Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 04:43 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. They still eventually expire. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 04:46 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. Typical painkillers have the following actions. Anti-inflammatory Anti-pyretic Analgesic. You'd be amazed how many patents exist for nmedicines doing just these 3 things. They all have the same 'action'. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 04:58 unsettled wrote: > MooseFET wrote: > > > That is not correct either. The action can be identical and the > > chemical different and still get a patent. > > Can be does not mean it is. Chemicals are funny that way. Check out NSAIDs. Graham
From: Ben Newsam on 3 Nov 2006 04:04 On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:13:36 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:40570$454a2bd8$4fe71d7$24986(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:d38ed$454a0d9f$49ecfab$24139(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... <...> >>>>>>claim "there have been many flights...", you better supply data on it, >>>>>>otherwise you're being hoodwinked by the very same thing you chastise >>>>>>other people for--seeing only the evidence they want to see. >>>>> >>>>>Bwahahahaha. Trying to create a hard science where there is none? >>>> >>>>Hey, I wasn't the one that made the unsupportable claim, based on a few >>>>anecdotes. >>> >>>BS, you do it constantly. >> >> Cite three examples, please. > >Just read your article just prior to this one, and the >two following it. They're full of unsupportable claims >coming from you, most of them made-up by you to >promote your anti-American views. And just what is anti-American about the above? Oh, I expect that means you're American.
From: Ben Newsam on 3 Nov 2006 04:20
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:51:10 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Eeyore wrote: >> unsettled wrote: >>>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. I suspect that you don't understand the real world of patent applications, for instance where a large corporation will hedge an existing patent with ifs and buts hidden in "new" patents so that the original patent holder has to pay the large corporation royalties instead of the other way around. Also, you would do well to google on "additional patents", and marvel at the number of hits that refer to drug companies. |