Hacker News Reader

Comment by danmaz74 | Hacker News Reader

I'm all against "obvious" patents, but suing to be free to produce a product because it "also doesn't demonstrate it's significantly more effective than already known compounds" is a contradiction in terms. If the other compounds were just as good, then you wouldn't be suing to be able to produce this new one.

View on HN

That logic doesn't always hold up. You could make tiny tiny alterations to some plastic container, put some random bump here or there, or make the flap stick out a little more, and the plastic container might suddenly not be usable due with a third party automatic coffee maker. That's a huge effect, despite the tiny change.

But I doubt that would make that case that because of that huge effect, those random bumps and extended flap deserve patents. We are after all talking about basic shapes here, nobody should be able to patent "a round shape with a tiny bump sticking out" so that others cannot use that shape.

I don't see how this addresses grandparent's comment: if it does not have increased efficacy, why are so many people desperate to use it? The amount of alteration is a separate issue.

The original article has an interview with an Indian patent examiner that clarifies that the efficacy was not a factor in deciding whether the drug was patentable. It's difference(in chemical structure) from previously well known molecules -- or lack thereof -- was the decisive factor in rejecting that patent.

Thanks for the info.

But then my doubt is the same: If the old ones are the same as this one, then why sue to be able to use the new one free? Just produce the old one... it's the same.

One way of looking at this is the legal system keeping a clear distinction between patents and copyright.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com