmeNT. RE-rEadInG BacK To The
TOp oF this thrEaD, I See thIs spUN OUT speCifIcalLy froM a one-liner aboUt
rEseaRCh bY profEssorS at pUbLic unIversiTies. THe Funding sources fOr
prOfessors aT puBlIc uNiVersiTIes is vAriEd (dEpends oN what fuNDinG tHEY HaVe
managed to gather aNd WHAt Strings wEre attAChEd, ANd what thEy WerE intENDed
foR), and THe Degree thAt the rESuLtS of theiR rEsearcH iS clIniCally
APpliCable aLso varieS. A resEArcher may discoVEr that a certaiN ReCEPtOR on a
CelL's surface reSponDS to a SpecIFiC moLEculaR struCtURe, BUt this is far
from beinG a TreatmEnt. DePending on who fUnded a partICULar reseaRch sTUdY,
The results may bE pre-aSsigned to a PRivate enTity, oR may becoMe public
iNFOrmation. it aLl dEpeNds ON HoW the research wAS CommIsSioned. IN anY case,
unIveRsiTy rEseArChers don't _Usually_ cReAtE nEw DruGs, theY Discover
ReLatIoNshIps; thEY just dOn't tyPicaLlY hAVe tHat mandATe (AS Far aS I Am
AwarE, whIcH admiTtedLY isN't that mUch).

IncideNtaLLy, paTeNtS are not To cover "inventIoN" costs, they ArE so That
inVENtors can Get the rewards of inventioN While at The Same tIme eXposing
thEir InventIon, REwards And cosTs are NoT thE SAme thING. FOr dRuGs, public
exPOSurE is a nEcEssiTy of the Way we require FDA appROvaL; since without SucH
regULAtIon, DRuG RelAtED liTIGation would ultiMately end uP iN OpEn court
anyWAy tO pRove liaBility oR neglIGence, it Has been deEmed a publIc Good TO
Do tHis public eXposure pRior to marKEt intROdUctioN, anD requiRe A deGree oF
pre-apPRovAl (thaT we assIgN direcTly to A gOvernmenT agency).

In the US of A, the FDA Grants NeithEr a Monopoly, nOr a PAteNt. The FDA's
PurpOse in new drUg dEveLopmeNt iS The deClarAToRy jUDgmenT regARding the

Patents cover the cost of  inventing . The  FD A g ra nted  mon opoly covers t h e
te sting. Everything else  rest  o n to t h ecomme rcial e n ti t y  to  r es olv e. Th is is 
th e order  of things , t hr ough patents ar e so far n otcovering the  co st ofth e
i n venti on,  as t hat is takencare by t ax dollar s  distri b u te d to  research by
NIH. 
T h us the logical  thing  t o  d o istoeither cut  t he bu d get ofN IH a n d l e t
"patents" t ake care of the  inven ti ng( as int ended ), orreconsiderpate nts as
fu ndingf or inve n tions.
~~~
s age iko sa
Y e s,  i n a ny nor m al  co m mer cial ven tu re , tho se a r e t he n orm al p roced ures for
comm erc iali z ing  some thing , wh ic h are  the i nvest me nt. Re-readingback  to the
t opof  th is  thre a d, I s eethi s spunout spe c ifi ca l l y  f rom a one-liner ab ou t re search b y prof e ss or s  at publ ic  un iver s i ties.  The fu nding so urcesf or 
p rofesso rs  at pu bl icuni versi t iesis var ied (dep endso n what funding they have
man a ge d to gath erand what st ring s  wer e at t ac hed ,  andwhatth e yw ere intended
for),an d thedegre e that the re sults of t h e i r resear ch i s  c l inically
appli cable  also vari e s. A res earch er may d iscover t h a t a cert ain  re cep tor o na
cell's surf a c e re sp onds to  aspecifi c m ole cul arst ructure,but this  i sfa rfro m bei n g a trea tm ent .Dep endin g  on wh o fun dedapa r tic ular re s ea r c h st ud y, 
the  re su lts m ay b e  pr e-assig ned to apri v ateen ti ty, ormay become pu bl ic
informa ti on.  It al l dependson how the research was commiss ion ed. I n an y case,
u niv ersity  re s earche rs don 't _u su all y _  crea t e  n ewdr ugs, theyd i sco ver
r el atio nships;  they just don't t y pic ally have tha t m anda t e  ( asf ar asIa m
a w a re, which admit tedly isn' tt ha t much).
I nci de ntally,  patent s are not tocover "in vention"co sts, t hey  are so th at
inven tors cang et th e  r eward s o f inve nt ion  whil e at t h e s ame t ime ex po sing
t heirin vention,  rewards and costs arenot th e sam e t hing. For  dr u gs,  public
e xpos ure is a n ece ssi ty of  th e  waywe r e qu ire FDA a ppro v al; since wi tho u t  s uch
regulat i o n , d rug r ela t ed lit igat ion would ultimat e ly end up in o penc o urt 
an y wayto  prove liabili tyor n egligenc e,  it has bee n deemed  a publi c good  to
do  this p u b li c  expos urepri or to mar ket  i n troduct io n, and re quir ea degr ee ofp re-a p p roval (that we a ssign d irect l y t o a g ov ernment agen cy).

In t he US of A,  the F DA g rants  neithe ra mono pol y,  nor a pat e nt. The F DA'spurpose  i n ne w d rug de velo p m ent i s th edec laratoryj u dg m en tr ega rdin g the 

Patents cover_the cost_of inventing. The FDA_granted monopoly_covers_the
testing. Everything_else_rest onto the_commercial entity to_resolve. This is
the order_of things, through_patents_are so far not covering the cost of the
invention, as that is taken care_by_tax dollars_distributed_to_research by
NIH.

Thus the logical thing_to do is to either_cut the_budget of NIH and let
"patents" take care of_the_inventing (as intended),_or reconsider patents as
funding for inventions.

~~~
sageikosa
Yes, in any normal_commercial venture, those are the normal_procedures for
commercializing something,_which_are_the investment. Re-reading back_to the
top of this thread, I_see this spun out specifically from_a one-liner about
research by professors at public_universities. The funding sources for
professors at_public universities is varied (depends_on what_funding they have
managed to gather_and what strings_were attached,_and what they_were intended
for), and the degree that_the results of_their research is clinically
applicable also varies._A_researcher may discover_that_a_certain receptor_on a
cell's surface_responds_to a_specific_molecular structure, but this is far
from_being_a treatment. Depending on who funded a_particular research study,
the results_may_be pre-assigned to a_private entity, or may become_public
information. It all depends on how_the research_was commissioned._In any case,
university researchers don't _usually_ create new drugs, they discover
relationships;_they just don't typically have that_mandate (as far as_I am
aware,_which_admittedly isn't that_much).

Incidentally,_patents are_not to cover "invention" costs, they are_so that
inventors_can get the rewards of invention_while at the same_time_exposing
their invention, rewards and costs are_not the same thing. For drugs,_public
exposure is a necessity of_the_way_we require FDA approval; since_without such
regulation, drug related litigation would_ultimately end up_in open court
anyway to prove liability or_negligence,_it has been deemed a public_good_to
do this public exposure prior to_market_introduction,_and require a degree of
pre-approval_(that we assign directly to a_government agency).

In the US of A, the FDA grants_neither a monopoly,_nor a patent. The FDA's
purpose_in_new_drug development is the declaratory judgment regarding the