rugmannm: We need patent reform. Grant a provisional patent for research, with say a 10 year life. If the research pans out, grant a full 20 year patent (or 15 or whatever) so the company can make money. We also need reforms to force patent holders to either create a product for market or the patent becomes public domain. That would help prevent abuse from trolls and corporations who buy up patents for competing technologies and shelve them.
Litterbox: Theres no money in a cure for Cancer. However, theres lots to be made in treatment for Cancer.
nosferatublue: Chach: If that is true -- and I highly doubt that it is -- the author of that piece did an abysmal job of telling us why.The author's argument seemed pretty sound to me. Drugs all get a 20 year patent starting from the time of discovery. However, some drugs take a year or two to test, leaving a long time for the drug to be sold exclusively by the company, while some drugs take much longer to test, meaning they are unprofitable for companies to pursue because the company won't be able to market them exclusively long enough for them to be profitable.This could be resolved by adjusting patent duration terms for different types of drugs and their respective testing requirements.
hardinparamedic: give me doughnuts: Preventing it (via a vaccine) would make one or two companies rich beyond their wildest dreams, but there is an industry dedicated to the treatment of cancer patients, and they have no interest in prevention.Name one mechanism, other than prevention of viral infections, that would prevent cancer via a vaccine? I think this is a topic that is far more complex than you seem to know. Part of the pathology of cancer is that it is able to mimic "self" cells, and deactivates cellular signals which would label it as a malignant cell to the immune system, preventing destruction of it's progeny. And it's not even that it hasn't been tried - immunotherapy has been tried over the past six decades. It's that our current technology and understanding of cancer doesn't allow us to target those cells and "flag" them for the immune system.Again. Prevention of, say, breast cancer or lung cancer via a vaccine would be a goldmine. There would be no way to hide it. You'd have the First Infantry Division marching through your lab before you'd be able to hide it.
Chach: If that is true -- and I highly doubt that it is -- the author of that piece did an abysmal job of telling us why.
Outrageous Muff: Right, because a patent laws are holding back vaccines that would make a company hundreds of billions of dollars.
d23: Again, Jonas Salk.Not putting a patent on the polio vaccine was the difference between Salk being a well-off public figure who helped (and continuing to help) the world and a billionaire who helped only those who could pay. Guess which one would be the choice today.
d23: Again, Jonas Salk.
hardinparamedic: You do realize the person that cured any cancer with a safe and effective treatment would be a made man for the rest of their life, right?
give me doughnuts: It isn't the patent system. It's the for-profit medical treatment and pharmaceuticals system.If you want R&D dollars, work on pills that give men boners, regrow hair, or make you thinner.Prevent cancer?! fark that, there's more money in treatment.
give me doughnuts: Prevent cancer?! fark that, there's more money in treatment.
If you like these links, you'll love
More Fark for your buck
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 26 2018 15:45:56
Runtime: 0.257 sec (257 ms)