Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 07:23:40 -0800
Fri, 24 Dec 2004 07:23:40 -0800
on Fri, Dec 24, 2004 at 01:13:02PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull (stephen@xemacs.org) wrote:
> >>>>> "kms" == Karsten M Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> 
>     kms> Yes, but if it's open, *then* any arbitrary team of expert
>     kms> professionals  can  look at it.
> 
> Assuming "it" exists.  In the case of software, there's strong
> evidence there will be something to review there, although there
> remain issues of quality.  In the case of drugs, it seems very likely
> there will be nothing to review.  (Even if the FDA were abolished.)

Pardon?

Open peer review != banning pharmaceutical patents.

It does imply that testing or testing data be available to multiple
entities, preferably with at least independent, if not non, biases.

I believe the remainder of your post is a non sequitur.


There's the side issue of much basic pharmaceutical research (an area
with which I have a passing familiarity) being done either at
publicly-funded research institutions, or by independent development
labs, these later being hired or bought outright by the major Pharma
players.  Pharma itself is largely in the business of marketing existing
products (not an inconsiderable or deprecated activity of itself),
rather less so independent research.  I've been involved in several
projects whose major objective was extending an existing drug's
indications rather than safety & efficacy of new compounds.


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]