From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Thu Jun 06 2002 - 20:52:02 MDT
In a message dated 6/6/02 11:26:28, SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu writes:
>### I could imagine some objective methods of deciding here. For example,
>you could measure the exact impact of new medication on human health (e.g.
>as expressed in QALYs), as a function of the duration and breadth of patent
>protection.
Yes and no. It's precisely measuring that which is so expensive. The FDA
studies give surprisingly little info on this, even at their great expense.
Some of the cost results from government inefficiency, but no matter how
you slice it, following thousands of people for years or decades in a
randomized
clinical trial is insanely expensive. At some point somebody's got to take
risks.
I also know of no work indicating how much research benefit you obtain from
patents. Patents encourage the patented research, but cost in enforcement,
diversion from non-patentable activities, and restriction to related research.
In the 19th century, 2 countries repealed patents (the Netherlands and
Switzerland);
the Netherlands saw no change in research activity and Switzerland saw an
increase (from thence comes the famed Swiss pharmeceutical and chemical
industries). In principle such work could be done, but I don't think it has.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:38 MST