Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 2 Nov 2006 21:36 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: [....] > >>>And of course some of these new drugs are just replacements for old one ( where a > >>>patent has expired ) so a to get a new patent on the new ones and keep the prices > >>>high. > >> > >>You obviously don't understand how patent applications work. > > > > > > I understand perfectly. > > If you actually uunderstand then you knew you were lying when you > called new drugs "just replacements for old one." > > You can't get a patent for a new widget that's simply a replacement > for an old one. Where did you get that silly idea? At least two of my patents are for a "widget" that replaces an older "widget". To get a patent, you don't need to prove that it is better. You only need to prove that it is different and works. In actual fact you don't even need to prove that it works anymore. The US patent office no longer requires a working model or any such solid physical proof.
From: JoeBloe on 2 Nov 2006 21:40 On 2 Nov 2006 18:23:32 -0800, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> Gave us: >He is right. The new drug can't be the exact same chemical as the old >one... Bullshit. Patents get RENEWED BEFORE they expire.
From: unsettled on 2 Nov 2006 21:45 MooseFET wrote: > unsettled wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > > [....] > >>>>>And of course some of these new drugs are just replacements for old one ( where a >>>>>patent has expired ) so a to get a new patent on the new ones and keep the prices >>>>>high. >>>> >>>>You obviously don't understand how patent applications work. >>> >>> >>>I understand perfectly. >> >>If you actually uunderstand then you knew you were lying when you >>called new drugs "just replacements for old one." >> >>You can't get a patent for a new widget that's simply a replacement >>for an old one. > > > Where did you get that silly idea? At least two of my patents are for > a "widget" that replaces an older "widget". To get a patent, you don't > need to prove that it is better. You only need to prove that it is > different and works. You're right. It has to be different. So the new one doesn't simply clone the action of an earlier medicine. That's the point of this discussion. In actual fact you don't even need to prove that > it works anymore. The US patent office no longer requires a working > model or any such solid physical proof.
From: MooseFET on 2 Nov 2006 21:47 JoeBloe wrote: > On 2 Nov 2006 18:23:32 -0800, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> Gave us: > > >He is right. The new drug can't be the exact same chemical as the old > >one... > > Bullshit. Patents get RENEWED BEFORE they expire. He was correct in what he said and you were wrong when you said that he was incorrect. He did not say anything about renewing the patent on an existing drug. He wrote correctly on the subject of patents on new drugs. You are just trying to change the subject because you have been shown to be wrong.
From: MooseFET on 2 Nov 2006 21:49
unsettled wrote: > MooseFET wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > > >>Eeyore wrote: > > > > [....] > > > >>>>>And of course some of these new drugs are just replacements for old one ( where a > >>>>>patent has expired ) so a to get a new patent on the new ones and keep the prices > >>>>>high. > >>>> > >>>>You obviously don't understand how patent applications work. > >>> > >>> > >>>I understand perfectly. > >> > >>If you actually uunderstand then you knew you were lying when you > >>called new drugs "just replacements for old one." > >> > >>You can't get a patent for a new widget that's simply a replacement > >>for an old one. > > > > > > Where did you get that silly idea? At least two of my patents are for > > a "widget" that replaces an older "widget". To get a patent, you don't > > need to prove that it is better. You only need to prove that it is > > different and works. > > You're right. It has to be different. So the new one doesn't > simply clone the action of an earlier medicine. That's the > point of this discussion. That is not correct either. The action can be identical and the chemical different and still get a patent. > > In actual fact you don't even need to prove that > > it works anymore. The US patent office no longer requires a working > > model or any such solid physical proof. |