Sorry donut, I seem to be confusing you. I only referred to ‘patent winners’ once, but this is probably not a very accurate turn of phrase, as they certainly aren’t the same as ‘patent holders’, as you agree. I merely meant someone who has been successful in navigating the minefield of patent law and turned their ‘whatever’ into a successful product.

I am wary of history written by these ‘winners’. It is all too easy for any one of them to look back at their own story and say ‘it would never have been able to happen without the patent system’, but how would they know? The patent system was the only one they were able to work under to attract investment, as that is the status quo. The ‘losers’, those who are unsuccessful do not get to have such a high profile as the success stories.

Consider the idea that the patent lens database (http://www.patentlens.net/) has over 80 million DNA and protein sequences disclosed in patents. Considering that one has to show utility to obtain a patent, how many of these potentially useful sequences have been developed into product? A very tiny minority.

Under the current system investment seems to be heavily weighted towards products and medicines that have a high return, not necessarily those that will save the most number of lives or have the best societal outcomes. This is why we have high investments in statins and erection drugs and not so much in anti-malarials. The continent that is suffering the most is Africa, with HIV drugs being unaffordable and people dying because of patent rights blocking access to cheaper treatment.

The high cost of legals, development and marketing under the current system is used as the justification to keep patents and maintain virtual monopolies on products because the costs are incurred almost entirely by the benefitting company, and thus the rewards are also.

I believe that without the patent system, i.e. under an open access/ source system, the costs of development can be shared more easily. More products would be able to be brought to market, perhaps with lower profit margins, but hopefully greater benefit. Revenue streams will not disappear. I know I am being exceptionally hopeful in this, there is too much investment in the system for it to change, but it is merely my opinion. Just because we are doomed to work within the current system does not mean I have to like it or believe it’s the only way.

Although mending the act to prevent researchers being sued is certainly one recommendation I can wholeheartedly support, but it does not alter the current fact that many of them have been operating ‘illegally’ (even if unaware of it), contravening patent laws and could potentially be sued any time they become successful or high profile

this is a case of why do the things that they do
see on sunday we saw a great piece[story]..of love
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/#fop

its called
'the power of love'
currently its on this page
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/

in two parts
[that both seem to have the same link?]
but it will get lost in the noise
thus i give its name and location

why?
because negus did a hit piece
on the same topic last night

but he didnt mention the new german method[trial]
his is the current 'best practice'..that failed [in the power of love]

the hero of the story found a cure for luekemia
after searching the web thousands of times..
using hundreds of friends

[after going the normal route of radition
and tcell that often fails but negass sold as some miracle-cure]
the very next day

in short the other cure
that worked after negass cure failed
and is in danger of being lost in the chatter yet again

anyhow this other [non negass] cure
also has a failure rate..and wasnt memtioned by name
also involved tcells [but maybe not radiation]
but worked..where 'classic medicine'.. only offerd dying

see this is how big medi-sin works
someone finds a cure that works
but the media goes for the propaganda/spin of the old way

not much we can do about it
except if they say
your going to die

dont swallow their spin
record the cure story if you can
while you can..

before someone buys up the patent
and makes the confusion go away

of course this is a totally unbiased position and the profit motive is the furthest thing from the author's mind.

Thanks for your comments Bugsy. I don't agree with you but that's fine. If you've had much to do with the stock market or investment, you will know that investors have access to a wide range of technolgies/industries and will choose where to place their money based on the type of returns they are after and the risks. If the risk is too high in one e.g. unpatented biomedical technologies, they will simply put their money in another e.g. resources. I certainly wouldn't put my money into a company with new biomed technology that has no form of protection for the RnD investment made to develop the technology.
As for open source, patents make companies publish their technology. No patents equals no publishing for companies. It's that simple. If Myriad couldn't get patents for their diagnostic tests, they would simply keep it as confidential information so no one would know what they were doing for a lot longer than 20y. You can't reverse engineer it either as you simply send them a blood sample and they just say yes or no to whether you have the relevant BRCA1/2 mutations or not.

As for Shal's comment: do your research. Anna Lavelle is the head of Ausbiotech, an idustry organisation i.e. she would have a set salary and would get no profit as Ausbiotech is a not-for-profit.

donut, I can understand how you think that patents reduce a biotech company's risk. However, in many ways the patenting system increases it. Many a startup have fallen afoul of the legalities involved.

The way the system is currently set up, Research investment is quite a small part of the development process. Marketing is generally far larger.

Myriad may have kept their diagnostic tool secret, but that wouldn't matter. Their diagnostic is already obsolete. The paradigm can change, the perception of risks change when everyone operates under the same system.

To take a (not patent related) example: I have spoken to industry people about scenarios that may involve them incurring extra costs. Of course they say do not want this, especially if it penalises them in a specific way. But if they get told that everyone, including their competitors also incur this cost scenario, then they appear more ok with it. Then it becomes, well if that's what we have to do, we'll do it. It's the uneven playing fields that cannot be tolerated. Open source can improve the science, specific inventions using the open source can still be patented.