Everyone's Got A Pet Project: Patent Maximalist Says We Need Longer Patents To Incentivize Coronavirus Vaccines

from the oh-shut-the-fuck-up dept

Adam Mossoff is one of the most vocal IP maximalist law professors around. He's never seemed to have met a form of artificial monopoly that he didn't want to expand. His latest is that he's claiming, laughably, that we should be extending patent terms in order to incentivize the creation of coronavirus vaccines. His argument is based on a misleading complaint that has been raised by plenty of pharmaceutical companies: they need to file their patent applications at the point of discovery, but they can't market a drug until it receives FDA approval, and that can take years, which cuts into the years over which they hold a monopoly and can extract insane monopoly rents.

Mossoff says that now is the time to revisit that and to roll back the law that made it so the clock started so early, and to enable patent extensions to incentivize drug makers to create a coronavirus vaccine.

Congress can easily fix this mistake in innovation policy. It can enact legislation that reverses the changes made in 1993 and increases the patent term extensions. Instead of attacking patents, Congress should pass legislation providing more protections. It is an easy fix that will save countless more lives from cancer, diabetes, and viruses like the coronavirus.

This is utter nonsense on so many different levels. It assumes -- incorrectly, though a core to all of Mossoff's thinking -- that the ridiculous monopoly profits are the only thing that incentivize creation. Given that tons of companies are already researching coronavirus cures, knowing full well that the reason to do so is to save millions of lives and that governments will easily pay handsomely for such a vaccine, it's difficult to say with a straight face that these companies need more monopoly rents to work on these kinds of solutions.

Even more to the point, there's an obvious fundamental flaw in Mossoff's reasoning. A patent only goes to those who get there first. Every one else trying to create the same drug still has the same capital expenditure upfront to try to develop the drugs or technologies -- but can get blocked by whoever gets to the PTO first. If we take Mossoff's simplistic model that only if a company is guaranteed monopoly rents will they invest in the first place, his own model breaks down, because so many players will invest heavily and get nothing in return, because they were a day or week late.

It seems that a much better model is the way most of the economy works: if you build a good product people and companies and governments pay you for the product, and you don't need the government to step in and say no one can compete with you for two decades (or more, if Mossoff got his way).

Especially at a time when we see patent-related price gauging around COVID-19, all the evidence suggests we should be moving in the other direction -- opening up the ability for more companies to innovate and compete in a free market. Indeed, if Mossoff actually wanted real incentives that also compensates drug developers, you'd think he'd be much more supportive of the innovation prize approach, that basically gives a ton of cash over to those who develop breakthrough drugs in a prize format, but then still allow the drugs to be offered to those who need them at a reasonable price. Then you actually have people who can afford the drugs to stay healthy, rather than just acting as a siphon to drain people's bank accounts to pay off pharma companies who bought most of the research off of smaller labs who did the actual work with government funding in the first place.

Filed Under: adam mossoff, coronavirus, economics, incentives, patent terms, patents, vaccines


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 8:20am

    Vaccine vs cure markets

    To some degree it may depend upon what the research labs are looking into. If it is a cure, the market life of the drug is probably shorter than the 20 year life of a patent. That is, a lot of 'cures' may be executed to take care of those that are currently infected or get infected before the spread trends down. After that there won't be much demand for the drug, unless a new outbreak takes place.

    On the other hand, if it is a vaccine and we decide that it is something that should be a part of standard vaccination processes (like measles for example) forever, it would certainly have a longer market life than the patent, and eligible for generic production in the future.

    Then there is the problem of migration. This is one disease and it appears to have possibly mutated from related diseases. If that is the case, we can certainly expect it to mutate again, and therefore need both new cures and new vaccines. Research done on this strain may or may not be applicable to research on new strains, but if information gathered now helps out in the future, then that information might give someone a leg up on the next problem, and offer that group the advantage when a new patent is appropriate.

    Thing is, it is the particular molecules that deserve the patents, and those molecules might be very close in structure, but not delivery or manufacturing systems. While many will argue that delivery or manufacturing systems may be worthy of patent protection, they also create issues for getting to the next cure or vaccine, where delivery or manufacturing systems won't help anyone, but a new molecule will. As Mike points out, there a lots of labs doing research, but only one will win the patent race, and additional roadblocks would not benefit those infected, or those susceptible. Society needs to assert that the medical benefit is the priority, rather than profit.

    I would also like to point out a fallacy in Massoff's thinking. There has been discussion of fast tracking anything beneficial through the FDA's approval process. Now, exactly what that means may have significant differences between rhetoric and execution, but it certainly sounds like a reduction in time between a patent filing and approval. I guess, that isn't enough incentive for Massoff.

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

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2020 @ 9:32am

    I find his greed to be offensive.

    Imagine if the medical professionals who developed the polio vaccine had been greedy assholes like this guy.

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

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2020 @ 9:33am

    The longer a patent, the longer it is before anybody else can run with the ideas it protects, and so a patent can and will delay the development of derivative technologies, except anything developed by the patent holder.

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

  4. icon
    Cdaragorn (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 10:13am

    Re: Vaccine vs cure markets

    You're using those words wrong.

    There is no such thing as a "cure" for a disease that does what you're implying (makes it impossible for the person to ever get that disease again).

    The only thing that has ever "cured" any disease in a way that we now consider it ALMOST impossible for anyone to ever get it IS vaccines. So your attempt to separate those two ideas is a complete failure.

    Now to what you called a "fallacy". Ya that's not what that word means either. You're pointing out a fact he didn't address in his reasoning. That's not a fallacy. That's just another point that might be worth considering.

    Reducing the time required to get the vaccine approved isn't relevant when you're talking about an argument to remove all possible patent related concerns regarding the time required to get that approval in the first place. He's already addressed anything that needs to be relating to that additional point.

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

  5. identicon
    Rekrul, 23 Mar 2020 @ 10:16am

    Price controls wouldn't be necessary if the pharmaceutical industry hadn't proven itself to be a bunch of greedy vultures who care more about profits than people's live.

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

  6. icon
    GHB (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 10:23am

    Just no.

    Look at copyright law, it is extended beyond necessity, and the people behind this are maximalists that not only are greedy, they also abused it and even in some cases used it in illegal purposes like fraudulent takedowns on youtube (there are penalties for submitting false takedowns under section 512 of the DMCA). At the same time, many works remain in copyright when their authors are no longer supporting or even enforcing them in the future (abandonware video games, for example), which makes this pointless for them to be in-copyright.

    Already there are patent trolls (example: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/how-patent-sorting-photos-got-used-sue-free-software-group ).

    How can we trust that these IP law changes are used in good faith?

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

  7. icon
    GHB (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 10:29am

    Re: Just no.

    Plus, you can manuelly extend this for your own work. In the past, copyright had this too, where you manuelly extend them if you want your work to be extended. It shouldn't be automatic for these to remain protected even when the holder “abandons” their work.

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

  8. icon
    wereisjessicahyde (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 10:31am

    The 3rd sentence of his own piece reads...

    "Biotech companies are racing to develop these vital drugs at record speed with massive investments of time and money"

    ... so it's pretty clear not even he believes his bullshit.

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

  9. identicon
    Guy, 23 Mar 2020 @ 10:44am

    Already long enough

    The vaccines are expected to clear clinical trials 12-18 months after work began, so under current rules they'll be well inside patent during the mass vaccination campaigns.

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

  10. icon
    Bloof (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 10:47am

    Because the eternal patents some companies seem to have found ways to obtain over products like insulin has really driven research into diabetes. Big Pharma are pumping trillions into finding a cure and not just spending as little as they can working on getting a slightly different, only marginally better version of their current product they can patent and churn out once the patent on the current version expires, while piggybacking on publicly funded research when it comes to actual innovation... Oh wait.

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

  11. icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: Vaccine vs cure markets

    "Definition of vaccine
    : a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease

    Definition of cure
    2a: recovery or relief from a disease
    Her cure was complete.
    b: something (such as a drug or treatment) that cures a disease
    Quinine is a cure for malaria.

    Definition of fallacy
    1a: a false or mistaken idea

    Definitions found at Miriam Webster

    I was using these definitions. Given them, I was not wrong in my usage, though we might quibble about whether ignoring facts is a false or mistaken idea rather than a point missed. We might consider that as a law professor and cheerleader for extended monopolies his income might depend upon his position.

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

  12. icon
    Dan (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 10:59am

    Irony...

    I find this particularly ironic since those patient scambags tried to halt the production of virus tests.

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

  13. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 11:49am

    What patents shouldn't cover

    IMHO, there are four things patents shouldn't cover

    1. Medicine and medical equipment - because lives and health are at stake
    2. Software - because the rate of innovation means that software usually outlives their usefulness pretty quickly
    3. food, i.e. the DNA for seeds and life itself. We depend on food for our survival, so this is too important to be locked up under monopolies. I don't mind patenting ways of preparing them, such as chicken nuggets or rippin' chicken, but that ends when you patent the chicken itself.

    In some ways, patent maximalism is worse than copyright maximalism.

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

  14. icon
    ECA (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 11:57am

    This dont cover You.

    This would only cover/protect the corps.
    Not the common person who Might come up with a solution, and dont want a Patent.

    I dont want to see a person create/solve the problem, post it on YT, and get it Dropped, stomped on, and Them in court.

    This is a race. For the corps and the independents.

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

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2020 @ 12:32pm

    I'm trying to gauge how vowel migration might cause a gouge in record patent profits.

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

  16. identicon
    CyberKender, 23 Mar 2020 @ 1:32pm

    Translation:

    "We're bleeding money now! How do we screw everyone else over to recoup the profits once this blows over?"

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

  17. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2020 @ 1:33pm

    There is no vaccine possible for the underlying problem. Stem cell therapies weren't researched well enough to heal the nerve damage.

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

  18. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 5:06pm

    You expect in others what you would do yourself

    Gotta love those self-damning arguments, they expose so very many terrible, horrible things about the ones making them.

    If companies wouldn't bother working on treatments for a global pandemic because they faced a chance that it wouldn't be profitable for them then he is essentially arguing that pharma companies quite literally consider money more important than lives, and on the side making a very strong argument that healthcare should not be a for-profit industry.

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

  19. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2020 @ 6:05pm

    Re: You expect in others what you would do yourself

    Perhaps you should try reading his published works, as well as the laws to which he refers, before attempting to sound like you actually know what you are talking about. Start with investigating what happened in 1993 and it’s all too predictable impact on the pharmaceutical industry.

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

  20. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 7:58pm

    Re: Re: You expect in others what you would do yourself

    Sure thing, I'll get right on that after I get through a few papers written by flat earthers and anti-vaxxers, who I'm sure will likewise make much more sense if only I read more about them.

    If the core concepts presented are flawed, then why would someone bother with digging deeper other than to spot equally flawed ideas/arguments?

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

  21. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2020 @ 8:04pm

    You have never exhibited the slightest intellectual curiosity in matters where it is only too clear that you have no substantive experience or knowledge. Thus, your ridiculous response does not come as a surprise.

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

  22. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 10:18pm

    Re:

    And right to the insult, you certainly are predictable.

    Yes, how utterly crazy for me not to fall for the hilariously obvious ploy of 'you're wrong, now go and do my research to prove it', and not caring what someone who bases their arguments on flawed premises says, flaws which were nicely pointed out in the article that I'm guessing you didn't read, though if you did and have responses to the criticism by all means feel free to share.

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

  23. icon
    PaulT (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 10:24pm

    Re: What patents shouldn't cover

    "IMHO, there are four things patents shouldn't cover"

    I don't want to be that guy... but what's point 4?

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

  24. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Mar 2020 @ 11:32pm

    Re:

    An empty ignorant insult is not an argument. I know, I know, it's your stock in trade, but one day, perhaps you'll learn that insulting people who actually did the research, and actually has the "intellectual curiosity" to understand just how damaging your life's work has been... might mean I actually know what the fuck I'm talking about.

    I'm sorry it insults your wrongly held beliefs. And I know how painful it can be to proven wrong again and again and again and again. But, please, try to stop with the silly insults.

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

  25. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2020 @ 5:02am

    Re: Re: What patents shouldn't cover

    1. Everything else.

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

  26. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2020 @ 5:04am

    Re: Re: What patents shouldn't cover

    I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition...

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

  27. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2020 @ 5:16am

    Developing a vaccine? So people will never get the disease? There's no point in that. It makes much more economic sense to develop a drug that keeps patients alive for a few months, but that does not really cure them. Now that's a good business model. </sarcasm>

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

  28. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 24 Mar 2020 @ 5:23am

    Re: Re: What patents shouldn't cover

    what's point 4?

    Sorry, I rolled point #4 and point #3 in point #3: point #3 is seeds for food; point #4 is life, such as microbes and DNA.

    I apologize for not clarifying that.

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

  29. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2020 @ 7:01am

    Re: Re:

    Once more Mikey rushes to the defense of one of his fanboys who, like him, waxes poetic on subjects he knows nothing about.

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

  30. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2020 @ 7:11am

    Re: Re:

    If you had the slightest clue you would immediately realize the import of mentioning 1993. You would likewise readily understand the significance of my now mentioning the changes to continuation practice and pre-issuance publication. But since you will continue in blissful ignorance by refusing to educate yourself on these and other relevant matters, it is impossible to take anything you say seriously.

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

  31. icon
    PaulT (profile), 24 Mar 2020 @ 7:40am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If you had the slightest shred of intellectual honesty, you would be educating people as to why you think it's important, rather than mocking those who haven't yet gathered your superior knowledge. Alas...

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

  32. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2020 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    How's that Perfect 10 defense fund coming along, Slonecker?

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

  33. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Mar 2020 @ 9:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    He's raising "1993" because that's when Congress changed the patent term from when it was granted to when it was applied for. Pharma companies have been whining about this ever since, because they argue that since they have to go through clinical trials and FDA approval, it effectively shortens the length of the patent term.

    If you believe pharma patent troll lawyers like the commenter, they'd tell you that this began the demise of the pharma industry. He's deliberately misleading people. The pharma market has continued to grow, pretty much unabated (some data in this doc: https://intelligencepharma.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/the-global-use-of-medicine-in-2019-and-outloo k-to-2023.pdf ).

    But, hey, he wants to insult all of us who have actually done the fucking research by saying we're not "intellectually curious." Unfortunately for him, some of us actually do know what we're talking about.

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

  34. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2020 @ 10:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I do not represent the interest of pharmaceutical companies. However, I have many colleagues who do represent such interests, and your suggestion that they are being dishonest in
    their expressions of concern about the direction the law has taken is pure, unadulterated bs which you seem fond of passing along to an unsuspecting public unaware of the fact that your mastery of relevant law is virtually nil.

    I get it you are no fan of IP and business tort law and your reasons why. You are entitled to your opinion. However, I do not view with favor things you say that I know from experience are plainly wrong and little more than propaganda served up to your readership.

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

  35. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 24 Mar 2020 @ 10:57am

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

    If what Mike Masnick is saying is "pure, unadulterated bs", please show how it is so. Mr. Masnick substantiated his arguments. You have failed to do so.

    Now I know you're not a lawyer, because any lawyer worth their salt would have provided evidence in a courtroom.

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

  36. icon
    ECA (profile), 24 Mar 2020 @ 3:45pm

    Re: Translation:

    2 ways to take over the market..
    UNDERCUT
    Make a better product.

    Go look at the Stock market prices on Fruits and veggies, and tell me why we are paying 50 times the price farmers get for them.

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

  37. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 24 Mar 2020 @ 4:11pm

    Why be 'just' insanely rich when you can be ludicrously rich?

    Ah but you see, had they not done that then obviously pharma companies would be even more ludicrously profitable, which would have been a great outcome since I'm sure they would have responded to the larger profits by cutting prices to ensure that affordable drugs were available to anyone who needed them, and wouldn't just pocket the difference in yearly bonuses/pay for execs.

    Thanks for putting in the effort of calling their bluff, be nice if at some point they came up with some new tricks beyond 'insult' and 'lie/bluff', but I suppose when reality refutes you honesty is simply not a viable strategy.

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

  38. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Mar 2020 @ 4:54pm

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

    It amazes me that after all these years, it's still easy to figure out who you are the second you put in any comment. You leave pretty obvious tells. Remember the old days when you said who you were. Fun times.

    Anyway... I pointed to evidence. You just left an insult calling it "pure, unadulterated bs" and continued to falsely claim my knowledge of the law is "virtually nil."

    Yet only one of us has backed up our statements with evidence, and it ain't you, skippy.

    Only one of us has a track record in this space, and it ain't you, skippy.

    Only one of us has been directly engaged in debates and discussions with policy makers on this, and it ain't you, skippy.

    You've spent well over a decade here with your snide asides, and knowing nods about how I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about, and every single time you're proven wrong. One day you'd think maybe you'd recognize that no one's buying what you're selling.

    So, again, I've already presented data showing why the whining from the industry is bullshit. You've presented none. You insist I don't understand the law, but provide not a single shred of evidence to that effect. You present not a single statement of mine that you claim is incorrect. You just snipe, and pretend that if you say "1993" no one will call you on it. I did, and you just whined.

    You're a pathetic little man. You may be many years my senior, but maybe one day you'll grow the fuck up.

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

  39. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 24 Mar 2020 @ 9:45pm

    Re:

    Projection. Classic.

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

  40. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2020 @ 4:36am

    Re:

    "Imagine if the medical professionals who developed the polio vaccine had been greedy assholes like this guy."

    No need to guess that hard.
    Estimates say that today 17 million people are walking who would otherwise have been paralyzed due to Polio.
    Smallpox killed more than half a million people each year before it was eradicated. Do the math.

    The actual utility of patents has always been dubious and it's main use appears to always have been as an anticompetitive measure to be applied in lieu of actually having to innovate and cater to customers. Medical patents, in comparison, are beyond the pale, with a cost applied in lives.

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

  41. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2020 @ 4:47am

    Re:

    "...and so a patent can and will delay the development of derivative technologies..."

    Which, when it comes to medical patents, can mean some greed asshole puts a stopper on life-saving research. As when some US asshole company put a stop to all research into the BrC1 gene and it's link to breast cancer for years by tossing out patent claims.

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

  42. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2020 @ 9:02am

    Re: What patents shouldn't cover

    Another reason software patents need to go is because, well, they're basically math.

    It's pretty self-explanatory that it rapidly becomes impossible to optimize any given instruction set if the best possible algorithms to use are under the control of four or five different entities who have no reason at all to relinquish said control.

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

  43. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2020 @ 9:13am

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

    Oh, stop, Bobmail. You aren't fooling anyone.

    I'm not sure which is worse. When you try to look as if you know what you're talking about in convoluted put-downs which imply you are an expert in the subject while not actually providing a single shred of actual fact...or when you lose your shit and devolve into hysteric anti-pirate rants while calling everyone else an asshole for not blindly going with your bullshit.

    One thing is clear though - the obvious tell of you never being able to pull one single accurate fact out of your ass to save your life hasn't changed much in the years we've known you.

    And it's almost hysterically funny that your case of dunning-kruger is so bad you've never managed to pick up on that or fix it. Particularly when you come out swinging on behalf of the "poor ailing" multi-billion, steadily growing industry of Big Pharma.

    As I used to tell you back on Torrentfreak, i sure hope you're getting a few dimes posting shit like that because even the worst of clowns still deserves a nickle or two for making such an embarrassing ass of themselves.

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

  44. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 Mar 2020 @ 9:15am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oh, hey, didn't take too long for Bobmail to revert right back to normal from his pretense of being rational.

    See, Baghdad Bob, there are reasons why we keep recognizing you no matter how many sock puppets you go through while pretending to be that one-man army. Your style is, by now, just that recognizable.

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

  45. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2020 @ 11:08am

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

    Masnick used the opportunity afforded by his article to mock an individual who I know and whose scholarship in no way reflects most of the comments made about him in the article. I came to his defense precisely because the insinuations and mocking accusations made in the article were false.

    In a response Masnick accused me of being a troll for the pharmaceutical industry, and opined that I and other attorneys like me were making false statements in an attempt to deceive others. That, simply put, was complete bs.

    The point being made by Prof. Mossoff was his view that since 1993 pharmaceutical inventions have in many instances had the terms of their associated patents effectively reduced because of the FDA’s approval process. I believe he understates all changes in the law contributing to this. Equally important was the change made to continuation practice, as well as other changes associated with international harmonization. As a consequence of the patent term being effectively reduced over the past couple of decades, pharmaceutical companies have become much more selective in their research and development endeavors, taking a pass on some meritorious projects that in the past would have been pursued. Mossoff’s point, which I believe is a fair one, is that legal disincentives to the broad based pursuit of pharmaceutical research projects are shortsighted. Mocking the individual, as well as casting aspersions at others who espouse views not readily shared by Masnick and Company, was uncalled for.

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

  46. icon
    PaulT (profile), 25 Mar 2020 @ 11:23am

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

    "I came to his defense precisely"

    Poorly. The word you're after is "poorly". You may or not be honest about your personal reasons for responding, but since your response contained nothing but personal attack with no stated reason why anybody reading the response should disbelieve the article's viewpoint, it failed.

    I appreciate that you've now added more context and information, but this was not contained in the original response, hence the reaction to that. Whether or not the other statements against you in Mike original response are true, the fact is that as you opted to respond anonymously and provided no actual counter argument, your comment got the response it deserved.

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

  47. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2020 @ 5:54pm

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

    "Waaaah! I tried to be mean to mean ol' Mike Masnick but he was mean to me! Waaaah!"

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

  48. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 26 Mar 2020 @ 7:35am

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

    "... that I and other attorneys like me were making false statements in an attempt to deceive others."

    You are certainly making false statements. I'll take your claim to being an actual attorney with a ton of salt but should, unlikely as it seems, that actually be the case I can only suggest a career change because you are barely on the level of Richard Liebowitz, going by your arguments around here.

    "The point being made by Prof. Mossoff..."

    Appears to be that an already indefensibly long term of monopolization is being shortened rather than lengthened and this is somehow threatening the poor pharmaceutical companies which are...still being some of the most ridiculously lucrative businesses to be found on any market.

    "As a consequence of the patent term being effectively reduced over the past couple of decades, pharmaceutical companies have become much more selective in their research and development endeavors..."

    Of course they have, ever since they discovered that for all intents and purposes it pays BETTER to let public tax money fund the actual research and then just undertake the "oner" of marketing the drug and claim the patent.

    "Mossoff’s point, which I believe is a fair one, is that legal disincentives to the broad based pursuit of pharmaceutical research projects are shortsighted."

    There may be a point there, actually. Strip pharmaceutical companies of development and patent rights, continue to fund all actual development of pharmaceuticals through tax money, then have the pharmaceuticals bid against each other for the right of marketing the product. They'll be able to trim down to small and agile marketing agencies in NO time.

    "Mocking the individual, as well as casting aspersions at others who espouse views not readily shared by Masnick and Company, was uncalled for."

    No, actually. Anyone claiming the emperor is fully clad while his dingleberries are on full display deserves only mockery.
    But hey, thanks again, Baghdad Bob, for bringing us the current word of the "Astroturfning on the cheap" marketing agencies.

    Now go collect your 50 cents. You've earned it.

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

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.