[Ip-health] from david Scondras

David Scondras hope at sfac.org
Tue Sep 6 11:50:11 PDT 2011


I Have been thinking over the years of a set of patent modifications 
which ought to be supported by most legislators and which fits within 
the mindsets of the lawmakers and wanted to ask you if others have been 
thinking along similar lines--I would like to run the set by you in the 
slow process of getting it into hands in DC that might ultimately change 
the patent laws in a way which would help us all.

Among the ideas are:

/Money to continue basic research:/

1.  Going along with the stated philosophies of PhRMA and conservative 
thinkers, that all products developed at the NCI, under any NIH grant, 
at the NIH or at any institution which has 'substantial' public support 
( financial ) inclusive of non tax paying institutions of higher 
education, or any process, product, or way of doing things that in the 
private sector would be considered 'patentable' or worthy of a copyright 
etc. have a de facto patent, copyright etc. and that any party using 
such methods, compounds, assays, equipment etc. be required to license 
them from the government and/or various institutions and that any 
patentable end product which receives a patent ( e.g. a new protease 
inhibitor ) be required to pay a portion of any revenues it secures 
through sales to the various parties holding various percents of 
ownership calculated by way of analysis of costs of all of the work it 
took to create the end-product including the basic research necessary to 
produce the end product.  Under this change many products such as AZT 
would have almost all its patent owned by the NCI for example.

Underlying this idea is the concept that the productivity of the 
investments made into basic research can be appropriately rewarded by 
having the public agencies directly receive a portion of the financial 
successes of its own intellectual grandchildren so to speak.

/Patents to reflect actual cost of development/:

2. That all patents reflect in terms of time, the cost of the actual 
research NOT the marketing expenditures and market analyzes, so that the 
length of time a patent is granted reflects the amount of energy in the 
form of money and time that actually went into the development of a 
product thus a patent could be for 4 years ( look alike me too drug with 
little improvement over existing drugs ) to 30 years (breakthrough 
therapies that cost hundreds of millions to treat extremely serious 
conditions very hard to treat ) with agreements that price hikes above 
cost of production and actual recapture of documented investment dollars 
dedicated to development not marketing and sales be inversely correlated 
to length of patent (i.e. trade off between length of monopoly and price 
of product: you get to monopolize for a lot longer but you have a price 
ceiling )

/Competition for new uses of old products , improvements in efficiencies 
in production of existing products:/

3. That any product can be copied and no patent violation exists if the 
generic product meeting FDA standards of production and efficacy is 
equivalent to existing patented product and if the company producing the 
generic equivalent gets a license from the patent holder which cannot be 
denied, delayed or conditioned other than to require 30% of the gross 
proceeds accrued to the generic equivalent be paid as licensing fee to 
the patent holder if the product is used for existing label and 5% of 
gross proceeds if the product is being used for indications other than 
those specified on the label(s)of the existing patented product.

There are many other ideas but if you have time to help me know who 
might be working on patent reform ( I am sure there are terrific people 
engaged in this) I would be grateful.

I hope you are doing well!

David Scondras
Search For A Cure
617 913 6189






More information about the Ip-health mailing list