Patents, Novelty, and Trolls: Crash Course Intellectual Property #4

[@amilahusic6442]

I'm soooo happy Crash Course is covering something that is law-related. Even though its based on the legal system of the US. I find that its great insight for non-american viewers, (like myself), great for comparison.

[@rajavikram247]

Felt the same ✌️ crash course 😍

[@pascal1346]

Thank you for all the Videos "Intellectual Property"

[@jchobbit]

I'm happy to see Stan on these things. You seem like a natural on the camera!

[@TheJaredtheJaredlong]

jchobbit Wait, if Stan's in front of them camera, who's directing?????

[@lordspoice5192]

TheJaredtheJaredlong Mark

[@TheJaredtheJaredlong]

Lord Spoice Who the eff is Mark?

[@lordspoice5192]

TheJaredtheJaredlong He is a camera worker

[@BarbarosaAlexander]

+jchobbit Yep. I'm a Stan Fan, too.

[@KyleKatarnBanthaHerder]

5:54 As an owner of a pet parrot, I can absolutely say that a bird diaper sounds like a wonderful invention that is completely worth the resources needed to issue the patent.

[@crawlinsideasong]

I was amused by the Colbert Report reference at 8:01-8:07. Bravo, Thought Bubble!

[@SangoProductions213]

20 to 25 years? That's not half bad. OK, it's a few years longer than I've been alive, but compared to copyright which is 100+ years *after* the author dies, this seems very much decent.

[@uhohhotdog]

Literature does not provide any service or improve anyone's life. Technology especially medical does and should be made as short as possible.

[@Democlis]

SangoProductions21 with the speed technology advances now-a-days 25 years might as well be 100. i find such broad legislation to be pretty poor since it does not take into account the speed in witch new technologies in certain areas are developed, nor does it protect the people who NEED the said invention to live, like new types of drugs that could potentially save THOUSANDS of people who would already NOT be able to acquire said drugs anyway so should not be considered has the pharmacological industries loosing profit (what profit do they loose if the people being treated would NOT buy their medication anyway?)

[@SangoProductions213]

***** yes. I know how long it was originally. It still doesn't make 20 years seem unreasonable.

[@Roxor128]

SangoProductions21 I don't think the author's life should come into it at all. A fixed amount of time would be much easier to deal with. You see something say (c) 2010, you'd immediately be able to work out when you could do what you like with it without having to look up how old the author was when it was made and guess at how much longer they can be expected to live.

[@SangoProductions213]

***** exactly

[@16bitreview]

We need a 8-ball viewer when Stan shakes it

[@xiaohuahu]

Or he needs a patent for a machine for putting the icing on a cake so he could earn more money than he did in the crash course economics video.

[@SchiferlED]

Idea for improving patent law: Instead of giving monopoly rights to the inventor, government should simply pay the inventor for the rights and then release the patent to the public. Inventors have a direct incentive to come up with new stuff, and the public gets the full benefit (which they are paying for with tax money). Having monopoly rights for such a long time period does not make sense with the current rate of technological advancement. This is of course a band-aid to make patent law work with capitalism. Fixing capitalism itself would be a much better solution long-term.

[@FengkieJunis-97]

SchiferlED We should copyright your idea! and also patent design it.

[@nuttynathan]

Stan, Mark, CrashCourse as a whole!-- this series is awesome! Keep it up!

[@theseamusexperience]

After crash course finishes it's youtube run, it would make a great online university

[@JazSimone]

I'm amazed at how engaging you are.

[@Dronebertios_World]

PRESCOTT PHARMACEUTICALS OMG!!! The thought bubble animators ROCK!

[@rachelpoulos]

This is my favorite crash course, and I love them all!

[@wiggumesquilax9480]

So patent trolls are vulnerable to ketchup? *Puts fire away, begrudgingly.

[@MaskinJunior]

As an innovator I think patents are making my job harder. Because how some patents have been approved for things that is not in production, it is very difficult to make sure no part of the new innovation infringes on a existing patent. It is also werry expensive to file for a patent. My company keep my innovation secret instead because we cant afford patenting it.

[@psrdirector]

MaskinJunior how would you improve it? the alternatives is all innovations are kept secret if they want to make a profit

[@MaskinJunior]

psrdirector In this day and age that may be better, because now I cant use a bright idea I came up with just because someone else has pattend it when he came up with it years ago. And there is no good way of researching pattented solutions to make them useful. There are simply put too many innovations it is hard to keep track of them all, so pattents are now an obstacle beccause you need to avoid them.

[@psrdirector]

well then your bright idea not to bright or orginal. if its a good idea, license it from the person with the patent or wait for it to expire. or think of a new better solution

[@MaskinJunior]

psrdirector I think it is brilliant. It costs a few dollars, and saves us a shift of machining, which in turn makes one of the machines in our machine-shop obsolete so we can replace it with one more modern. (We need to have it for this only operation, and it is the only machine that can do that because it is old and don't have all those safety features newer machines has. But as I said in the earlier post. It is expensive to pattern, impossible to notice if someone is infringing on the pattern so we just keep it secret and hope someone else don't pattern it and find a way to notice we are doing it.

[@psrdirector]

from that vauge description doesnt even sound patentable

[@Creepzza]

The Merchant Marine-picture xD Also I love the roasting of that ball.

[@zaram3134]

Take breaths when you talk. It makes for better hosting and sounds a lot more pleasant to listen to! From the perspective of the audience

[@charleshanson9467]

The recent Hague Treaty for international filing of design IP protections actually extends US Design Patent protection to 15 years starting with applications filed on or after May 13, 2015.

[@tomc.1935]

I like that Colbert Report reference in the Prescott Pharmaceuticals sign!

[@quinnleavitt4105]

I really think you guys should make a crash course engineering series! That'd be really awesome.

[@Itzcoalt9]

I love these new series

[@TheVlog]

PRESCOTT PHARMACEUTICALS! ( 8:03 ) I miss Colbert so much...

[@EugeneHerbsman]

I didn't even know these existed on crash course! Stan, you're awesome.

[@PAPASHABURST]

Thank you so much. CC is really a "blitz" of crucial information!

[@sion8]

Is that a Colber Report reference (8:00) I see?

[@halfxue]

Thanks, man! I needed this crash course! Love you guys! Keep up the great work!

Patenting is something very important for big visionaries!

[@Viv8ldi]

Can you do a video only on patent troll, I did not quite understand what they are doing and why they are doing it

[@pandapandimonium]

I actually just recently learned about plant patents for my micropropagation course

[@CraftyVidProductions]

I loved this video as always. When does episode 5 come out? I was just wondering because it's been a week.

[@daddidit123kory7]

At 1.33-1.34 Stan says “diverse parts” but it reads “divers parts”.....tis’ all. Thanks for all that you do Crash Course DFTBA!!!

[@bradensmith1240]

I have a few questions about patents. I have an idea for a patent. But it's the combination of two things that are already made but not working in the way I think they should be. I can prove that they work with math and through photos. Do I need to make the new product in order to file and obtain a patent? Or is it enough to just show how it works and prove that it can work?

[@gonzooznog8986]

Braden Smith Show the new combination And its Result being An New combination Of Two Innovations in to A new Invention, Provitional Patent it And Do "Constructive Reduction To Practice "plus Actual "Reduction to practice"

[@justincallahan2234]

So recently I competed in a county science fair in which I successfully designed an apparatus and method to cleaning out bacteria from water without the fancy reverse osmosis mechanism. I have tested my apparatus and tend to test it much, much more over the summer. But I wondered if I could possibly patent this? The design is relatively simple and the closest patent design to my apparatus is the Hoffman apparatus for the use of electrolysis on liquids in a chemistry lab. My purpose is obviously different and the design is quite different also. I had planned to work on a patentable explanation and research notes but the last few seconds of this video made me think again. If this water treatment apparatus could be useful, will I still be able to patent it regardless?

[@gonzooznog8986]

Justin Callahan get it Patent Pending Status!

[@kartman568]

prescott pharmaceuticals ahh... I miss the colbert report

[@Patent-Lawyer]

Stan - great video, but you made a mistake. Design patents last for 14 years from the DATE OF ISSUE, not the date of filing! I'm a patent attorney and it set off an alarm when I came across that. Source: PatentLawNY.com ; MPEP 1505, and 35 CFR 173 which states, "Patents for designs shall be granted for the term of fourteen years from the date of grant."

[@Patent-Lawyer]

Michael Feigin I also want to mention ... utility patents used to be 17 years from the date of issue but people would 'game' the system and make what was called "submarine patents." They wouldn't be published and they would just file continuation after continuation and amend the claims ... then when the market was right (which could be 20+ years after filing) they'd get the patent issued and go after everyone ... or, they'd have one patent issue and file continuations with more patents forever. There are still patents stemming from pre-1995 when the law was changed. A guy who invented a semi-conductor in the 1970s tried to argue in 2014 (coincidentally when his prior patents expired) that the patent office never responding to one of his continuing patents and so it was still valid and should now be issued would would allow him yet another 17 year term to sue everyone making a semiconductor. In theory, that would have worked. For some reason, when the law was changed from '17 years from date of issue' to '20 years from date of filing' (with patent term extension for undue delays on the part of the patent office which would cause you to get less than the 17 year effective term), they did not change the law for design patents. My guess is it was just forgotten or not really an issue since design patents are so much narrower and examined faster, but you could theoretically still game the system to get longer term for a design patent. ... If you need a guest speaker, I've got some videos on my website as samples ... for a patent attorney, I'm charismatic. :)

[@seann2769]

Michael Feigin pretty sweet stuff! I'll check it out for sure

[@h10134h10134]

Michael Feigin ohhh talk patent to me:)

[@Patent-Lawyer]

Heidi JB :)

[@ericpa06]

Will you guys talk about trade secrets?

[@Ganzo90]

The patent for drugs are from the date they were invented or from the date the are FDA aproved?

[@bluewales73]

So, If my idea is more valuable as a secret than as a patent, am I allowed to not patent it and not disclose my design? Is there any legal protection for a production secret that I don't want to disclose?

[@neeneko]

bluewales73 That would fall under 'trade secret' laws. The protections only really kick in when the source of someone else's work can be traced back to the secret holder. Independent discovery is not prohibited.

[@kouhaisempai4800]

bluewales73 I believe that's called a 'trade secret' and the legal protection associated with it is that you have to actively protect the secret. In other words, if you go around telling your friends about your secret, than it's no longer secret, and you have no protection. You can't apply for a patent, either, because a patent requires full disclosure of the information. If, however, you have tight security on the secret and only tell those who have a need to know and have those people sign NDAs, then you may have legal grounds to go after a spy who manages to get a hold of the secret. That's probably not a perfect explanation, but I think that's the idea. I don't think trade secrets, by their nature, have very extensive protection beyond the security a company places around them. For reference, an example of a trade secret would be Coca-Cola's recipe.

[@4Nn1E]

Was pretty clear and concise to me xD

[@pyrotheevilplatypus]

3:54 What if your creation is so ingenious that no peers exist (at the point of patenting) that can explain it and verify its usefulness? I know this is largely hypothetical, but we have a few pretty damned profound geniuses out there.

[@Betta66]

8:01 The sign on the building says "Prescott Pharmaceuticals," which was a fake company Stephen Colbert featured in medical segments on his show. So if it's made up, does that mean it can still be copyrighted? If it already is, then this series has suddenly become a lot more meta.

[@omukubi]

Interesting information. I enjoyed it to the end

[@neneklampir6664]

So, what are the differences between copyright and patent? I mean an novel technology could be considered as an art too right? What about new guitar or piano? Do they count as a patent or copyright? And I think it is ridicilous when copyright are far more longer and easier to registered than the patent.

[@Grizabeebles]

In the broad sense, almost *every* trade is an "art". Mechanics, Chemistry, writing, landscaping, acting - all *arts* (Fun fact, if you record a third-grade play on your phone, you are violating copyright for the play, the set dressers, the composer of any music, the musicians playing it, the costumers, and the individual performances [by commission] of each and every actor including your own little Jimmy playing the tree in the back.) Think of *copyright* as "performances and records thereof" and *patents* as "lists of instructions for building and operating tools". You can thank Disney for super-long copyright times. When that mouse finally goes Public Domain, they are going to take a real hit in the merchandising. Personally, I think a period of "lifetime + 20 years" is plenty. It covers the author and any potential widows and orphans if the author dies young. Longer than that skews to corporate interests.

[@damienbower8199]

A patent focuses on the design aspects of the product, and how the inventor came to that conclusion. Copyright focuses on the manner in which ideas and opinions are expressed. The defining feature is if the product is a "manner of manufacture" or has some useful utility. In the eye of the law art, historically lacked this element.

[@bomanijarvis1864]

Great Video!!!

[@andy4an]

Are you going to do an episode on fashion? Fashion is pretty interesting due to the large range coping that is allowed.

[@benaaronmusic]

Thanks for the video on patents, Crash Course!

[@IAMCHIDERA]

If you patent something in country A can someone from country B still make your invention independently since you didn’t file for patentcy?

[@mjk506]

Am I missing something here, this is the 3rd video but is labeled as IP video #4? Love the series and keep up the great work!

[@Jatleby]

mjk506 It is actually the 4th video: 1 - Introduction to Intellectual Property 2 - Copyright Part 1: Basics 3 - Copyright Part 2: Exceptions and Fair Use 4 - Patents, Novelty, and Trolls Thanks for the kind words! - Thought Cafe James

[@Xena9002]

I'm thinking of doing my dissertation on Intellectual Property, only problem is that I don't know anything about this subject except the most basics. Is there any one that has done IP (in the UK) at uni that are the most debated and controversial topics? Thank you if anyone does reply lol

[@Degotelo]

Thank you for this video, I learned a lot.

[@notillustrated]

Excellent video - thanks!

[@TheFireflyGrave]

I wonder if there'll be an episode dedicated to a more thorough examination of the patent troll legislation. It's been pending in congress for a while now.

TheFireflyGrave I don't think so, ClashCourse doesn't go into that many details, that's something you gotta find out for yourself if you want to know it (not trying to be mean though).

[@Dannyphantom240]

so i had an idea for a crash course series, and i called pbs and they fowarded me to voicemail. should i just go on thought cafe's website and see if there's someone i can call there? or should i just ignore myself too?

[@jademaryy]

Really helpful video, thanks!

[@meghandenny6922]

So I'm curious to know if this could be protected. If, as a scientist, I somehow discovered a way to make interdimensional portals. All though the portal abides by nature and the laws of physics, if the portal will only appear if constructed properly, is the portal patentable?

[@johnallardyce4164]

the device could be patented.

[@MisterJadams]

ok so I have an idea, where do i go to see if it already has a patent?

[@AntiMessiah2023]

Are Patents country specific? Will a UK patent be honored in USA or vice versa? If so, do we have a common law to support this?

[@scifugitive2]

AntiMessiah Most large companies, or those that work with overseas companies, file their patent in multiple countries at the same time, to prevent anyone else from patenting their idea in another country. To do this, they have a massive amount of due diligence to do, checking to see if it has been patented somewhere else. But, technically US patents only work in the US. direct quote from Legal Zoom (www.legalzoom.com/articles/does-your-us-patent-trademark-or-copyright-protect-you-overseas): "There is no "international patent" that will protect an invention all over the world. A separate patent must be filed in each country where the patent owner seeks protection. Fortunately, WIPO offers a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application, which simplifies the application process and allows one application to be filed for patent protection in multiple countries. Patent fees and requirements differ significantly by country, so it is advisable to consult a registered patent attorney who is familiar with the intellectual property laws of the specific countries where a patent is sought."

[@KainYusanagi]

Kathryn Davidson Just as there's the Berne Convention for copyright, there's the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property for patents, however.

[@AntiMessiah2023]

Kathryn Davidson Thank You.

[@therongjr]

You know what, Stan? I'm beginning to suspect that the "answers" from the Magic 8-ball are a little too convenient . . . WE DEMAND PROOF!

[@ShivamRawat24]

I have a question. BACKGROUND: The year is 2050 almost every usable water resource has been used and only ocean water is the source of water we have with us. Inventors from whole world are trying to find the most efficient way to convert ocean's water to usable water. Now suppose I found a technique to convert ocean water to drinkable water with an efficiency of 90%. Now if I go to patent this technology while be able to patent it despite of the fact that the whole world need this technology real bad and won't able to survive without this technology. P.S: I know its hypothetical but I wanted to know whether under current laws is this possible.

[@gonzooznog8986]

Shivam Rawat : Sudden death- poisoning

[@pacinpm2]

Copyright length should be reduced to patent length.

[@r.n.g.8587]

I haven't seen a new episode of this in almost 2 weeks. Does that mean it's over? Will the economics series start now?

[@dougamsden6262]

Where do I find help Digitizing a Patent (pending) "Utilities" Software project

[@baddmanaz]

Stan the man

[@an2qzavok]

What about software patents?

[@hhectorlector]

Those 8 ball answers.. Lol..

[@meghanscarlott7029]

CRASH COURSE PHYSICS!!!! I NEED

[@David-ld3ts]

They should make it so that if you have a patent on something, instead of only you being able to make it, anyone could make it, but they would have to give you half the profits.

[@cornellwaters9089]

Thank You 🎓

[@Stretch787]

so how does a company like King get a patent on the word candy?? Would it be a design patent because it is definitely not a utility?

[@DogsBAwesome]

Jacob Staub that would be a trademark and it's only applicable in that field

[@neeneko]

Jacob Staub As others have said, that would be a trademark and not a patent, which is a very different beast. Of the IP types, trademark is probably the sanest and least contentious one, but occasionally a high profile example like King's trademark of Candy and it gets a lot of attention. In general, trademarks are a lot more narrow than people think and are primarily intended to prevent confusion or deception regarding the source of a product. Even companies within the same industry can have identical text trademarked but different representations and not be in conflict with each other. This does not mean companies do not sometimes abuse their trademarks like King did, but the court cases are not nearly as expensive as patent ones and are much easier to fight.

[@wiggumesquilax9480]

Jacob Staub Because the person who agreed to let King have that trademark is a fucking idiot.

[@Stretch787]

whoops got the two mixed up. It was really early haha

[@kennethcedricalcazar2364]

whats the 4th requirement for utility patent?

[@LonganLee]

Can you explain how much is detailed disclosure with respect to hiding the secret sauce?

[@isaacwinterfeld102]

Does anyone know where I can find the citations for the information in this video?

[@meetsorathiya4163]

Best video really useful

[@rideroundandstuff]

Did you guys fortget to grade the material? Looks a little dull and lacks contrast.

[@rideroundandstuff]

Horst Wrabetz and yellow

[@Bram06]

Nice shoes

[@niaschim]

Okay... but what if I use vacuum decay and apply it to the fabric of space in a specific manner so as to alter the existing laws of physics according to a well thought out critical design? Wouldn't THOSE new laws of physics be my invention?

[@amunatum7771]

Everything should be free on the Internet.

[@gonzooznog8986]

Amun Atum :Yes Indeed We Need Free Stuff!

[@ACMorell]

Correction - design patents filed before 5/13/15 have a term of 14 years from issuance (NOT filing). Design applications filed after 5/13/15 have terms 15 years from issuance.

[@conejeitor]

Thank you for your videos, they are great. I have a question: In the case of that gene you mentioned that predicts cancer. I guess the company ended pattenting something that sais like "any detection method that use that gene to predict cancer". I have seen that in several patents in google, but they are definitly not describing the detection method itself. They might describe one method, but they cannot describe detection methods that will be invented in the future of course. However, if someone is to develop a new detection method for this gene, does he has to pay royalties to the company that patented in such an ambiguous and ubiquotous way? As I said, several patents say things like that in order to give a big "umbrella" to the company that made the discovery. I wonder if that is correct, meaning that it can be considered in court. Thanks for the answer! great show!

[@neeneko]

Pablo C In theory at least, if someone develops a mechanically unique method of detecting the same genes then they would not have to pay any royalties since knowledge of the gene itself can not be patented.

[@PinkThorn242]

Don't Apple's design patents include things as ubiquitous as the square, the rectangle, the concept of the rounded corner and the concept of the screen bezel?

[@laharl2k]

***** well if you take into account people have patented emoticons and numbers these days. One could say the patents system is pretty broken right now.

[@AdamHede]

***** No, it's a bit of a media fuzz. There are solid arguments that Apples patents are too broad, but they don't own the concept of the rounded corner except for some extremely specific corner roundings in some extreme specific contexts. Again, still arguably disgusting that such a thing is even possible, but Apple can't sue brick-house makers.

[@Xandros999]

So the advantadge of patents is public disclosure, but I'm not quite sure what's explicitly good about this since the the inventor holds sole rights. Can someone clear this up for me?

[@UninstallingWindows]

If i patent a device in Europe....can it be produced and sold in USA without my concent? Cant it be produced in USA and sold in Europe ?

[@dustinlloyd3783]

This concept of patenting innovative things that have great benefit and utility for the commonwealth is not conducive (contradicting actually) to sharing and spreading this great benefit and utility to a given commonwealth to its full-potential, instead it is restricting the adoption of these benefits and/or utilities to achieve a benefit other than the one conceived for society. Let us not confuse honor for financial compensation and legal entitlement. Patenting innovative items goes against what innovation is by saying synonymously "I stand for change; except the changing of my change" How can one truly deliver innovation to society if this innovation brought to society cannot be further innovated by society until a monopoly has grown? Innovation should very well be innovative itself. Creators of new product deserve acknowledgement for their work to the highest degree, yet legal entitlement should not be the means of acknowledgement for the sake of creating (innovating) further for the benefit of society.

[@bg_moro]

what about IP episode 3? are we missing something, Stan ?

[@alimrahman5154]

Divers parts?

[@jamzfive]

Alim Rahman google the longer phrase "more such men come to us every day from divers parts", and you can find the book they've quoted from. The original source used the archaic spelling "divers". they've got this one correct.

[@jesusaraneta4988]

So shouldn't 'patent trolls' be voided from their claiming money for the patents they own? Since the whole point of the patent law, from the start, is to encourage science and development.??

[@RobertAllenroballen2]

You do good. Holding my interest. Thanks-roballen2

[@catarinavieirabraga]

I think saying isolating DNA is not worth a patent is absurd. Should ask the person who said the HOW to comes from nature to do it themselves, then.

[@tsyko9736]

Could someone explain how Patent Trolls work? It doesn't seem to make much sense, the way Stan explained it(no offense, Stan.).

[@gonzooznog8986]

we Must Develop An Asumption Of ownership= perception Of Interest

[@gonzooznog8986]

Percetion Of Ownersship

[@elchippe]

I can bet money that most patents do not meet those 5 requirements.

[@crazygermn]

He He, prescott pharmaceuticals. I miss the Report now....

[@KFoxxxy]

Prescott Pharmaceuticals!?

[@JCozzyphotos]

it is simple. if someone holds more than 4 patents and has not developed at least one of them in the last 5 years. then they cannot enforce the patent restriction on another inventer

[@pizzajona]

Prescott Pharmaceuticals. Terence to Colbert. Nice.

[@skulldyvan]

Well to be fair to the Venitians' high opinion of their city, none of them ever went to New York. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Venetian pizza is quite good as well.

[@InteractiveSunny]

1:33 'Diverse'

[@LetsTakeWalk]

Goddamnit, patenting plants (thus life) is much older then I thought. Should never been allowed.

[@LetsTakeWalk]

Diana Peña Is the subject an living being that is being patented? Then there is a patent on life.

[@Watsongab123]

DoggySpew I think you are missing the point. Any of the plant patents aren't grown from natural seeds and are produced only by man asexually. It is organic but it isn't something that can just happen without human intervention. So, no, it isn't a patent on life.

[@ProbablyNotARobot]

I wonder if we'll have patented breeds of human clones in the future. That would be so cool, in a dystopian cyberpunk future kind of way.

[@laharl2k]

***** well those dogs coulds certainly not last long in nature without human intervention and some have been "man made" so to say..... *runs to the patents office*

[@VietNguyen-dp2ym]

My friend said an idea can be patented. ...... I try ro explain the implications if that...

[@KilgoreTroutAsf]

Big pharma and electronics are really bad examples of how patents should work. More often than not 95% of the innovation and R&D in these fields has already been carried out by the public sector, and patents only allow big corporations to make an enormous amount of profit off their minimal contribution to the final product and its marketing,

[@lockdown58]

Kilgore Trout That isn't true. While some ground level research is often completed in the public sector, there are still large hurdles that require large companies to surpass. Take intel processors for example, they often work with some basic levels of physics, but that isn't the same as claiming that the public sector has developed a way to make consistently performing 14nm chips. In the case that it was something public like that, why on earth couldn't AMD also complete this task? For another example in the pharmaceutical industry, lets pretend there's a theoretical drug that treats blood pressure. Lets idealize it (already there are almost no drugs directly produced by the public sector) and say that it requires no further development and the manufacturing process is efficient and easily scale-able. Even then a pharmaceutical company would require up to 10 years of clinical trials, and then years of marketing, in hopes that it even turns a profit. This process alone costs tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only is this never the case (often it also requires hundreds of millions to develop from a base level research), the public sector lacks the ability to make these a reality anyway. This isn't to say that a lot of innovation, especially for pharmeceuticals, doesn't come from the public sector in the form of universities, but in terms of the way academia alone is set up, the public sector could not fully develop a drug.

[@KilgoreTroutAsf]

lockdown58 Take the Intel example. Anything from the transistor to the integrated circuits, to the major components of a microprocessor design such as ALUs, caches and control units, to the physical processes used to make the chip such of photolitography, chemical vapor deposition, EVERYTHING came from the public sector. The 14nm process is just an engineering problem of how to make it cheap enough, nothing truly innovative there. Single molecule transistors have already been demonstrated in fundamental research labs,

[@lockdown58]

Kilgore Trout That isn't true. There's literally no other production of 14nm chips on the planet, public or private. If there were, intel wouldn't be crushing every other company consistently in terms of performance. While individual groundwork can be completed by the public sector, it's simply false to imply that this means that the whole patent came from the public sector. The relationship for the most part between public and private, is that public sector kinda gets to dick around trying various cool different things and pushing the field forward. The private sector then takes these discoveries, develops them much further with more depth, and makes them into a usable product. There is no case in which a public division creates something, and it's simply patented by the private sector. Were that the case, the public sector would patent things as they once did as was the case with public seeds or different inventions. The fact of the matter is, that current academic setting does not provide the funding or incentive to develop ideas into consumer products in any capacity. TL;DR Even if different sections of public research developed some pieces of technology, it's a lack of understanding to imply that they completely created the product that is then patented.

[@KainYusanagi]

lockdown58 Drugs that cost less than a dollar to manufacture per dose should never cost several hundred dollars per dose. Plain and simple. That's the problem with Big Pharma- the executives that run the business are more concerned about lining their pockets than about saving lives.

[@lockdown58]

***** The manufacture process is never the whole story though. It also requires years of clinical trials employing very expensive professionals and running a very specialized, expensive, small scale manufacturing run of the drug in question. It's nice to say "medical advancements should be sold at cost," but it takes at least 10 years from start to finish. Even if the company is just 10 people at minimum wage working a standard 40 hour week, that's still 2 million dollars that has to be recuperated someway. That's a hyper idealistic scenario, it would never work with only 10 people at minimum wage, it would be professionals that make 6 figure salaries (which they likely deserve as they attend a post secondary education in an extremely competitive environment for upwards of 7 years). Even if after all that the drug cost pennies to manufacture (which is incredibly rare), if they sold it so their net profit was only a dollar, they then need to sell 2 million doses just to break even on their development. This doesn't count the cost of advertising, reagent costs, costs of clinical trials or legal fees associated with filing for approval. While that may be reasonable for the very few large drugs that are used broadly that you often see on TV. Those likely could work with this model because they have a wide enough base to take millions if not billions of doses a year. But at that point what about those who have ALS, a fringe cancer, or some other less common disease? What about those? Even at the same margin, even at 20x the margin, that never makes sense from a business standpoint. It also doesn't make sense from a societal standpoint, if we funnel extra money into helping this smaller population, you deprivate others indirectly by preventing the company from then developing more drugs to help others. While in theory yes, drugs shouldn't be sold for much over cost, it doesn't make economic, social, or logical sense if you consider everything involved. Now if we really wanted to fix this, we would develop a public pharmaceutical company that is funded with taxes and then can just develop medications which other companies can then manufacture for this theoretical small profit. The current system doesn't do this though, as grants often will not fund a public project enough to complete the long and expensive process.