[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

I understand the R&D costs of drug development, but that really doesn't excuse the infinite patents we see,

What infinite patents? Haven't heard of patents with terms longer than 20 years.

and patenting the genomic code or the process to sequence strands of DNA.

What's so weird about patenting those? Admittedly, calling genomic code an "invention" may be stretching it, depending on how it was obtained.

I mean cost to expense ratio is definitely significantly higher than what the R&D costs are

Not sure what you mean there.

and with the ability to renew patents and extend the shelf life of their drugs they sure as hell don't care about the consumer.

Nobody said they weren't in it for money, but that doesn't answer my question: if you trash all intellectual property law, how do you pay for research? I don't mind if, say, file sharing kills the next Britney Spears before she debuts. I'd rather like for there to be a cure for cancer or AIDS, though. And, as we've already established, pharmaceutical companies are in it for money. No money, no pharmaceutical company.

Just look at Restless Leg Syndrome, apparently the reason this nifty disease was coined was because a diabetic drug instead of lowering blood sugar seemed to calm the legs, and now it's being marketed as a disease that could severely affect your life.

So if people want to fork out the money to get cured of restless leg syndrome, or for an ipad, or PVC figurines of anime characters... so what? And, really, who are you to decide for everyone that Restless Leg Syndrome isn't affecting quality of life and that those who have it should just suck it up when they don't have to?

Let's not even talk about the countless medications that have been found to have adverse side effects that are greater than the benefits their said to bestow. Just look at aspirin regiments, a recent study said that they actually are more likely to cause a heart attack if your taking them after a heart attack.

Yeah, so? It's well known that for any given medicine, different people will react differently. Heck, it's well known that what most people consider food is deadly poison for others. You could ask for even more stringent studies and multiply the costs of R&D by ten, some side effects would still pass through the cracks. How is it even relevant to the question of intellectual property?

If medicine was about curing people and making a profit I would be fine, but most of the expense in Big Pharma's budget actually goes to financing expensive ad campaigns that bombard us in print, television, the internet and even through out trusted physicians. All in the name of selling the next viagra.

So what's your alternative to big pharmaceutical companies? Driving the costs down by allowing small companies to kidnap hobos off the street and try random concoctions on them?

Honestly drugs should not be able to advertise because we as consumers should not be making decisions about our health based on a 30 second ad for lipitor or statins that is meant to appeal to our fears and our desires as consumers and not as patients.

True. Advertising should be highly regulated. But that's not relevant to IP either, and you haven't offered an alternative to patents.

Do you want to go all communist and have the government finance all research? Doesn't seem very practical.