[therealpygon]

> That delay is due to special regulatory protections that are intended to encourage innovation by extending a brand-name drugmaker’s monopoly.

Pure profit protection when they make back enough money to fund every one of their drugs off a single patent that they continue to renew for 20 years by slightly modifying the syringe to now have an amazing new innovation like an integrated safety cap, or some other drug-irrelevant bs.

Both Copyright and Patents in the US need 21st century reform to something that is reasonable for the speed of modern technology.

[Schiendelman]

Can you show me a specific example of a syringe modification like you're suggesting? I haven't seen evidence of this, though I've heard the claim.

[ZeroGravitas]

It happens a lot. The gray area is that the medicine isn't patented, just the delivery mechanism.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36495532/

And that mechanism can be tweaked and repeatedly patented.

One of the positive cases for patents on medicines is that they are often chemicals. It's fairly simple to tell whether a chemical is the same or different. "Good fences make good neighbors". You infringe the patent or you don't, and you know that in advance.

But if you want to introduce a similar mechanical device to deliver your definitely patent free generic, now you have to roll the dice that the dozens of patents they've taken out on different delivery mechanism don't affect your approach.

[Schiendelman]

This is fascinating, thank you. Do you think that with approval of oral options this becomes less of an issue, since pill design is so far out of patent across the board?

[therealpygon]

Why do you think they always come out with the 24-hour/time-release version 5 years later?