Drug Price Increase from $13.50 to $750

[n_huffhines]

The notion that no IP protection will result in the best ideas winning and small triumphing over large ignores the role of capital and risk.

What?

So lack of IP does indeed stifle some because without some incentive for the early risk capital the ideas never become products.

Leaving something alone is not stifling it, it's letting it be.

Is the trade off worth it? That's the source of debate but you can't ignore the trade-off and assume the magic of the market will simply foster all this innovation.

Good question, but since it's intervention into the market place, and it costs tax-payers to regulate and enforce, it's on you to prove that IP protection creates better outcomes.

As an example, the reality is that most "inventions" aren't really patentable. They do not meet the criteria of non-obviousness (the murkiest and highest bar). Under an IP doesn't matter framework investors should still be rushing to these since they could still be first to market but investors don't rush to them primarily because the front-end capital simply doesn't merit the risk if the idea has no protection. Empirical research highly questions the "first mover" advantage of being first to market.

What empirical evidence?

 

[FLVOL_79]

don't get AIDS. non issue.

 

[volinbham]

I don't think you need IP protection for trademark. If someone is trying to pretend to be you, that is fraud. There are laws against that outside of IP protection.

Just to illustrate how beneficial it can be to have the notoriety that comes with being first to market, Google paid something like $3B to acquire Youtube. You don't think Google could have come up with their own patent for video sharing? They wanted the name.

Think about it. If you come up with the cure for a disease, everything you do after that will be noticed. There are so many ways to cash in on innovation.

Eli Whitney didn’t do that well on the cotton gin, and he had a patent. His family made bank on interchangeable parts, no patents.

Let's talk trademark and the value of a name.

You suggest fraud is already a crime. Why would fraud in the case of a business or product name be a crime? A: the name is PROPERTY. Yes, what is being appropriated is the property of a company so fraud in this case IS IP protection. It is the law saying you OWN this name, logo, color scheme, sound, phrase as it pertains to a specific area of business.

Without the notion of IP ownership rights the foundation of fraud here vanishes. Trademark laws are specifically designed to pass a test of "potential to mislead" customers on the origin of a product or service. IOW - trademark law is all about fraud prevention and without the notion of ownership of this IP, fraud doesn't have a foundation.

So let's take the Youtube example. The name and brand of Youtube is valuable because of the IP protection. If Google could have copied it exactly and called it Youtube why wouldn't they do that?

So let's go on to the first mover advantage and the "notoriety" of being first. That part of the advantage is grounded in IP protection of the brand. Take away that and the notoriety portion goes away since I could copy you and call my product the same thing.

If you want to argue that's fraud then you have to go back to what is being "stolen" which takes you back to IP in the form of Trademark.

 

[volinbham]

What?



Leaving something alone is not stifling it, it's letting it be.



Good question, but since it's intervention into the market place, and it costs tax-payers to regulate and enforce, it's on you to prove that IP protection creates better outcomes.



What empirical evidence?

Get access to a database of research articles (library) and search first mover advantage - you'll find plenty of research that shows that it is largely a myth. It happens sometimes and other times the later companies have the advantage.

Part of what supports first mover advantage in this research is IP positions either in the form of patents or trademark/brand.

As for the leaving it alone isn't stifling it the same would be true for current patent ideas - nothing is stopping you now from coming up with all the ideas in the world and leaving them be. In either scenario it is the translation of the idea into a product/service/business that takes the heavy lifting and in both worlds (IP and no IP) there are challenges. In an IP world freedom to operate is a greater legal challenge whereas in a non-IP world risk capital is a greater challenge.

 

[n_huffhines]

Get access to a database of research articles (library) and search first mover advantage - you'll find plenty of research that shows that it is largely a myth. It happens sometimes and other times the later companies have the advantage.

Part of what supports first mover advantage in this research is IP positions either in the form of patents or trademark/brand.

I don't really have time for people throwing paragraph after paragraph at me today about topics we've already discussed to impasse. You can't just say, "go look at research". It seems what you are arguing is in dispute. I am hardly arguing that being first to market is always an advantage, but it is definitely always an incentive.

"But for every academic study proving that first-mover advantages exist, there is a study proving they do not."

https://hbr.org/2005/04/the-half-truth-of-first-mover-advantage

As for the leaving it alone isn't stifling it the same would be true for current patent ideas - nothing is stopping you now from coming up with all the ideas in the world and leaving them be. In either scenario it is the translation of the idea into a product/service/business that takes the heavy lifting and in both worlds (IP and no IP) there are challenges. In an IP world freedom to operate is a greater legal challenge whereas in a non-IP world risk capital is a greater challenge.

Cool, we got into semantics for no good reason (mostly my fault) but you're wrong.

 

[therealUT]

Anybody see this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...se-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html?_r=0




Also, this Shkreli character seems rather shady...



What say you? Good business or unethical capitalism?

Problem with trademarks and intellectual property rights. He's exploiting a bad system.

 

[n_huffhines]

Let's talk trademark and the value of a name.

You suggest fraud is already a crime. Why would fraud in the case of a business or product name be a crime? A: the name is PROPERTY. Yes, what is being appropriated is the property of a company so fraud in this case IS IP protection. It is the law saying you OWN this name, logo, color scheme, sound, phrase as it pertains to a specific area of business.

Well forget about the business you are pretending to be, you are deceiving the consumer. On those grounds, it is unwanted fraud. We can leave the original business entirely out of it and see that it is a crime.

 

[volinbham]

I don't really have time for people throwing paragraph after paragraph at me today about topics we've already discussed to impasse. You can't just say, "go look at research". It seems what you are arguing is in dispute. I am hardly arguing that being first to market is always an advantage, but it is definitely always an incentive.

"But for every academic study proving that first-mover advantages exist, there is a study proving they do not."

https://hbr.org/2005/04/the-half-truth-of-first-mover-advantage



Cool, we got into semantics for no good reason (mostly my fault) but you're wrong.

I'd suggest you look deeper into first mover advantage and when it is such - hint, IP is a primary source of FMA.

Not sure what I'm wrong about but no reason ideas that are just going to sit are being stifled now.

Nothing stifling ideas now.

 

[volinbham]

Well forget about the business you are pretending to be, you are deceiving the consumer. On those grounds, it is unwanted fraud. We can leave the original business entirely out of it and see that it is a crime.

Why is it a crime?

If I call my video sharing business Youtube - what is the crime?

this is a legal restraint on trade based in recognition of the value of a name or identity. Hardly free market

 

[n_huffhines]

I'd suggest you look deeper into first mover advantage and when it is such - hint, IP is a primary source of FMA.

Not sure what I'm wrong about but no reason ideas that are just going to sit are being stifled now.

Nothing stifling ideas now.

There is plenty stifling of ideas. It's not easy to navigate the patent process. Patent trolls abuse the system and hurt good ideas, etc.

First to market doesn't actually have to be an advantage for no IP to work. It just has to be an incentive. I highly doubt you are arguing it's not an incentive.

 

[n_huffhines]

Why is it a crime?

If I call my video sharing business Youtube - what is the crime?

this is a legal restraint on trade based in recognition of the value of a name or identity. Hardly free market

Are you serious? I just talked about this. Fraud is a crime outside of the marketplace, so why wouldn't it be a crime in the marketplace? That's akin to saying stealing is fine, because free market. You can't defraud people, whether it's for money or for marriage, or whatever. It makes you liable in court.

 

[volinbham]

There is plenty stifling of ideas. It's not easy to navigate the patent process. Patent trolls abuse the system and hurt good ideas, etc.

First to market doesn't actually have to be an advantage for no IP to work. It just has to be an incentive. I highly doubt you are arguing it's not an incentive.

1. You don't have to patent if you don't want to so why bother navigating it?
2. Patent trolls can be solved without throwing out the entire concept of IP.
3. Incentive for what? Risk capital? The question is whether FMA is a sufficient incentive when IP protections for the FM are non-existent.

You seem to ignore that IP laws have an incentive effect too. The question is where is the tradeoff point.

 

[volinbham]

Are you serious? I just talked about this. Fraud is a crime outside of the marketplace, so why wouldn't it be a crime in the marketplace? That's akin to saying stealing is fine, because free market. You can't defraud people, whether it's for money or for marriage, or whatever. It makes you liable in court.

Why is it a crime? What is the underlying foundation?

I'd argue it is the recognition of ownership of identity - it is a property right issue in part.

If you don't look at why it's a problem you have the equivalent of it's a crime because it's a crime.

Even if you took away trademark IP rules you'd still have them in effect via fraud rules (as you conceive them) so it's a moot point.

Copyright infringement = fraud since you are misrepresenting ownership/authorship

Trademark infringement = fraud since you are misrepresenting your identity.

So is it just patents you have a problem with?

 

[n_huffhines]

1. You don't have to patent if you don't want to so why bother navigating it?

And this is why I'm over this discussion. We're not getting anywhere. I already explained ITT that if you don't patent your idea, someone else can and then they can sue you. You are an idiot if you don't get a patent.

2. Patent trolls can be solved without throwing out the entire concept of IP.

Good luck with that

3. Incentive for what? Risk capital? The question is whether FMA is a sufficient incentive when IP protections for the FM are non-existent.

You seem to ignore that IP laws have an incentive effect too. The question is where is the tradeoff point.

Why do you think I ignore that? I have maintained from the beginning there is a tradeoff....

 

[n_huffhines]

Why is it a crime? What is the underlying foundation?

I'd argue it is the recognition of ownership of identity - it is a property right issue in part.

If you don't look at why it's a problem you have the equivalent of it's a crime because it's a crime.

Even if you took away trademark IP rules you'd still have them in effect via fraud rules (as you conceive them) so it's a moot point.

Copyright infringement = fraud since you are misrepresenting ownership/authorship

Trademark infringement = fraud since you are misrepresenting your identity.

So is it just patents you have a problem with?

I don't agree with your line of reasoning, so I don't arrive at the same conclusion. You cannot lie about who you are to deceive people you interact with for personal gain. The fact that it has anything to do with IP in this case doesn't matter.

Marriage is legal, but defrauding someone into marrying you is not legal.

Using others IP would be legal, but defrauding someone into buying from you is not legal.

 

[volinbham]

And this is why I'm over this discussion. We're not getting anywhere. I already explained ITT that if you don't patent your idea, someone else can and then they can sue you. You are an idiot if you don't get a patent.

I'm thinking you don't understand how patenting works. The scenario above is highly unlikely and that is not what patent trolls are doing.

One more time - as soon as you go public with your idea (could be telling people at a public meeting, writing an article, putting an ad in the paper, etc.) all ability to obtain a patent anywhere but in the US are gone - bye bye.

Further, anyone who wants to get a patent on your idea just to sue you (which is unlikely given your limited resources) would have exactly 1 year to do so AND they would have to show inventorship which would be difficult since you already came forward with information to the public documenting it was your idea. A patent examiner would see this a mile away and unless the evil other company fabricates inventor notes (a crime) the would not be awarded said patent and not have any grounds to sue you.

Your worries are vastly overstated.

As said above, patent trolling is largely a different phenomenon where by the work you are doing is ALREADY covered by existing patents that may be held with no intent of commercialization.

So a solution to patent trolling would be to adopt rules similar to trademark rules that indicate evidence of use of the IP in order to continue the legal protection.

 

[volinbham]

I don't agree with your line of reasoning, so I don't arrive at the same conclusion. You cannot lie about who you are to deceive people you interact with for personal gain. The fact that it has anything to do with IP in this case doesn't matter.

Marriage is legal, but defrauding someone into marrying you is not legal.

Using others IP would be legal, but defrauding someone into buying from you is not legal.

The foundation is recognition that creations of the mind (name, logos, colors, etc.) have value and thus are property.

How could I use someone's trademark without "defrauding" customers?

In your example you are still supporting copyright and trademark law with the possible exception that you should be able to get someone's creation for free so long as you don't sell it?

 

[vols4sure]

And this is why I'm over this discussion. We're not getting anywhere. I already explained ITT that if you don't patent your idea, someone else can and then they can sue you. You are an idiot if you don't get a patent.

You clearly don't understand the patent system and refuse to listen to people that tell you the above is unequivocally wrong. You CANNOT patent something that has already been made publicly known even if it was never patented. There is also a "prior use" defense to patent infringement if you kept the invention secret (this usually involves a process someone decided to keep as a trade secret instead of applying for patent protection on) and someone later patented it.

 

[OldandStillaVol]

The CEO, Shrekeli, has done this before. He trolls for companies making an old drug and are the only manufacturer. He buys the company and jacks up the price. He also refuses to provide the drug to other companies who want to do the necessary generic studies showing bioequivalence of their drug with the marketed drug. So, he makes it extremely difficult for competition to enter the market.

The reason there are drugs with only one manufacturer is that it is expensive to stay in compliance with manufacturing standards and large companies aren't going to do that for drugs they can't make profit on.

The US needs to figure out a way that generic drugs always have more than one manufacturer. Even without jerks like Shrekeli, it is dangerous to rely on a single manufacturer. If they have a fire at the manufacturing plant, your drug supply is gone and people die.

 

[volinbham]

The CEO, Shrekeli, has done this before. He trolls for companies making an old drug and are the only manufacturer. He buys the company and jacks up the price. He also refuses to provide the drug to other companies who want to do the necessary generic studies showing bioequivalence of their drug with the marketed drug. So, he makes it extremely difficult for competition to enter the market.

The reason there are drugs with only one manufacturer is that it is expensive to stay in compliance with manufacturing standards and large companies aren't going to do that for drugs they can't make profit on.

The US needs to figure out a way that generic drugs always have more than one manufacturer. Even without jerks like Shrekeli, it is dangerous to rely on a single manufacturer. If they have a fire at the manufacturing plant, your drug supply is gone and people die.

I agree with most of this but it's not like there are no substitutes for this particular drug.

I'll dig up the article but it did a pretty good job of explaining why the price increase was really not an issue for the small # of people who take the drug.

yes the guy is d-bag but this particular story got outrage ahead of some pertinent facts

 

[OldandStillaVol]

I agree with most of this but it's not like there are no substitutes for this particular drug.

I'll dig up the article but it did a pretty good job of explaining why the price increase was really not an issue for the small # of people who take the drug.

yes the guy is d-bag but this particular story got outrage ahead of some pertinent facts

I've actually had some previous experience with this guy at his old company, Retrophin. We got an NIH grant to study intranasal oxytocin in a rare disease, Prader-Willi Syndrome. His company made the formulation. At the last minute, he pulled the plug on the drug supply because he couldn't control the dissemination of the results. We fortunately got a European company to supply drug and placebo at cost but it delayed the study over a year. He's a piece of work.

 

[volinbham]

I've actually had some previous experience with this guy at his old company, Retrophin. We got an NIH grant to study intranasal oxytocin in a rare disease, Prader-Willi Syndrome. His company made the formulation. At the last minute, he pulled the plug on the drug supply because he couldn't control the dissemination of the results. We fortunately got a European company to supply drug and placebo at cost but it delayed the study over a year. He's a piece of work.

Sounds like it - sounds like he tried to pressure the FDA in the past so he could short particular companies.

 

[Biopsyman]

The CEO, Shrekeli, has done this before. He trolls for companies making an old drug and are the only manufacturer. He buys the company and jacks up the price. He also refuses to provide the drug to other companies who want to do the necessary generic studies showing bioequivalence of their drug with the marketed drug. So, he makes it extremely difficult for competition to enter the market.

The reason there are drugs with only one manufacturer is that it is expensive to stay in compliance with manufacturing standards and large companies aren't going to do that for drugs they can't make profit on.

The US needs to figure out a way that generic drugs always have more than one manufacturer. Even without jerks like Shrekeli, it is dangerous to rely on a single manufacturer. If they have a fire at the manufacturing plant, your drug supply is gone and people die.

The Goverment also gives exclusive right to orphan drugs so someone will manufacture the compound and perhaps make a profit

 

[OldandStillaVol]

The Goverment also gives exclusive right to orphan drugs so someone will manufacture the compound and perhaps make a profit

All new drugs have this exclusivity. Most new drugs have multiple manufacturing sites so I'm not as worried about a disaster affecting supply. But yes, orphan drugs and some older drugs are at risk.

Drug pricing will be an issue in the next Election.

 

[Biopsyman]

All new drugs have this exclusivity. Most new drugs have multiple manufacturing sites so I'm not as worried about a disaster affecting supply. But yes, orphan drugs and some older drugs are at risk.

Drug pricing will be an issue in the next Election.

Nobody ever mentions how much money is poured into failed compounds that never comes to market due to poor clinical trials..