[shared4you]

Medical patents involve a lot of money invested into making the drug, ex. producing new chemicals, laboratory equipment costs, huge salaries for scientists in R&D, etc. Patents are one of the best ways to "earn back".

Why a cancer drug? Why not? There are lots of companies fighting for this huge market, and if you're the first to have invented a medicine, you would like to be rewarded, isn't it?

[lawnchair_larry]

What does controlling a market have to do with being rewarded for saving people from dying of cancer?

[alan_cx]

Nothing. Its to do with getting back the millions invested in the R&D. Do you even have the slightest idea how much it costs to develop these drugs? Often the rewards for the actual people who do the R&D are pretty poor.

[notimetorelax]

> Often the rewards for the actual people who do the R&D are pretty poor.

It seems to be in line with the this [1] comment but due to completely different reasons. If you have some insight into money allocation in a drug company could give an answer to the linked comment?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5472861

[hmottestad]

If you are first to market with a drug (RealGoodDrug tm) against X. Then you can test your RealGoodDrug tm against a placebo.

If you are second to market you have to test your drug against RealGoodDrug tm and not against a placebo (because that would be immoral).

So you can't come up with a half good drug, or a just as good drug with more side-effects.