Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government The Courts News

Patents and Eminent Domain 510

Posted by Zonk from the yoink dept.
mrbill writes "Interesting take on the Eminent Domain case now before the Supreme Court. Could the same logic behind using Eminent Domain to take real property be used to take a Patent? Apparently some states are contemplating taking drug company patents to force lower drug prices." From the article: "Patents are the key to huge drug-company profits. The industry will fight vociferously to protect them. In West Virginia, where the issue came up last summer, industry lawyers warned a legislative advisory council away from proposing such action on patents, claiming it would be unconstitutional. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Patents and Eminent Domain More

Patents and Eminent Domain

Comments Filter:

  • Skeptical of courts... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ntxb229 ( 542609 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @04:53PM (#11789399)
    I'd have to say I'm a little skeptical about this, even if the drug companies did lose. Not to be a troll, but I imagine if they did lose in court they'd do what every other industry does when they lose in court; buy legislation.
    • because patents have an expiration. if i have property and some government (local, state, etc) wants to take it, i have rights to fight it in court.

      most drug patents are close enough to expiration that the company could delay enough in court to make it a moot point.

      eric

      • Heh (Score:3, Interesting)

        by StandardDeviant ( 122674 )
        Patents? Expire? Holy shit, there's a concept.

        When a drug patent comes close to expiring (which they'll prolong), the company generally makes a chemical change to the drug just slight enough such that it can pass as something different (e.g. adding an extraneous methyl group or similar), change the packaging around, maybe make it a 12hr dose instead of 6hrs, and say "WHOA HOLY SHIT NEW DRUG HERE!" and get a new patent. That heartburn/acid reflux drug that I'm totally forgetting the name of now (Nexiium

    • That's the sort of legislation that is very hard to "buy." Everyone wants cheap prescription medicine. Politicians can and do lose elections, especially when they stand up for legislation that is widely unpopular.

      Just think of the commercials. "My opponent voted against legislation that would have lowered the price of prescription medications by up to 45%." That's the sort of thing that could easily lose a politician the election.

    • So why is it a "crisis"? All drugs patented prior to 1987 are not covered by patents anymore. Was there a "crisis" then?

      Drugs cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. If the government gets in the habit of stealing the patent rights, then why should investors pony up the $$$ to develop new drugs?

  • Bugged (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Virtual Karma ( 862416 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @04:54PM (#11789404) Homepage
    I'm so bugged with this whole paptent issue. I will tell you why. I was once developing a IM Bot for MSN messenger using perl. I was almost towards the end of coding the bot. Thats when I hear that the IM bot technology is patented by ActiveBuddy. I had to stop development. I wish they had a better model to protect software inventions

    • Re:Bugged (Score:3, Informative)

      by Pig Hogger ( 10379 )
      I'm so bugged with this whole paptent issue. I will tell you why. I was once developing a IM Bot for MSN messenger using perl. I was almost towards the end of coding the bot. Thats when I hear that the IM bot technology is patented by ActiveBuddy. I had to stop development. I wish they had a better model to protect software inventions
      Why didn't you move the project to Canada, where software cannot be patented???

    • Re:Bugged (Score:4, Informative)

      by idlake ( 850372 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:31PM (#11789692)
      It is doubtful that the patent is valid; IM bots go back to the dark ages of the IRC networks. There is plenty of prior art.

      • Re:Bugged (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Dever ( 564514 )
        oh good! now, everyone willing to pay this progammer's legal fee's, the line starts to the left...

      • Re:Bugged (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AhBeeDoi ( 686955 )
        Plenty of prior art doesn't mean that a lawsuit can't be filed. For somebody who doesn't have the financial resources to overturn the patent, it is totally discouraging. For the well heeled corporate developer, it's full speed ahead.

  • fair market value (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 26, 2005 @04:54PM (#11789407)
    if a government did apply this to drug patents they would be required to pay fair market value for them which would be roughly equal to the rediculous profit the companies are gaining from their sale. This means that any difference in price would be made up in tax money.

    • Re:fair market value (Score:4, Insightful)

      by eric76 ( 679787 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:03PM (#11789480)
      They definition of "fair market value" is not necessarily fair at all.

      Patents aren't really evil, just misguided, but the power of eminent domain is truly evil.
      • Eminent domain isn't truly evil to me because I believe the world doesn't revolve around you. Or myself. Or that we should be so selfish and give ourselves such high priority in life. We should be more concerned about what is good for humanity.
        • We should be more concerned about what is good for humanity.

          Your rationale has been the excuse of dictator, tyrant and despot in history, all you need to do is replace "humanity" with "our tribe". That you've expanded "our tribe" to include all of humanity isn't going to change matters.
    • well, the fifth amendment requires "just compensation", not "fair market value".

    • Fair market value is what the drug company paid the government in the first place, IMHO.

      Patents are government granted monopolies. What the government grants, the government can taketh away. When you spend ceaser's coins, don't complain when he taxes you.

    • Lessing did a good one! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:20PM (#11789603)
      In the Lessing case, the Supreme Court said Congress has the consitiutional right to set copyrights.... Lessing argued there had to be "limits" from "common sense"... The court disagreed.


      The Law gives, the law takes away" was the court's basic argument.... It will be really funny to find out what happens when the Congress wants to "take away" This could be good or bad, after all, When We want to get copyright back under control we'll have the same basic argument again by the *IAA's...


      Hopefully the court will keep tooting it's horn!! This jsut the IP trap we need to get the IP situation under control... then all we have to do is convice lawmakers... their decisions will stick.

    • Re:fair market value (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Max Threshold ( 540114 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:31PM (#11789699)
      Not really. In eminent domain cases, the government conveniently determines the fair market value of the property, and it's seldom anywhere near its real value.

      Besides, the drug companies' ridiculous profits represent the unfair market value, not the fair market value!

    • Re:fair market value (Score:3, Insightful)

      by demachina ( 71715 )
      If you want to bring drug prices under control in the U.S. the first really easy step is to outlaw advertising prescription drugs to the public. You can follow the model under which cigarettes are outlawed.

      There is zero reason to be pushing prescription drugs on TV. They should only be advertising to doctors and then only with factual information, audited by an unbiased third party, and not marketing them like underarm deodorant with catchy names and pretty colors.

      The drug companies are spending stagger
  • If it's property such that the RIAA and MPAA consider it theft rather than copyright infringement, would states or the federal government have the power to pay "fair market value" (whatever that is) and release it to the public?

    Not everything would be that way, of course, but if the government has the right to take land to preserve our natural heritage, why not take art to preserve our cultural heritage?
    • These days, the government takes land from one citizen or business so it can transfer to another citizen or business.

      Their rationale is that it is okay to do that if the new owner will pay more in taxes.

      Of course, the new owner, in addition to being able to receive stolen property, is often given a tax break. So it's not about increasing tax revenue -- it's about doing favors for the rich and powerful.

      • evil government (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ChristTrekker ( 91442 )

        Yup. Always remember that government is a necessary evil. As such, it should be kept as small as possible - no larger than is absolutely necessary to do the job. Oh, and it likes to define more and more things as "government responsibility" so that it can grow. Beware of that, too. They key to personal liberty is personal responsibility. Jealously guard both.

  • Won't this deter research? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wasted ( 94866 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @04:55PM (#11789416)
    Since the drug companies invest so much in research due to the potential profit, wouldn't reducing the potential profit reduce the incentives for research?

    • Re: Won't this deter research? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @04:58PM (#11789443)


      > Since the drug companies invest so much in research due to the potential profit, wouldn't reducing the potential profit reduce the incentives for research?

      I don't know whether it's true or not, but critics claim that the drug companies spend 10x as much on advertising as they do on research.

      • Profits at a pharmaceutical company (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ArsSineArtificio ( 150115 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:33PM (#11789711) Homepage
        I don't know whether it's true or not, but critics claim that the drug companies spend 10x as much on advertising as they do on research.

        There's no need to discuss these things theoretically, when all publicly traded companies have to make SEC filings of their financial statements.

        According to Pfizer's most recent 10-Q filing, for instance, they incurred "selling, informational, and administrative expenses" of $4,036 million (or 31.5% of revenues), and "research and development expenses" of $1,888 million (or 14.7% of revenues). The former category includes much more than advertising (administrative expenses include accounting, payroll, facilities maintenance, etc.) Nevertheless, total administrative and marketing expenses were only about twice as much as R&D costs.

        People like to talk about the rapacious profits of drug companies. Well, go and look at the numbers for yourself: Pfizer's earnings per share are $1.19; Eli Lilly's are $1.66; Merck's are $2.90. By way of comparison, American Electric Power is $1.51, Wal-Mart is $2.41, Staples is $1.40, Home Depot is $2.26, Anheuser-Busch is $2.77.

        Drug companies are not massively more profitable than everything else. People who think that they are should simply invest in them and benefit from the price-gouging which they are supposedly inflicting upon the public.
        • Comparing profit per share as a measure of profitability is ridiculous - you aren't taking into account the number of outstanding shares. Net profit = # of outstanding shares * profit per share.

          Example: MSFT made $0.92 per share last year, BRKA made $4,134.48 per share!!! So Berkshire-Hathaway is way more profitable than Microsoft right? Wrong - Microsoft made about $9 billion last year vs about $4 billion for Berkshire-Hathaway.

          The difference is that Microsoft has TEN BILLION outstanding shares and Berks
        • You make a good point. They AREN'T "excessively" profitable. It's still a bad way to organize the business. They are encouraged to keep negative reports about promissing drugs secret. And they do. They are encouraged to drop unprofitable, but successful, drugs. And they do.

          They act precisely as a business governed solely by economics should. And this is bad, because they are given power that affects the lives of people who aren't necessarily benefited by what benefits them.

          I would recommend that dr
      • They do this because it's the most efficient way that they know of to increase profits and get a return on their research dollars. They wouldn't spend as much on research if they couldn't also make the products derived from the research known to the public. If people are buying crap they don't need because of the advertising, then the problem is stupid buyers not freedom of speech in the form of advertising. I for one and much happier to buy some cheap generic whose effects have been well documented for the

    • Re:Won't this deter research? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Datasage ( 214357 ) <.moc.yergsidlroweht. .ta. .egasataD.> on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:06PM (#11789499) Homepage Journal
      Incentive to do drug research commercially yes. But there are still many drug researchers who are intrinsically motivated and will continue to research at universities or part of non profit orginizations.

      Im not sure about this, but isnt some drug research partially funded by public money? If the public pays for it, why should a corporation get exclusive control over it?
    • Most all research is actually done in universities, and "finished" in corporations.

      So no loss to the end customer.
    • Since the drug companies invest so much in research due to the potential profit, wouldn't reducing the potential profit reduce the incentives for research?
      They don't need any incentive for research.

      Drug companies don't invest much in research anyways, as research money comes from governments and is also subject to tax credits; most of their money goes to marketing.

  • Brazil did this with AIDS drugs... (Score:5, Informative)

    by doormat ( 63648 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @04:55PM (#11789421) Homepage Journal
    because the drug companies wouldnt lower prices. Although I would say that this would easily be overturned/outlawed by the bought and paid for [opensecrets.org] Congress. Although if they were to take patents for drugs, whats to stop them for taking patents for everything else?

    Its a shame that the states are doing what the federal govt. should be doing these days.

  • For those slashdotters unaware of the SCOTUS case (Score:5, Informative)

    by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @04:56PM (#11789422) Homepage
    The summary above refers to Susette Kelo v. City of New London [ij.org]. The city is attempting to use eminent domain to take some land from people, and sell it to a private developer to develop. (I emphasize private because the case hinges on that) Cnn had a good write up here [cnn.com]
    • I know all this seems scary however, in Brittain where you can't remove a prive house or even hedge they have terrible infrastructure, curving roads and train tracks, bridges that could be removed with a culvert.

      No one wants to think of their home as the property of the government but there are significant advantages to having it that way.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I think that Big Money and Big Media has such a strong grip on national politics and national politicians, that going local is the way to bring leftist/progressive solutions to America. Best to just go ahead and let the Republicans and Republicrats kill off the IRS. THat way the states can start their own mini-IRS's and go ahead with universal healthcare, long term unemployment, low cost broadband, and other progressive/leftist quality of life improvement. All local....

    • Re:local leftism is the way to save America? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by croddy ( 659025 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:21PM (#11789608)
      I like this idea.

      Because if I'm living in a state that's wasting my taxes on this broadband, healthcare, and other ridiculous shit, I can just move to Nevada.

    • THat way the states can start their own mini-IRS's

      Uh... your state probably already has a department of revenue.

      and go ahead with universal healthcare, long term unemployment, low cost broadband, and other progressive/leftist quality of life improvement

      Nothing is stopping states from attempting such programs now.
      • You say that there is nothing stopping the states from doing this now? Nothing except that the fed govt is bleeding the states dry by taxing them for corporate welfare and the imperial militarism.

        Once the IRS is killed off and the neoliberals can be made to honor their pledges of small govt, then the states can take over and adopt european style welfare state benefits--using the money that the Fed govt is no longer taking from them.
    • THat way the states can start their own mini-IRS's and go ahead with universal healthcare

      Oh, that would work great. Because I'm sure that the majority of doctors are altruistic enough to stay in a state where their profits are controlled by the government rather than move to a state where more patients means more money. I'm not saying doctors are greedy, just that they're human.

      There are enough problems in Canada with people having to wait months for serious health problems to be treated because of wa

  • Not so much profit (Score:3, Informative)

    by meckardt ( 113120 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @04:59PM (#11789448) Homepage

    In West Virginia, where the issue came up last summer, industry lawyers warned a legislative advisory council away from proposing such action on patents, claiming it would be unconstitutional.

    With good reason, since the concept of eminent domain is not actually part of the constitution. Not that it will stop political bodies from trying it.

    Of course, the "huge profits" that phamaceutical companies get from selling a drug under patent are not all that great. Not after paying for the cost of creating the drug... not to mention a dozon other drugs that don't make it through the FDA approval process.

    • the concept of eminent domain is not actually part of the constitution

      The 5th and 14th amendments recognize de facto that the government has the power to take property for the common good, and requires fair compensation for that property.

      Now ot seems to me that the taking of a patent with the idea that it would save the government money is truly a stupid idea - fair compensation would require that the company not be hurt by the taking. The constittion also provides protection against bills of attainder t

      • Now ot seems to me that the taking of a patent with the idea that it would save the government money is truly a stupid idea - fair compensation would require that the company not be hurt by the taking. The constittion also provides protection against bills of attainder that might also be relevant.

        "Fair" does not mean "cater to every whim". If a company spends $10 million devellopping a drug in partnership with a public-funded university, and then spends $80 million marketing it, when the government tak

    • Re:Not so much profit (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kymermosst ( 33885 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:24PM (#11789628) Journal
      With good reason, since the concept of eminent domain is not actually part of the constitution.

      That's funny, I could have sworn that an amendment to the Constitution [house.gov] addressed the taking of private property for public use [reference.com]:

      Article [V.] [house.gov]

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.       (Emphasis mine.)

      You might actually try reading the Constitution and some of the laws you like to talk about. Seriously, you might learn something. Now, what were you saying?
      • I think that's where eminent domain comes into play. The landowners *are* compensated at market value for their land -- its just that they're compelled by the court to sell it, they don't have a choice.
    • Plus the ones like Vioxx and Celebrex that make it through but may actually cost the companies money due to lawsuits. One has only to look at the stock chart for Merck to see what losing one drug will do to the value of the company.

      http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quic kc hart.asp?symb=mrk&sid=0&o_symb=mrk&x=0&y=0
    • With good reason, since the concept of eminent domain is not actually part of the constitution. Not that it will stop political bodies from trying it.

      The concept of breathing is part of the Constitution either, and that will not stop anybody from doing it.

      In any case, patents are only property to th degree that Congress makes them that way. We, the people, can limit them any time we like.

  • Oh yeah, this is a brilliant solution... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kymermosst ( 33885 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @04:59PM (#11789452) Journal
    Let a private business go through all the work and expense of developing a drug, and then simply procure it because of "public good."

    That'll keep drug companies in business developing new drugs. In fact, if I was president of a drug company, I'd make sure I got my products to market faster after this happened the first time. I would just love deals like this. Here, let me bend over for you... do you mind if I lean on my desk?

  • It's The American Way! (Score:4, Funny)

    by nick_davison ( 217681 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:03PM (#11789477)
    It's a fantastic idea. Drug companies make way too much money. Better the states take their patents to more fairly control them. The same goes for most other successful businesses and, indeed, private individuals, too. If the state takes them all over, they'd be able to distribute the assets far more fairly.

    It's such a great idea, I can't believe no one's tried it before!

    The only concern would be those damn Commie Ruskies trying to undermine our great system.
    • I wonder if a city could declare $1 to be fair market value per share of IBM stock and then use eminent domain to sieze the IBM stock held by people in the city, pay the $1 fair market value, and sell it to someone else for $5 per share.

      (I hope no mayors, city managers, ... read that. They might just try it.)
  • From the Article:

    The councilman argues that if drug companies were smart, they would "start talking about price reductions now rather than leave themselves open to a long, drawn-out due process review and hearings to determine just compensation."

    So the states wouldn't want this to go to trial. They'd very likely lose. Isn't this just blackmail? However, if their argument is that falicious, the drug companies may not be persuaded to do anything and simply fight back.

    Such review and hearings, he warns,
    • Drug companies take on huge risk when developing drugs and shouldn't their prices be high enough to cover past and future risks? The total cost of a drug has to include the drug company's failures in R&D, which I would presume are higher than other industries.

      That's an interesting question though: How much does drug R&D cost? How much does a few big selling lifestyle drugs like viagra offset those costs? Should we trust the drug companies coporate accountants on those figure? I'm not suggestin
    • when you find that the drug has nasty side effects (cox-3 inhibitors).

      Cox-3 inhibitors (such as Tylenol) are relatively safe. I believe you meant selective Cox-2 inhibitors such as Celebrex and Vioxx which have recently come under heat for their link to heart attacks. These drugs had a lot of potential for their ability to block Cox-2 withough affecting the Cox-1 enzymes. Asperin blocked both Cox-1 and Cox-2, so while it had good pain blocking abilities, it's interference with Cox-1 led to a number

  • Dumb move... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by utlemming ( 654269 )
    Hey, I will be the first one to say that drug prices are insane. I have one prescription that I don't take because it costs too much -- I only take it when I have too. But if a drug company has the fear of immenient domain, what is going to keep a drug company innovating and researching? The idea of patents is to protect the innovator's investment and to encourage innovation. If I were a drug company, I would threaten to close shop. The drug companies may enjoy high profits, but the R&D costs are insan
    • By the same token, the companies have been found to repeatedly abuse the patent laws to extend their patents on drugs. A bit of Googling will also turn up numerous articles about how drug companies give kickbacks to doctors to prescribe newer, patented drugs over older ones for which the patents have expired. Nevermind that the older ones may, in many cases, work as well or better for the patient's problem. If those allegations are true, this would also be a hefty component in the costs that are hurting the

  • Eminent Domain & Compensation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by randall_burns ( 108052 ) <randall_burnsNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:11PM (#11789535)
    When property is taken by eminent domain, there is a requirement that the company in question be given "fair compensation". If the patent is owned by a publicly traded company, that would imply that appplication of eminent domain to an especially valuable patent that constituted a heft share of that company's value wouldn't affect stock price at all.


    Personally, I think there are cases where eminent domain should be applied to patents-and cases where the government should offer prizes for creation of patents that will be placed in the public domain. The only real dangers of application of Eminent Domain to patents are

    a) the price will be too low so folks have their property expropriated

    b) the price is too high-so companies lobby to get
    Eminent Domain applied to their patents

    Of these, I tend to see 2 as the lessor danger.

  • I think that the Wright brother's patents on airplanes were taken away by the US govt in WWI. So this is not unprecedented.
    • I think that the Wright brother's patents on airplanes were taken away by the US govt in WWI

      You think wrong. During WWI a consortium of aircraft manufacturers was formed for wartime production. The companies participating pooled their patents ending the possibility of infringement lawsuits. After the war was over the consortium was disbanded and the patents reverted back to the original holders.

  • Eminence Front (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:18PM (#11789587) Homepage Journal
    Why not? In NYC, Mayor Bloomberg is using Eminent Domain to sieze property from people in Brooklyn brownstones so he can give it to the giant developer, Ratner, for a private arena/mall. If a Republican billionaire can "liberate" actual real estate for his developer buddies, why can't we do the same with patents, when that property is not actually removed from its owner, and is actually given to the public?
  • I'm too lazy to look this up, but didn't something similar happen with aspirin in the U.S. during the 1940s?

    Aspirin is (was) a trademark of Bayer, a German company, who was a big supporter of the the Nazi regime in Germany.

    The U.S. Gov't nullified the trademark and patents back in the early 40s, thus allowing other drug companies to call their product "aspirin".

    -Charles
    • A trademark is a very different thing from a patent. Basically all German trademarks were revoked by the US after WWII as a punishment, both the trademark company name Bayer and the trademark Aspirin were revoked.

  • Poor (or Rich) State v. MNC = expensive drugs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cenonce ( 597067 ) <anthony_t@ma c . com> on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:22PM (#11789615)
    The article states that the Supreme Court has said that it is acceptable for states to do this, which is kinda of surprising to me (IAAL). Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 8 of the U.S Constitution specifically states that regulating Patents and Copyrights is a power of the Federal government. Since the Feds are a government of limited power, when the Constitution says its theirs, it is generally theirs.

    Even so, eminient domain requires "just compensation" by the state at the time of the taking. With a monopoly on the drug for the duration of the patent, "just compensation" is going to be nothing any rich states can afford, let alone a poor mid-west or southern state. So it seems to me, the states attempting this will spend a lot of tax dollars only to find out they are really not getting any kind of "deal" from the drug companies. Drug companies like Merck, Smith Kline, etc. have as much money, if not more, than the budgets of most states. They can afford to drag this out, even to the point when the patent expires.
  • industry lawyers warned a legislative advisory council away from proposing such action on patents, claiming it would be unconstitutional

    Courts have already ruled that taking real property (ie, realestate) for state projects, such as road construction for the greater good, is constitutional. However they might rule that allowing ideas to be used for the greater good is not? Stop the planet, I'm getting dizzy.
  • The previous Brazilian president's health minister, José Serra (currently mayor of São Paulo), did several really important things when he held that office. He set up a modern organ donation system (cutting down significantly on the black market for organs that existed previously). He pushed for the law making generic medications possible. He created an anti-AIDS policy that is a model studied by governments from all over the world. And part of that AIDS policy involved the government giving m

  • Drug company patent history. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @05:34PM (#11789724)
    Way long ago, when today's biggest, most-gigantorrific companies were scrappy litte upstarts, they all moved their operations to Switzerland. Why? Switzerland did not grant and did not recognize patents! So these little companies could live in poor, backwards Switzerland and happily "pirate" the patents of other people. One of these companies, Ciba, got its start by ripping of an English patent on aniline dye. Ciba eventually grew up to be one of the planets biggest companies, Syngenta. Syngenta successfully lobbied the European Convention to allow patents on genes, and also went to court to stop South Africa from treating AIDS patients with its patented drugs.

    The moral of this story appears to be, the more you rip off other people's "IP", the better chance you stand of become a multigazillionaire. I'm all for it, then.
  • Could the same logic behind using Eminent Domain
    to take real property be used to take a Patent?

    This happenen in France in the 1800's, with the Jacquard loom.

    Joseph-Marie Jacquard began his invention, and was interrupted by the French Revolution, and then afterwards completed his invention in 1801. He presented his invention in Paris in 1804, and was awarded a medal and patent for his design, however the French government claimed the loom to then be public property, giving Jacquard a slight royalty and
  • Drug patents expire in 20 years. 20 years from now you will be able to buy all the expensive drugs of today in generic versions for almost nothing. No need to invade drug companies with guns and steal their IP, just wait it out. Until then you can party like it's 1985.
  • Unlike physical property, patents are artificial monopolies created by the government. Taking away somebody's house and land is much worse than dismantling a government-granted monopoly.

    If eminent domain is going to continue to be part of the legal landscape, patents should be among the first things subject to be taken away for the public good.
  • I'm against treating ideas as property, but if the IP industry wants it that way then they should have to live with the unintended consequences, just as we are already living with unintended consequences of the DMCA. Ideas can't be treated like property only in the ways that are to the advantage of the rights holders, oops, I guess it's "owners" now. It doesn't work that way with real property.

    In point of fact, the entertainment industry has already applauded government seizure of intellectual property on

  • Ahh, socialism (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Money for Nothin' ( 754763 ) on Saturday February 26, 2005 @11:02PM (#11792015)
    Funny that at a time when the rest of the world is actively privatizing various parts of their formerly-public economy in recognition of the fall of "communism" (actually socialism in practice, but communism in ideal) -- such as in Britain, where various automakers, such as Jaguar, were state-owned -- here in the U.S., we would consider stealing private property from people and redistributing the benefits of that property to all, i.e., we would move in the *reverse* direction from the rest of the world.

    But then, we do that with religion too (in an attempt to promote "faith-based initiatives" and such). Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

    Eminent Domain is the worst legal doctrine in the world, and it is routinely used by small cities to bulldoze private property for the benefit of large corporations for the sales tax revenue the city gains from doing so. Wal-Mart is a classic example of this.

    And now the socialist hippies of America want to use Eminent Domain to steal patents from drug makers? Who the hell is going to develop new drugs then?

    Some people seriously need to go fucking read Atlas Shrugged. Then take at least 2 courses in economics, and then read some about economic history, because nobody who understands economics, even economists on the left, promote such idiotic ideas.

    Solidarity comrade, solidarity.

  • If only WE would fight so hard... (Score:3, Informative)

    by samdu ( 114873 ) <samdu@NOSPAM.ronintech.com> on Saturday February 26, 2005 @11:11PM (#11792059) Homepage
    The industry will fight vociferously to protect them.

    If only the citizenry of the US would fight as hard for our REAL property rights! Over the last several years, eminent domain has been used by many municipalities to force people off of the property they OWN so that developers like Wal-Mart can build stores. Some examples:

    Alameda Square in Denver Colorado: The City of Denver is considering condemning the shopping center so that Wal-Mart can build a super center. story [reclaimdemocracy.org]

    Alabaster, Alabama: Colonial Properties Trust wants to build a shopping center anchored by a Wal-Mart in the town of 24,000. The local government is all for it because they're "not receiving enough in tax revenue to support the town." Trouble is, there are a few property owners that don't want to sell. Answer, local government is resorting to eminent domain. They're citing the increase in tax revenue as the "public good" that justifies condemnation of the property. story [boortz.com]

    Ardmore, Pennsylvania. A local government plan to "revitalize" the town of Ardmore has officials seeking to use eminent domain to oust property owners and demolish several historic buildings. story [zwire.com]

    New London, Conneticut. (This is the Supreme Court case that's being heard and was referenced in the posted article). The town is attempting to use eminent domain to forcibly evict seven property owners and sieze their property so that a private company can develop more tax-profitable properties on the land. story [cnn.com]

    Lakewood, Ohio. Scenic Park, a middle class neighborhood, was seized under eminent domain. The homes were deemed "blighted" because they didn't conform to certain criteria. They didn't have three bedrooms, two baths, an attached garage or central air. Incidentally, the mayor's house, in another neighborhood, doesn't fit these criteria, either. The homes were razed in order to put in a mall and high-end condos. story [cbsnews.com]

    Ogden, Utah. The Mayor and City Council want to demolish 34 homes and 6 businesses in order to erect a Wal-Mart (there's that Wal-Mart again) Super Center.

    Clemson, SC (right up I-26 from me). Pickens County Council voted to invoke eminent domain to condemn a tract of land zoned residential for the purpose of building a Wal-Mart. story [walmartwatch.com]

    Between the years 1998-2002, TEN THOUSAND properties were seized via eminent domain in order for the municipalities to sell to private developers!!! The right to own land and property is directly tied to all our other rights. Now, I'm not a big, Anti-Corporation type of guy as I recognize that corporations are not vast, faceless entities, but are made up of individuals that work, eat, sleep, and all that. I have BECOME extremely anti-Wal-Mart, though, in part due to this eminent domain thing and also because of their recent trouble with the labor laws. I don't begrudge Wal-Mart's right to exist, but they've demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to tight rope the law and even break it if necessary in order to continue growing. They're like a virus that must be stopped. I'm on a personal boycott of Wal-Mart. If something isn't done about governments seizing property rightfully owned by law-abiding individuals, a huge pillar of our democratic republic is going to be severely compromised. This is no joke, people. This poses one of the most severe threats to our country.

    If you want to keep abreast of the situation, here are a couple of good links. And I especially want to thank Neal Boortz (national talk radio guy, Libertarian). Were it not for him, FAR fewer pe

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with being punctual is that nobody's there to appreciate it. -- Franklin P. Jones

Close