NYTimes has published a front page article by Duffy Wilson titled “Patent Woes Threaten Drug Firms.” The article begins with a case study of Pfizer whose Lipitor money-stream ($10 billion-per-year) will be severely reduced when its patent expires. Of Course, Pfizer is not alone, the article cites ten blockbuster drugs with patents expiring in 2011 – those ten have a combined annual revenue of over $50 billion. The problem for big-pharma is that their years of record profits have not translated into a replacement line of blockbuster drugs and the drug companies have cut more than 100,000 jobs in the past two years.
Wilson writes “consumers should see a financial benefit as lower-cost generics replace the expensive elite drugs, but may suffer in the long term if companies reduce research and do not produce new drugs that meet the public’s needs.” Already, 75% of prescriptions are to generic drugs, and patented drug prices are under severe pressure from health insurers.
Of course, Pfizer is not an overly sympathetic entity. “In 2009, Pfizer paid the largest criminal fine in the nation’s history as part of a $2.3 billion settlement over marketing drugs for unapproved uses.”
It gets worse here everyday
Ya learn ta live like an animal
In the jungle where we play
If you got a hunger for what you see
You’ll take it eventually
It gets worse here everyday
Ya learn ta live like an animal
In the jungle where we play
If you got a hunger for what you see
You’ll take it eventually
newpatentgirl,
It gets worse here everyday
Ya learn ta live like an animal
In the jungle where we play
If you got a hunger for what you see
You’ll take it eventually
I didnt fave the page, but didnt someone make the argument that patents were like slavery?
Morality is a relativistic term – a nice and fluffy term. It can mean whatev you want it to mean. I am sure that for certain people, slavery was a completely moral concept.
Just like sex with dead presidents…
To an extent, you a right ping. But Lemelson too was right in that all he was doing was using the system in a way that was legal, but at the same time was an abuse.
We dealt, to a degree, with Lemelson. But there are other forms of abuse in the land. Not all of them are coming from NPEs looking for the pot of gold. Some of them come from the VPs licensing who seek to make money from their portfolios, but who do so by charging for the size of the pile, not for use of any particular patent. This motivates increasing the pile by filing on fluff regardless of value. That is the problem. It is an abuse of the patent system.
We can and should debate whether this is legitimate.
“It came off …”
bada boom
You are driven by emotion, aren’t you. If someone were to take pills that I don’t agree with, I would still think the morality embodied in the freedom to worship and speak as you please is of great value. Please, at least try to make some sense.
What’s great about circular arguments in this new thread foramt is the ease of which tapestries are woven.
All the better to carpet bomb you with my dear.
We wanna trust the FTC to be making Patent Policy?
I dont think so.
Iza be pretty sure Ned-O that the (R)ight to so litter be up to the individual to decide.
He done pay the required fees, who be you to say that he dont get his fair shake at examination? There aint no such “You can’t file” guidance, rule or law, now is there?
Rather dictatatorial of ya, isnt’ it?
I personally think the morality embodied in the freedom to worship and speak as you please is of great value.
… until someone starts taking pills you don’t agree with.
Or did I miss something?
the small company has to pay or else
The small company is just as capable of suing the big company in tort as vice versa. Heck, it might even find a lawyer to do it on contingency.
I think we’re blurring the lines between who “can” and who “will” stand up for their rights.
Yes, that’s part of what they mean.
As to “even that much morality,” I personally think the morality embodied in the freedom to worship and speak as you please is of great value.
Yeah, when a small fry accuses a big company of infringement on suspicion only, he can and probably will be sued for committing a tort.
In contrast, when the big company accuses the small company of infringement on suspicion only, the small company has to pay or else – and the VP licensing gets another bonus.
Your racist rant is meaningless. And the completely unrelated remark about infant mortality rates is odd, but it’s nice to see you have some pride in your country.
I was thinking more along the lines of free religion, free speech,
Those parts mean that even though you believe something is immoral, that doesn’t entitle you to stop other people from doing it. Other people get to be free from your religion. Which, unlike patents, is an actual right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Of course, even that much “morality” wasn’t in the Constitution until they got around to amending it.
Please move the goal posts back.
I would, but I can’t remember where you moved them from.
Is this a legitimate business practice?
I don’t consider it legitimate, but I consider it equally illegitimate whether it’s one patent or a thousand.
That’s one example of a moral judgment in the constitution
Indeed it is. Also the part about women not being able to vote. All part of “providence’s” plan for the great white man.
And we’ve come so far! That’s why today we have a white male Republican holding special hearings to highlight the dangers of dark-skinned minorities and other white male Republicans trying to prevent women from obtaining health care. Meanwhile a white terrorist (the most abundant kind here in the US) was just arrested for trying to kill hundreds of people at a Martin Luther King JR parade, and infant mortality rates in the US are among the lowest in the so-called Western world.
That’s one example of a moral judgment in the constitution. However, I was thinking more along the lines of free religion, free speech, no cruel and unusual punishment; you know, things one might argue today.
I do believe morality was involved in the drafting of the constitution
Right. Especially the original bits about slavery.
I, “Did I miss something?” (called DIMS by ping, called doofus by you) never said that.
But I do believe morality was involved in the drafting of the constitution. So one could argue that certain arguments as to constitutionality are arguments ultimately based on morality.
DIMS The rationale for making any law finds its basis in morality.
Actually, the rationale for making any law finds its basis in rationality. That’s why there is a “rational basis” test and not a “moral basis” test. That’s why laws passed based only a community’s “morals” are overturned as unconstitutional when they lack a rational basis.
Never underestimate the idiocy of a repuke.
“can never be”
Please move the goal posts back.
IANAE, what if the big company never shows the startup a single patent the startup is infringing. They simply “assume” that if the startup is in their field, they infringe, and then demand protection money.
Is this a legitimate business practice?
If that is what MM meant, he did not express it such that it would be generally understood as such. I came off as supporting his morals with the argument that it is legal.
I believe that there is a life worth protecting within a woman at some time during the pregnancy (e.g., 1 minute before a full term birth), and that we therefore should restrict access to abortion.
Imposition of one’s moral’s on another is not widely considered immoral. A parent restricts “bad” behavior all the time. I believe theft is immoral. I see a theft. I report the crime, using the law as a tool to impose my morality.
No. This happens all the time with law making.
If you’re saying that law making can never be immoral, we’re going to have a problem here.
“Which imposition of your own morality is itself widely considered immoral”
No. This happens all the time with law making. The rationale for making any law finds its basis in morality. Morality will be imposed. Such is the basis of civilized life and quite the opposite of being considered immoral.
Mastery of, and dominion over, the physical world–that was the single grand utility.
I think this is somewhat of an abuse. Others may disagree.
It certainly creates a strong negotiating position for licensing purposes, but I don’t see why that implies there’s any abuse. If I invent a thousand different functional features for my product, why shouldn’t I have a thousand patents? If someone wants to enter the market after me, why shouldn’t they avoid all of my thousand patents?
Sure, if you make a big pile of patents out of a small pile of inventions, we have a problem. But that’s why we have rules against double patenting.
But it would be nice to get these patent applications into a low priority queue,
Are you kidding? Drug companies love low priority queues. It means they defer their considerable prosecution expenses, and at the end they get years of PTA. Anyway, they’re only swamping their own art unit. None of the guys who examine can openers will notice any difference.
abuse of power that is manefest by any entity that demands protection fees simply because they have a large pile of patents.
If they have a large pile of patents that you’re in danger of infringing, that’s not really abusive. If they sue you on a large number of patents that you’re not infringing, the courts already have the power to penalize them.
No. No. No. That question doesn’t make sense.
And, I’m glad you recognize “A drug is safe if it is safe for the person taking it” was incorrect.
Yeah, sport, the remedy may be elsewhere. Shunt the low priority into their own queue is probably what we can do in the PTO. The abuse of power, if any, is an FTC matter.
he is using legality as his moral compass.
No, he’s telling you that your morality doesn’t apply to anybody else but you, and he’s free to have (and act on) a different morality.
In other words, just because you are against abortion or contraception, that doesn’t mean you can or should restrict anybody else’s access to same. Which imposition of your own morality is itself widely considered immoral.
The combination of limited nesting and the ensuing haphazard placement of comments makiing finding, much less following some of the threads here rather byzantine.
Agreed that we would have to agree that a practice was abusive so that we do not deny access to the governemnt for legitimate purposes. But there are companies who file thousands of patent applications for simply to add to the pile for licensing purposes. It is the size of the pile that intimidates.
I think this is somewhat of an abuse. Others may disagree. But it would be nice to get these patent applications into a low priority queue, or to just hike the fees on system abusers in some fashion.
It might be nice for the FTC or the justice department to look into the matter of abuse of power that is manefest by any entity that demands protection fees simply because they have a large pile of patents.
Thank you. That is my point. Morality is an individual attribute. Some laws are an expression of a sort of net societal morality, not of any particular individual. So when MM counters an expression or morality with one of legality, he is using legality as his moral compass.
“Also, the value of life is based on cell count?”
No, but there are certainly distinctions to be drawn depending on the stage of development. Did you know that millions of human cells inevitably die on the way to naturally fertilizing an embryo? Does that bother you at all?
“Do you equate a new born with amputation, children with liposuction?”
No. Do you equate a newborn with a single diploid cell that happens to have the same DNA as the newborn?
Bonus points: Does it make a difference if that single diploid cell is obtained via liposuction?
“Tell me, when a pregnant woman asks her Doctor if a certain drug is safe, do you think she is thinking only of herself?”
That depends. If she’s talking about the morning after pill, she probably means only herself. If she’s talking about any other drug, she’ll probably phrase it more like “is this drug safe for my unborn child?”, and/or the doctor will understand from the context that she doesn’t want to take any drugs that will harm her unborn child.
“Unless of course, by choice, they are the same thing – wait, isn’t that the point DIMS is making?
“
I don’t know, is the point he’s making that a person can choose to be a corporation?
It sounds more like the point he’s making is that he doesn’t understand the difference.
“One thought: use filing fees to prevent litter. Jack up the filing fees to system abusers so they cannot abuse the system the way they have in the past.”
Bad Idea. Bad bad idea. You will not solve your prupose, but rather you have guaranteed the success of those (wiht money and dominant position) have been aiming to do.
Sport of Kings.
First correction: A company’s only purpose is to make money for its shareholders. Big difference.
Second correction: You paint with too broad a stroke. The concept of corporation was created to limit liability. Separation on its own is not a viable reason.
Also, the value of life is based on cell count? You equate embryo with teeth (a ridiculous belief). Do you equate a new born with amputation, children with liposuction?
“A drug is safe if it is safe for the person taking it.” You are free to use such a definition, but it is not the common one. Tell me, when a pregnant woman asks her Doctor if a certain drug is safe, do you think she is thinking only of herself?
Abundance precludes the need for efficiency.
“Because your money and its money are not the same thing.”
Unless of course, by choice, they are the same thing – wait, isn’t that the point DIMS is making?
For one, the patent office is clogged with patent applications that the owner knows are of low importance and that he does not intend to ever enforce.
I wouldn’t say the owner knows they’re of low importance, any more than you might know a particular lottery ticket won’t win. They all initially have a low but nonzero probability of being important. They are only filed in such large numbers because you can’t always tell at an early stage which one will be a winner. A savvy applicant would also abandon a particular application once it becomes apparent that it will amount to nothing, because they cost money.
But yes, it does clog up the system something fierce. Which might not be that big a deal actually, since drug companies share their own art unit at the PTO and the backlog is actually beneficial to them for a variety of reasons. Besides, the PTO can theoretically hire more people to examine those applications, fully paid for by the applicants’ fees (i.e., at no cost to the public), which creates more jobs that it makes good business sense for Big Pharma to subsidize in this way. Everybody wins.
Jack up the filing fees to system abusers so they cannot abuse the system the way they have in the past.
You’d have to define “abuse” pretty carefully. There’s nothing abusive about filing a large number of applications that are all directed to distinct inventions you’ve actually made, and there’s nothing abusive about changing your mind and dropping the application when the invention doesn’t pan out (a behavior that maintenance fees are designed to encourage, incidentally). You’d essentially be penalizing the most prolific inventors, and then we’d have to start talking about socialism again.
IANAE, okay. Assume that 999 out of a thousand patents are worthless, and that the reason they are filed is because they are useful only to add to a pile of useless patents for licensing purposes or because of the potential reward is so great. Is this a good thing or bad thing?
For one, the patent office is clogged with patent applications that the owner knows are of low importance and that he does not intend to ever enforce. These patents are filed by big companies like – well you know who – who like to add to their pile of patents for licensing purposes, and to have influence in the halls of Congress and the Supreme Court, and to pretend, even if it’s not true, that their company is a technology leader. Not only are these patents worthless and clog the patent office, they typically add nothing to the progress of science and technology.
If we need reform, we should do something about this.
One thought: use filing fees to prevent litter. Jack up the filing fees to system abusers so they cannot abuse the system the way they have in the past.
When you counter an expression of morality with one of legality, you are equating the two.
You’re entitled to your own morals. The issue of legality arises because you want to prevent other people from doing things that you consider immoral but they don’t.
If most patents were worthless, few would be filed.
That’s obviously not true. It’s axiomatically false for patents because most of them are worthless, and it’s not generally characteristic of how people act.
Most lottery tickets are worthless, but many are purchased. Most start-up businesses end up being worthless, but many are created. A big reason for that is that the potential reward is enormous on the non-worthless ones, coupled with limited liability on the losers. The huge potential reward overshadows even the rational economics of the situation, with which we are all familiar.
With drug patents, you have the added motivator that the expectation value of a patent is greater than the cost. Even if most are worthless, doing a lot of research and getting patents on large numbers of drugs will yield an overall profit. That’s what Pfizer is doing. They don’t care if only one in a thousand patents is profitable, so long as it’s profitable enough to pay for the 999 others and a little more besides.
My point was that if you are a Republican, and you believe life begins at conception, you would not consider the morning after pill a “safe” drug. Do you deny that point?
I can’t deny any point of the type “some people believe”, no matter how ridiculous the belief. If you say you believe it, I can’t deny that somebody believes it.
A drug is safe if it is safe for the person taking it. If you define the safety of a drug in terms of its effect on what it’s designed to kill, you wind up with a completely meaningless word.
Even a safety pin is only safe(r) for the person using it. It’s just as likely to pierce the thing you’re sticking the pin through.
And don’t you know Soylent Green is people?
And don’t you know how inefficient carnivores are at feed conversion?
“I understand now. You believe a company is a life form that must be protected as one would protect any citizen.”
Of course I don’t, but a corporation is a separate entity with its own property. It’s as much a separate entity from you as I am, even if you happen to hold all the shares. The whole concept of the corporation was created precisely for the purpose of being a separate entity. Mostly so that if it loses all its money you don’t lose all yours. Because your money and its money are not the same thing.
“You see it as hurting the poor company.”
Is it the anthropomorphism that’s confusing you? I see it as harming the company because it is taking money away from the company. That’s clear enough, isn’t it? Even the market sees it as harming the company, because the market cap of the company decreases when it happens.
A company’s only purpose is to make money. What could possibly be more antithetical to that purpose than giving away lots of money on a quarterly basis to people who give the company nothing in return?
“Which is really strange since when it comes to human life in the form of an embryo, you demonstrate no hesitation in killing it.”
Well, I’ve never killed one. But I’ve done lots of other things that also resulted in the deaths of small quantities of diploid human cells. I’ve been cut, I’ve bled, I’ve had wisdom teeth removed, I’ve probably lost a few hair follicles along the way. I guess I could have been more careful. Yet, even with the utmost care I’d still lose untold numbers of skin cells all the time.
I assure you, bringing your hamburger to the table has a much more meaningful impact on the cow than having an abortion does on an embryo. Not to mention the horrible fate that befalls the lettuce.
“In fact, women in this country have a fundamental right to terminate the “life” of their own embryos”
fundamental right? – um, no.
“If that’s socialism, my dictionary is seriously out of date”
It aint outa date, cause ya morph it to fit your argument de jur.
Crocodile tears and big teeth – dont hide the fact that ya be a crocodile.
I agree, even if I did believe life begins at conception, there would be justifiable abortion. A true life-of-the-mother situation would be one example. As to health of the mother, I believe the bar should be set pretty high. Certainly not the current level where even damage to mental health can qualify. Also, I believe abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, diminished mental capacity, or any other situation where pregnancy was a result of a non-voluntary act.
Oh man, just like the big debate back in grade school. I was winning until Sharon Getty busted out the eye roll. How could I counter that? How could anyone? You got me today Malcolm, but I’ll be back. And I’ll be ready for your awesome physical gestures in response to argument. I’ll eye roll back at you with a dismissive chuckle! Oh yeah, I’ll do it! We’ll see who wins then.
MM: And you forgot birth control pills, generally, which Republicans are working very hard to prevent women from obtaining.
But that isn’t true, so I took it as an expression that Republicans are trying to prevent minors from obtaining birth control drugs. But this is not related to only new birth control drugs, it is related to all birth control drugs. Hence “those aren’t new drugs” is accurate, so I’ll take that bet.
When you counter an expression of morality with one of legality, you are equating the two. You are claiming the law as morality. I stand by my statement as to the source of your morals.
doofus : you forgot birth control pills, generally, which Republicans are working very hard to prevent women from obtaining.
My response now is: Those aren’t new drugs.
You want to bet on that?
I think it’s quaint that you get your morals from the Supreme Court.
My “morals” aren’t “gotten from” anyone or any thing. That’s one of the privileges of being an adult human being. Oops, I just realized: they probably didn’t tell you about that.
Making money isn’t useful. Creating wealth is.
[eye roll]
You’re going to try to get me to buy your book, aren’t you? And let me guess: if I buy it now, I get a free bonus CD of your wildly popular seminar.
Making money isn’t useful. Creating wealth is. Whether it is the most useful art depends on what else you consider an art. Whay don’t you compile a list of the arts, then I’ll answer your question.
Oh, and keep saying teabaggers, it damages you far more than it damages anyone else.
DIMS, even if you believe that life begins at conception, it does not follow that abortion is immoral. After all, killing in self defense is not immoral. Just wars are not immoral.
I hope you would agree with this much, if the it is the life of the mother is in danger, killing the fetus is entirely justified.
If we move from that towards health of the mother, the issues become less clear cut. Ditto, in the grey areas, the less justified the rights of the mother the more justified are the right to life of the fetus. It is a balancing of relative rights. There are no absolutes, nor should there be.
Malcolm, I don’t know where you come out on these issues. But you seem to be an intelligent guy. I hope you are not an absolutist.
Malcolm, “some” Republicans.
ping, pang, pong — how’s Turandot today.
The reason inventors seek patents is for exclusive rights. They want to become rich. But the size of the pile of gold depends on the value of the invention as determined by the market. That’s the structure.
From the public point of view, the public is willing to pay monopoly profits to the patent holder for a time, but only for a time, in exchange for full disclosure of the invention.
Why this system and not a system such as exists in Wilton’s commie-land where inventors are given the order of Lenin and perhaps an inventor award? Because, in truth, patents justify, at times, great expenditures on R&D because the potential reward is enormous. This is mostly true of drug patents.
If most patents were worthless, few would be filed. But, it seems, the executives who invest in them do not see it that way.
MM, earlier you said: And you forgot birth control pills, generally, which Republicans are working very hard to prevent women from obtaining.
My response now is: Those aren’t new drugs. Please try to keep up. I know it’s hard when we venture off your script.
Ok, so you don’t deny it. Good.
I think it’s quaint that you get your morals from the Supreme Court. That’s so much better from getting it from one of those other, sky-daddy-worshiping religions.
DIMS My point was that if you are a Republican, and you believe life begins at conception, you would not consider the morning after pill a “safe” drug. Do you deny that point?
I deny that the imaginary laws handed down by one’s personal sky daddy are relevant grounds to deny a third party access to the drug. Last time I checked, abortion was legal. In fact, women in this country have a fundamental right to terminate the “life” of their own embryos, which have no “rights” to speak of except in the minds of wacky fundies. As everyone knows, embryos are necessarily killed all the time during in vitro fertilization procedures, which doesn’t seem to bother the hypocrites at all.
[Democrats] are denying the new local microbrew to 16 year olds. They are also denying you your marijuana.
Those aren’t new drugs. Please try to keep up. I know it’s hard when we venture off your script.
I understand now. You believe a company is a life form that must be protected as one would protect any citizen.
I see a dividend as a zero sum move where wealth owned by shareholders is transformed from stock value to cash.
You see it as hurting the poor company.
Which is really strange since when it comes to human life in the form of an embryo, you demonstrate no hesitation in killing it.
You have a strange moral code.
Very good MM. That is an excellent example of a poor generalization. Because you say women, but the facts on the ground are that those that do work to restrict access are trying to restrict access by minors without parental consent, not all women as you implied.
Of course, if denial to those underage counts, the Democrats work to deny new safe drugs also. They are denying the new local microbrew to 16 year olds. They are also denying you your marijuana.
But at least you are arguing for wealth creation in the form of new drugs.
Obvioiusly, we agree on a lot more things than I had previously appreciated. We also seem to line up on the same side against the more radical of the left, at least in principle.
BTW, I have been thinking on the issue of claiming beyond what one has invented — I think this might be the real issue in i4i, although I have not studied it in detail. i4i, IIRC, invented a way of storing xml tags in a separate file for independent editing. Microsoft didn’t do it the way i4i described it, but they did provide independent editing. The jury verdict was sustained because of a broad claim construction. It was further sustained under the DOE.
So when the likes of MS complain the PO is issuing large numbers of invalid patents, I think they really mean, at least in part, that the PO is issuing patents with broad claims on narrow disclosures that literally encompass subject matter not invented by the applicant.
This, I agree, is a problem.
You are right, Cipro isn’t safe for bacteria. And almost nobody minds not because of why they take it, but because of what it kills. But can you not even fathom that some people may wish to consider life to begin at a different point in the process than you? My point was that if you are a Republican, and you believe life begins at conception, you would not consider the morning after pill a “safe” drug. Do you deny that point?
And don’t you know Soylent Green is people?
Duh, it’s their company, they own it.
You just wait till companies decide that free speech isn’t enough, and they want rights under the Thirteenth Amendment.
Still, whether they own the company is beside the point. The company is a separate entity. That separate entity is poorer for having given away a large sum of money, and that is in no way mitigated by the fact that someone else received the same sum of money.
Don’t believe me? Try getting that public company you own to declare a large special dividend on its common shares while there’s a huge lawsuit pending against the company. It’s all your money, after all.
Well, that doesn’t seem too safe to the embryo.
Uh … that’s the point of the morning after pill, doofus. So we both agree on that one.
And you forgot birth control pills, generally, which Republicans are working very hard to prevent women from obtaining.
“…for their own personal wealth” Duh, it’s their company, they own it.
Next quarter’s shareholders buy the stock at the post dividend lower price. They are not ripped off.
Since the shareholders own the company, I read your last statement as:
If I give me a gift, no wealth has been created or destroyed, but I am better off and I am worse off. If I (now a corporation) give me a dividend, it’s pretty much the same thing. It makes me poorer, but by making me richer I hope to make myself seem more valuable to me.
That doesn’t make any sense – but it is funny
Do you mean the morning after pill? Well, that doesn’t seem too safe to the embryo.
Cipro isn’t safe to the bacteria who are partying it up inside you. But most people don’t mind, because that’s the very reason they take it.
Hamburgers aren’t safe to the cow either, but again, that’s more or less by design. The consumer doesn’t usually complain about that. If he would complain, he generally plans ahead to not be a consumer.
“Yes, Company A is worth less, but no wealth was created or destroyed. The dip in share price is not a bad thing, it just reflects current value, there was no money lost.”
There was no money lost in the system as a whole, but there was a very noticeable loss in money and value to the company, ostensibly a for-profit legal entity. If you were the company, you would have absolutely no business reason to pay out cash to a person distinct from the company. The only reason it ever happens is because the people who approve the dividends are also shareholders and option holders, and they do it for their own personal wealth.
“Tell me again how bad news for the company is not bad news for the shareholders.”
Because the shareholders now have money that used to belong to the company, and next quarter’s shareholders are implicitly promised the same benefit.
If I give you a gift, no wealth has been created or destroyed, but you are better off and I am worse off. If I (now a corporation) give you a dividend, it’s pretty much the same thing. It makes me poorer, but by making you richer I hope to make myself seem more valuable to you.
“Unfairness” or its corollary “fair” is the most common word used by the socialist. It is a codeword,
It’s not a code word. It’s a perfectly valid word, and it’s used by everyone (not just socialists) to mean all kinds of different things.
We all have a personal concept of fairness. It’s nothing more than the way we think society ought to work. The socialist meaning of the term is a pretty perverse one, I think you’ll agree, since it’s not based on merit and it doesn’t allow people to earn a better lot in life.
When you and others here complain about the size of the drug company profits and whether they should be satisfied says it all.
What I said is that they’re currently very, very profitable (which is exactly how patents are intended to motivate innovation), but they want to be more profitable without doing more to earn it, simply by getting the legal right to charge sick people high prices for medication over a longer period of time. You don’t have to be a socialist to consider that unfair.
Obviously the world needed the likes of the American and French revolutions to break these monopolies on privilege.
It sounds like we agree that the real unfairness is when common people can’t aspire to wealth and privilege, whether it’s because of an entrenched aristocracy or an excessive redistribution that keeps everybody at a common low standard of living.
I want incentives set up so that regular people can and will try to get rich, same as you. I don’t like holding up patent applications for years in exam or re-exam, I don’t like that infringement litigation is so expensive, and I like the doctrine of equivalents.
On the other hand, incentives being what they are, I don’t think patentees should get more than they’ve earned. That means they shouldn’t get claims to what they haven’t invented at the time of filing, they shouldn’t get or keep claims that are invalid over the art, and they shouldn’t get injunctions when money will do.
If that’s socialism, my dictionary is seriously out of date.
Fascinating. Please tell me about the safe new drugs Republicans have worked to deny access to?
Do you mean the morning after pill? Well, that doesn’t seem too safe to the embryo. So it becomes a discussion of what value you place on the embryo itself. However, I am sure you would agree that if you work from the assumption that life begins at conception, the morning after pill does not qualify as “safe.”
You wrote drugs (plural). Are there any safe new drugs Republicans have worked to deny access to that do not have to do with abortion?
DIMS, you missed the “catch-all” argument of the patent teabaggers which is that making money is the most useful art of all!
Isn’t that a great argument?
Thank you for attempting to correct my confusion.
Here we go.
On Monday, company A has a market cap of $1 million and is holding $100,000 in cash. It has 1 million shareholders who each have one share. Each share is worth $1.
On Tuesday the company pays a $.1 per share dividend. They have paid out their $100,000 cash. The share price drops to $.90 to reflect their diminished value, they now have a market cap of $900,000.
On Monday the shareholders each had one share worth $1. On Tuesday they each had one share worth $.90 and one dime. Yes, Company A is worth less, but no wealth was created or destroyed. The dip in share price is not a bad thing, it just reflects current value, there was no money lost.
When you deposit money into a bank, you are providing capital to the bank so that it can lend money to others and in some cases earn a profit In return they pay interest. The stock market is also a capital market. Stocks are how companies raise capital, and in return you get part ownership and possibly dividends. That ownership is freely transferable on the stock market. Whether it is savings or stocks, you are participating in the market for capital.
Your $8 million example is flawed. Before I pay myself the $8 million, I own the $8 million through my ownership of the company. After I pay the $8 million, I own the money directly. That is not wonderful, it’s just different.
When the rent comes due, the company can borrow money from another party, get an extension of credit from the landlord, issue more stock, or claim bankruptcy. If it claims bankruptcy, the value of my ownership (my stock) in the company may suffer, also the creditors will want to take a look at that $8 million bonus I just got paid. Tell me again how bad news for the company is not bad news for the shareholders. Shareholders own the company. Shareholders are the company with the one exception that their investment in it can’t go negative (hence the limited liability).
Providing roads and a military is now socialism essentially because we all share the expense and all receive the same benefits.
It’s not socialism, but it’s the same kind of thing, in that it’s provided for everybody’s benefit and forcibly paid for by the people who can afford to pay.
What I’m trying to make you realize is that you can’t simply say that less government reallocation of resources automatically results in less profits and less freedom. Patents themselves are a government reallocation of resources. The difference is that it’s done in moderation, and with the intention of giving people opportunities to become rich rather than with the intention of making the distribution of wealth completely flat.
Your 100% poverty point is actually not even on the socialism side. If your scale is indeed between 100% even redistribution (socialism) and 100% laissez-faire (freedom), you’d see no poverty on the socialism side (because poverty is a relative measure and requires that someone else be rich). You’d have a very low standard of living on the socialism, of course, but everyone would get some stuff, and there’d be nothing you could describe as poverty. You’d see 100% poverty way at the other end, where everyone has complete freedom and the government doesn’t spend your money on things like police forces and courts. At least under socialism you can expect your fair share of what little there is.
The maximum wealth point is somewhere in the middle, where the government reallocates just the right amount of resources from the wealthy to the collective (army, law enforcement, basic infrastructure, health care maybe) so that regular people can accomplish things, but still allows the wealthy to have a good enough lifestyle that it’s worth aspiring to. If it’s done right, the rich will get richer along with everybody else, and we’ll have all this fancy technology that wouldn’t have been invented otherwise.
We’re both looking for that maximum wealth sweet spot, so quit framing this as an ideological debate.
“Unfairness” or its corollary “fair” is the most common word used by the socialist. It is a codeword, and it has its subtext. For example, I have heard the likes of Albert Gore say that disparities of wealth was “unfair,” that such disparities violated the “social contract.”
Whether such terms were used here exactly is not the point. When you and others here complain about the size of the drug company profits and whether they should be satisfied says it all. You do not need to used the codewords. We understand you.
As to Europe centuries ago, the whole point of government then was to maintain the privileged classes. There was only limited freedom. Obviously the world needed the likes of the American and French revolutions to break these monopolies on privilege. As I said before, I probably would have been on the side of the French revolution circa 1789, but would have opposed, probably at the cost of my head, the socialists and communists that ended up in control circa 1792. Napoleon was a necessary remedy for THAT sickness.
A worthless generalizaion (assigning the desire to deny access to safe new drugs to all Republicans)
Can you recall a safe new drug that Democratic politicians have worked to deny access to? I can’t.
ping, I agree that IANAE defends socialism by redefining it in an unexpected way. Providing roads and a military is now socialism essentially because we all share the expense and all receive the same benefits. Perhaps he is right, though, as in the Roman Republic, a proconsul could raise his own army and could keep the booty. Socializing the military expenses and rewards was, in some sense, an improvement as it was less risky to the overthrow of the state by ambitious generals.
You are one seriously confused individual.
“my stock dips in value to reflect the now diminished value of the company due to it having less cash.”
I know very well what happens when a stock goes ex-dividend. That dip is your first clue that paying out the dividend is bad for the company, and that Pfizer’s interests might not exactly align with your own interests as a shareholder of Pfizer.
“I take it form your statement that your bank doesn’t pay interest, or if it does, you refuse to accept it.”
Why wouldn’t I accept interest? It’s all part of the terms of my loan to the bank. As interest accrues, that becomes my money too. It’s income that I’ve personally generated by wisely (?) lending my own personal money to the bank.
A corporation is a completely separate entity from its owners. Even a “small business” corporation with a single guy running it is separate from its owner. A public company is even more so. As a shareholder you don’t work for the company, manage it, or contribute to it in any way. Even the money you paid for the shares almost certainly never finds its way to the company. You’re free to sell your shares on the open market at any time, after which point you really couldn’t care less what becomes of that company. So naturally, you’d rather have cash in your hand today than the prospect of a more successful company ten years down the road. But you can’t deny that giving away money is a bad business move.
Suppose you own all the shares of your very own corporation with $8 million in the bank. You decide one day to pay yourself an $8 million bonus. That’s wonderful for you personally, but it’s bad news for the corporation when next month’s rent comes due. Because the company is not the shareholder.
I’ll try again.
If I own a share of a company, it represents a percentage of the value of that company. The value of that company includes it cash holdings. When the company pays me a dividend, I get cash, but my stock dips in value to reflect the now diminished value of the company due to it having less cash. It’s a zero sum game (until the tax man comes). Look at a stock chart, you can see the effects of the ex-dividend dates.
I take it form your statement that your bank doesn’t pay interest, or if it does, you refuse to accept it. after all:
“Your interest isn’t the money you deposited, or anything you contributed to the bank in any way. It’s money the bank has accumulated through its business ventures, that the bank is giving away to a separate entity (you) without receiving anything tangible in return.”
I’m assuming you would also refuse to accept any growth in the value of a share of stock you own or sell your house for more than you paid.
Pfizer IS the shareholders.
“That money was mine all along, and the bank always owed me it whenever I asked for it back.”
As long as we don’t get back in time to when Mikey invented the great depression and the run on the banks wherein everyone went to get their money that belonged to them all along and not did not make the banks a whole heck of a lot more unattractive.
Doh!