[chimeracoder]

> I have come to believe that patents are not essential to the way medical research works today.

> Patents are essential to the current business model of pharmaceutical companies -- they are necessary to guarantee a return on investment, but the portion of the investment devoted to R&D and clinical trials is dwarfed by the marketing.

Your comment contradicts itself.

If, as you say, patents are "necessary to guarantee a return on investment", then it doesn't matter if the R&D is the largest cost or not, because the company won't produce a profit (and therefore won't produce new drugs) without the patent.

In fact, it's quite reasonable to think that both massive marketing and time-limited protection from competition are necessary to ensure enough of a return to guarantee continued investment into the industry. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

[JackFr]

You're right -- it was not carefully written. My point is that the current pharma business model is not essential to medical research in general (rather than research today).

Patent protection for drugs (and chemicals in general) was weak or non-existent in Europe until the 1970's, and despite that there was research and development of drugs.

I think the system we have today is largely driven by the patent mechanism, and while not terrible, could be made better by tweaking the patent system.

The government sponsored monopoly is supposed to guarantee a return on the R&D, not guarantee the return on Superbowl ads for another erectile dysfunction drug.