HideOnly 1 day left to get your copy of the CIA's declassified training game by backing CIA: Collect It All on Kickstarter »
HideOnly 1 day left to get your copy of the CIA's declassified training game by backing CIA: Collect It All on Kickstarter »

Goldman Sachs Analyst Asks Whether Curing Patients Is A Sustainable Business Model

from the better-to-ask-whether-the-traditional-drug-development-model-is-sustainable dept

Pharma companies generally like to give the impression that their business is a win-win kind of thing: you get better, they get sales. But sometimes the mask slips, and the real strategy that lies behind the benevolent exterior is revealed. For example, back in 2014 we wrote about the CEO of Bayer, one of the biggest drug companies in the world, openly admitting it developed medicines for rich patients in the West that can pay high prices, not for those in places like India that need them just as much, but can't afford them.

Now CNBC has spotted another revealing remark that probably reflects what many in the Big Pharma world say privately. It appears in a report called "The Genome Revolution" about a new generation of treatments based on powerful genomic techniques like CRISPR. They hold out the hope that many diseases can be cured permanently, for example by editing the patient's DNA to replace genetic code that is causing the problem. The report asks: "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" It goes on to explain the issue here:

"The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies," analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. "While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow."

That's a fair analysis. Given the choice between creating a product that cures people after one use, and another that requires a lifetime's supply, the rational choice for a company is the latter. The analyst's question, shocking as it is, exposes neatly the tension between what Big Pharma and its shareholders may want -- fat, recurring profits -- and what patients and society desire -- a short course of treatment that results in a complete cure. As genomic medicine continues to progress, that question is likely to be posed more frequently, both behind closed doors, and in public debates. It will also bring with it another one: if curing patients isn't a sustainable business model for traditional pharma companies, why not find other ways to fund the development of genomic treatments?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 10:47am

    If curing patients is not a sustainable business model then perhaps health care should not be a for profit endeavor.

    Obviously, treating the symptoms will be much more profitable than curing the disease, however - what kind of an asshole verbalizes such revolting thoughts. Everyone has dumbass ideas, but most refrain from embarrassing themselves with same.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 10:59am

      Re:

      what kind of an asshole verbalizes such revolting thoughts..

      This story has created a lot of outrage for no good reason. A for-profit company should be investigating the financial effects of new technologies. The report doesn't say people shouldn't be cured—indeed it says gene therapy "carries tremendous value for patients and society", which suggests the opposite. It merely points out the challenge for the business model, as you did; so yeah, maybe health care shouldn't be about profit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        YaTOG, 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:11am

        Re: Re:

        Assholes, like those in big pharma have known this for years.
        It's also why they have not, so far, picked up on any "natural" cures or medicines, because they *can't* be patented so they can choke the lives of patients to pay for it.

        One life lost due to a big-pharma "cost" prohibition of the medication should equate to a 1 Trillion dollar fine, payable to the family of the person who lost their lives.

        That ought to suck the "profit" out of treating instead of curing, or pricing their medication so high that insurance companies (that never pay full price anyway) refuse to pay for it, so their customers can continue supporting pharma's revenue streams on older, less effective, possibly-with-fatal-side-effects medications.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Call me Al, 18 Apr 2018 @ 12:15pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That is an absolutely brilliant way of getting big Pharma companies to abandon life saving research and just produce varieties of viagra going forwards.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 1:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Wasn't Viagra found to be able to prevent or battle certain types of cancer recently? Life saving Viagra...?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            anon a mouse that scurries in the dark, 18 Apr 2018 @ 1:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What life saving research?

            The only actual research done by big pharma is scaling for production and modifications to keep the patents live.

            Real research is done on the taxpayers dime at hospitals colleges and universities.

            Capital decisions that cost lives for profit should have Capital/Capitol punishment.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Call me Al, 18 Apr 2018 @ 1:43pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              That simply isn't true. There are developments in drugs all the time. Just because they haven't cured everything doesn't mean there aren't improvements in many drugs.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 3:47pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                right, they add a molecule here, a proton/neutron there which changes the molecular formula allowing them to re-patent the 'new' drug that does exactly what the previous drug did, but now it costs 10 times as much since they had to 'research' how to better screw the public...

                I just wish this was /s

                Look up drug patents in the last 5 years and see how many are new in the 'never before seen type of medication' and how many are 'the same medicine we patented last time, but we added polka-dots (at the molecular level)...

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 7:52am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I am interested in any examples you can provide.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:17am

        Re: Re:

        I understand that but I'm sure such discussions in the past were held in a less public venue. These healthcare/health insurance businesses know they walk a tight rope. Expressing such concerns is not good PR and they know it but they no longer seem to care about their appearances which is concerning. This means they intend to push their agenda regardless of the public needs/ wants.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 12:08pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          This means they intend to push their agenda regardless of the public needs/ wants.

          That's very pessimistic. Note that this isn't a pharma employee saying it, it's an investment analyst. Perhaps they raise the problem in the hope of finding a solution. A profitable one, we can assume, but not necessarily an inhumane one; maybe we'll get governments to pay these researchers and make the financial return elsewhere (e.g. lab equipment/tests—or the entire rest of the economy, because fewer workers will be dead or incapacitated).

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Wendy Cockcroft, 19 Apr 2018 @ 5:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Or maybe just get patents off medicines and medical appliances, etc. Do that. The companies can still make money by making the products. They can even brand them and make out that "Hedicure" is the best headache pill on the market if they really, truly want to. I just don't want them getting in the way of actual advancements in medicines because it might not make them rich enough.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 7:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "That's very pessimistic."

            Maybe - but it is based upon observed events rather than corporate propaganda.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    hij (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 10:47am

    The Free Market will decide the value of life

    The analyst was not thinking it through. The free market will decide the value of that one shot. When you ask parents how much they will pay for the shot that will save their child, the valuation will be high enough that it will make up for the long term payments of longer therapies. See, problem solved! Unless, of course, you are the one with the sick child and just gave up everything for your kid.

    Another advantage of the patent system is that it is not really a free market.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 10:59am

      Re: The Free Market will decide the value of life

      They'll just warehouse the cure until the none cures are unprofitable.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:02am

      Re: The Free Market will decide the value of life

      Courts and insurers also put dollar values on human lives, the numbers being about 2-10 million US dollars each for developed countries. It's not new.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 3:00pm

        Re: Re: The Free Market will decide the value of life

        So they should be slapped with $10 million fees everytime they price something out of reach for patients who die from something, roger that.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:04am

      Re: The Free Market will decide the value of life

      The customer is always right. Big pharma, insurance and healthcare companies are investment companies. It's the investors, not the patients, who are the primary customers.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 19 Apr 2018 @ 5:58am

        Re: Re: The Free Market will decide the value of life

        Where we're going wrong here is that the market should not be the arbiter of who lives or dies. It ought to be our servant, not our master.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    justok (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 10:47am

    idk

    Insurance companies would like to prevent all diseases, illnesses and injuries. They don't want to pay the medical providers. As long as everyone still pays for insurance, they are perfectly happy with people being healthy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 7:58am

      Re: idk

      "they are perfectly happy with people being healthy."

      .. and seemingly they also are happy when you just hurry up and die.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Captain Obvious, 18 Apr 2018 @ 10:53am

    Duh...

    This is not a new revelation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:15am

    simple solution for lifetime cash flow

    simple solution - copyright the DNA "patch" they are giving people and charge a monthly licensing fee for as long as it remains in a person's body (presumably until death).

    Surgical implants can also be licensed rather than sold.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:19am

      Re: simple solution for lifetime cash flow

      Yeah - lol

      Not so simple tho - and would led to many hilarious events.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:22am

      Re: simple solution for lifetime cash flow

      Even better profit initiative: have an end of life for the device inside a person's body. Require a full priced replacement every X number of years.
      Also pay for patches. That bandwidth is not free! Want to patch out that zero-day hole that lets any hacker control your pacemaker? That will be $10,000.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 5:33am

      Re: simple solution for lifetime cash flow

      Funny enough.. they already do that.

      Monsanto routinely sues (and wins) lawsuits against farmers that replant seeds that have been cross contaminated with genetic sequences that Monstanto has patented. They get away with it because they force farmers using their seed to sign "hold harmless" agreements before they can purchase their seed. Basically the one on the hook is the poor farmer that plants Monsanto, DuPont, or Sygenta GMOs thanks to contract law. And good luck buying seed that is NOT genetically modified in certain crops like soybeans and corn. Over half the world's agricultural seed is controlled by those three corporations and they are locked up in GMO patents. The problem with GMOs isn't that they are dangerous to humans. It's that they're patented and those patents are viral. They taint all fields genetically compatible within many miles around.

      There's plenty of artificial gene sequences already patented. Based on already established case laws, it's entirely possible, even if it sounds absurd, that redistributing any patented gene sequences could result in royalty fees. Want to have that child with your genetically altered spouse? That'll be $10k please for the dominant gene replication royalty.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 19 Apr 2018 @ 5:59am

        Re: Re: simple solution for lifetime cash flow

        I'm still not seeing the case for patenting medicines or medical appliances beyond "$$$$$!!!"

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 8:01am

        Re: Re: simple solution for lifetime cash flow

        "There's plenty of artificial gene sequences already patented."

        Oh - well, that makes it ok then

        It's not nice to patent mother nature

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:22am

    "why not find other ways to fund the development of genomic treatments? "

    That. Research into it and let the generics use at will. Also, I think we should have some type of universal healthcare provided by the government but that would be too Communist of me (even if capitalist countries all around have such model in place).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      anon a mouse that scurries in the dark, 18 Apr 2018 @ 1:27pm

      Re:

      That's Socialist, not Communist. There is a bit of nuance there. Like the US capitalist system is really corporatism.
      Mind I personally think it has devolved into a kleptocracy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Dingledore the Previously Impervious, 19 Apr 2018 @ 2:38am

        Re: Re:

        Socialism vs communism is definitely not best described as "a bit of nuance". They're significantly different.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Wendy Cockcroft, 19 Apr 2018 @ 6:03am

          Re: Re: Re:

          True, but Communists routinely confuse the two.

          You're thinking of the liberal socialism adopted by European governments following the Second World War.

          I don't mind socialism as long as it's of the classically liberal variety, i.e. it allows for and enables private enterprises to flourish. It's when it becomes oppressive to the individual and to society that it's a problem, but that's the same for any philosophy including capitalism.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      The_Jerk, 18 Apr 2018 @ 9:45pm

      Re:

      I honestly think the current healthcare system is unsustainable. Either we go Socialized or start hanging the bastards from lampposts by their 300-dollar belts. Either way time is running out.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:28am

    But there are still diseases whose only treatment is: "do this drug/therapy/lifestyle change and there will be improvement so long as it continues". I doubt we'll cure so many diseases with gene therapy that health difficulties will never exist again.

    It's a pretty disgusting thing for the guy to say, considering these cases will always exist. I shouldn't have been shocked, but eh... that's capitalism to the nth degree for you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:35am

    The cure will cost hundreds of thousands.

    The treatment will cost $500 (or more) a month for the rest of your life.

    Needless to say the healthcare is for the rich.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      NeghVar (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:47am

      Re:

      Collude with medical insurance agencies to make sure the cures are never covered.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 12:36pm

        Re: Re:

        That's counter-productive for insurance agencies. They make money by collecting monthly fees from people. The less they have to pay out in coverage, the more money they make. If one-time cure-all genetic treatment comes out, it would be in their best interest to cover it so that people don't keep claiming insurance payouts for medical expenses. One time payout vs multiple payouts over the insured person's lifetime.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          anon a mouse that scurries in the dark, 18 Apr 2018 @ 1:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          On the surface that would make sense BUT look at how agents and managers get paid as well as the "encouragements" from big pharma. Everyone but the actual person paying the premiums are valued more.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 7:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Agents and managers get paid out of income made by people signing up and paying monthly insurance fees and premiums. This supports my argument, not yours.

            As far as "encouragements" from big pharma, you'll have to be a bit more specific as I don't subscribe to tinfoil-hattery nonsense and insinuations.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2018 @ 7:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              And the health insurance corps do not get a fee or percentage of each and every transaction?

              I find that hard to believe.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2018 @ 9:18am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Why would they? Since the health insurance corps have to PAY OUT for those transactions, not receive money in.

                Do you understand how insurance, of any kind, works?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:49am

    An example, if a lifetime (say 20 years) of drugs cost $100K, wouldn't a one time cure cost about the same? Maybe even more for the convenience?

    What don't people understand about investment chasing return? If I am investing my money, do I want to invest it in something that will generate a lot of money or a little money? What do you choose?

    Why are you surprised that this is the way of the world? If you don't like it, why don't you start your own company in order to cure diseases and make very little money?

    As for gene editing? This could actually cause the end of mankind. "Of course the wolf has wings"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 12:26pm

      Re:

      if a lifetime (say 20 years) of drugs cost $100K, ... wouldn't a one time cure cost about the same?

      If it's patented, and then only until the patent runs out. Of course, if someone has $100K, they might as well buy a round-trip ticket to some country without pharma patents, and save $90K. (Or if you're looking for a scifi plot: spend the $100K to fly into space and manufacture the stuff outside of Earth jurisdiction, just to spite the phama companies.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 12:40pm

      Re:

      As for gene editing? This could actually cause the end of mankind.

      How? Contrary to popular science fiction belief, there are hard limits on how much you can edit genes and DNA. Should we be careful? Yes. Is it going to wipe out all humans in the blink of an eye? Not likely.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    YaTOG, 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:51am

    Want to cure big pharma prices?

    Make it so that Government positions - voted in or assigned by the President, only get what the rest of the country gets.
    Medicare/Medicaid
    Social Security

    Anything above that, has to come out of their salaries, which will be limited to that of the lowest paid Teacher in the country.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 8:09am

      Re: Want to cure big pharma prices?

      This is a god idea that will never be implemented.

      Make them eat their own cooking.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Joel Coehoorn, 18 Apr 2018 @ 12:00pm

    Patents

    The solution to this is, of course, a healthy patent system. Not the system we have now, but one in which drug patents actually expire when they are supposed to, after a reasonable amount of time, and don't get endlessly renewed because of new delivery mechanisms or alternate uses.

    Given such a patent system, the difference in profits between life-time drug treatments and one-time cures is much less pronounced. The drug company can't keep milking the medicine sales for the life of it's patience, because the patient will be able to turn to a low-cost generic.

    What if it's a rare disease where there is no low-cost generic? It's patents to the rescue again. The purpose of the patent system is to make an invention available to the public. Patent examiners that are doing their jobs well should reject patent applications that don't contain sufficient information to reproduce the invention (or drug, in this case). At this point, the inventor can, of course, re-appply, but this time they should include the necessary information.

    When this system functions properly, the cost to create and market generic drugs should be greatly reduced, thus again expanding the field of drugs available via generic markets.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Cowherd, 18 Apr 2018 @ 1:10pm

    Yet another good reason to nationalize medical research.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 2:01pm

      Re:

      But if we nationalize medial research the eeeeevvvvviiiilllll "commies" win!
      What would you rather have: good health and a research program directed by need instead of shareholder profit or the secure knowledge our country is the most awesome because we don't follow others?

      I think the choice is obvious and if you don't agree with me you are a traitor. Also when I am personally and troublingly affected by this horrible program I am planting my (awesome!) flag on, It will still be your traitorous fault for letting the system get this bad.

      /s

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 5:00am

      Re:

      Nationalizing medical research won't "cure" the problem. You'll just have a smaller number of corrupt people making the decisions on what research to conduct.

      At least in the current system there are many different people who can attack problems from many different angles.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2018 @ 7:50am

      Re:

      "Nationalizing" things does not work, history shows this to be true. The other side of that coin, "Privatizing" things does not work. Does the elusive "solution" lie somewhere in between or is there no solution?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Chris ODonnell (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 2:26pm

    "Even better profit initiative: have an end of life for the device inside a person's body. Require a full priced replacement every X number of years. "

    You may have been kidding but this is exactly how insulin pumps work, although they are not internal. Yet. As soon as it's out of warranty (4 years for the new Medtronic pumps) it gets replaced with a new $10,000 model. And in the case of the current generation, a new $10K model that doesn't work as well. Being diabetic with a pump costs about $2000 a month at retail, not counting the pump itself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    trollificus (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 9:00pm

    *sigh* I was going to make a snarky post about the government version of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, where you all can see how government handles everything within your area of expertise so badly and then blindly assume it will handle things you know little of just wonderfully...so I would end up preferring the ministrations of a heartless, investor-funded corporation over the magical treatments of placebos, homeopathic tinctures, ginseng and altruism, handed out by the super-efficient bureaucracy.

    But really, the mortality rate will hover around 100% in either case so...not very funny.

    The comments about a functioning Patent system being the REAL solution for motivating and monetizing medical innovation while also benefiting society are more on point than the "heartless bastards!" outrage posts though.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Peter (profile), 19 Apr 2018 @ 1:20am

    They do have a point ...

    When scientists discovered that Gastritis is caused by the Heliobacter bacteria rather than excessive acid, the $8bn - acid blocker industry fought the obvious cure - a short antibiotics treatment - teeth and nails to continue selling their acid blockers that merely reduced symptoms.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 5:03am

      Re: They do have a point ...

      Exactly how did they fight this "teeth and nail"?

      I've never had difficulty getting a doctor to prescribe an antibiotic when my stomach issues flared up.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Peter (profile), 19 Apr 2018 @ 1:24am

    Workarounds available - even if GS has a point

    Gilead took a different approach with Hep B - cure: They calculated the lifetime cost of the alternative interferon treatment ($100 K +), and priced their new drug accordingly.

    While the discussion on the ethics of selling a $50 - Drug for nearly $100 K is ongoing, Gilead shows that money can be made with new one-shot cures.

    And it could be argued that Gilead's approach does encourage investment in drug development and benefits mankind (even if the high prices may be questionable, they will drop sharply when patents expire).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bruce C., 19 Apr 2018 @ 4:52am

    Curing patients...

    may not be a sustainable business model, but it's certainly more sustainable than not curing patients. A dead patient will never be a return customer.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 19 Apr 2018 @ 5:52am

    Get Patents Off Medicines And Medical Appliances, Etc.

    Can we do this now, please? The idea of people who think like that actively working against the public interest to fatten their wallets appalls me.

    We should ban all patents on medicines and medical appliances forthwith and fund it via taxes. That would quickly put a stop to profiteering and guarantee that medicines actually work as intended.

    A girl can dream.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 6:48am

    This is "common law"!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Accountant, 22 Apr 2018 @ 1:48am

    What is implied is even worse: Roundup Ready people. The "one shot cures" may even be freely available once their new business model demonstrates recurring revenue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    elronaldo (profile), 22 Apr 2018 @ 2:13pm

    What about competition

    Sometimes free enterprise does accidentally obtain and when this happens, the competitor who provides the cure can obtain a competitive advantage over the vendor with the inferior product.

    Survival of the fittest.

    But that wouldn't be fair, would it? We need government regulation to make sure that the inferior competitor is not injured by competition. Because... shut up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.