I (and I'm sure many others) will gladly take a little loss of visual acuity over a lot of blindness. You have to admit that, if this works, it will be a revolutionary improvement over rotation or general transplants. Of course, that's still a big if.

Perhaps they can be upgraded to transmit and safely receive x-rays.

Though your points are valid, you may be ignoring a larger issue. Taxes on profits still affects margins and commerce. They just do so indirectly. Why don't we, instead, tax WEALTH. This was difficult prior to the advent of computers and sophisticated tracking, but is becoming more and more easy with advances in technology and regulation. Taxing wealth would do (at least) two things:

1) It would provide an incentive for people to make their money work to generate income - income wouldn't be taxable, but wealth (money sitting around) would. Debt would DIRECTLY offset your taxable wealth, so functional money would be highly valued.

2) It would work to normalize social stratification. People at the bottom have zero net wealth (or negative net wealth). People at the top have extraordinary net wealth.

Of course, reason number two is why this plan would never happen. It would, however, be far more efficient than taxing anything directly related to commerce.

This stat is quoted frequently, but is almost always quoted out of context. Americans pay more for health care than any other "first-world" nation. Americans' life expectancy is not significantly better than many other "first-world" nations (I believe America is around #30 or so for life expectancy globally). HOWEVER, America's overall health and life expectancy for those over the age of 65 is by far the best in the world. Americans pay more for health care . . . but these payments actually produce results.

The real question is still efficiency. SHOULD Americans pay so much for this benefit? Americans don't live to 65 more than most other countries. That means that all of the payments are benefiting (likely) those with incomes above a certain level. THIS is where the argument should be focused.

What we have with medicine as a science is the problem that occurs when you assume that results from clinical trials can be applied uniformly to all patients. They cannot. Different people will respond differently to any given treatment. Sometimes the differences matter - sometimes they don't.

The problem is exacerbated when you're trying to verify sporadic anecdotal evidence. Take the knee surgery example cited above. For some people, the surgical procedure is incredibly effective at alleviating pain and improving function. For many, it does little good. We don't have a good way of determining who is who yet. We may never have a good way of determining who is who. Should we stop the procedure all together? Should we deny its benefits to those on whom it would work?

So . . . medicine is not pseudoscience. Medicine is a practice that attempts to use information obtained through the scientific method. The scientific method produces results with limited applicability. It, however, is the best we've got.

My suggestions also considered market scope. If you want to be the dominant market player in an all encompassing market (not some niche or sub-market), AND the market is worth being in, you need to have resources. There's no question about that. Netscape lost out because it was out-muscled. Well . . . also because it made some bad program decisions (I remember bloat being a huge issue - I stopped using it because it ran so slowly). A patent portfolio wouldn't have prevented others from innovating in browser development. Microsoft would've likely innovated around Mozilla's patents.

Though I agree with you - big pharma engages in minor drug tweaking to extend monopoly profits beyond the original patent term - please give me an example of an instance where this was the motive AND the resulting new drug was more risky or more dangerous than the old, off-patent drug. I don't think such a case exists. Sometimes these incremental tweaks bring about improvements, sometimes they offer no improvement at all, but never have I seen a tweak produce a WORSE product.

There are many ways outside of patents. Be the first to market. Be the best implementer. Be the most frequent innovator. Be most in touch with consumers. Generate the strongest brand. Solidify dominance, through branding, in a certain market segment.

Some of these actions require more resources than others, but there is almost always a way to do them well on the cheap . . . depending on how broad or how narrow your marketing plan is. The broader your targeted market, the more you're going to have to spend. Talk to a business/marketing consultant. Frankly, a good marketing plan is MUCH more valuable than a patent.

Let me explain the debate a bit -

The bill proposes to link reasonable royalties to what the court deems is the value of the technological innovation of the patent. This removes any market valuation of the patent, i.e. what a patent holder can extract from a potential infringer through a negotiated settlement. Instead, the court will assign the value of the patent by sitting back and thinking about how valuable the technology is in this instance. What it fails to take into consideration is that, in most cases, patents can be used to PREVENT someone from making, using, selling, etc. the invention.

This inherently devalues the patent. If you can only extract the value of the added quantum of technology added by the patent, you sometimes won't be able to get damages at all. For instance, if an infringer used your patented technology, but they could've alternatively used some public domain non-infringing technology, you won't get much in the way of a damages award. There is a problem with this arrangement - it changes the fundamental nature of a patent.

Practical reasons. The US is (I believe) the only country with a first to invent system. Why stay that way? Also, it is a lot easier to adjudicate a first to file system. There is less to prove when inventorship disputes arise. This simply gives people a kick in the pants to get to the patent office. Lawyers and inventors will adapt. The first to invent will most likely become the first to file by default (in most instances).

Hence the need for longer patent terms in REGULATED industries. With regulation, you put up huge barriers to innovation. Patents are good for surmounting these barriers. The weaker the patent for these technologies, the less "activation energy" donated by the patent system. Face it - you want safe and effective drugs, proven by substantial clinical evidence? It's going to cost you. Without the ability to extract monopoly prices, we can't afford to innovate in regulated sectors. Unless you want to come up with an alternative compensation system. Good luck with that, though.

Arguably, a problem with the patent system is that all technologies are treated the same. This is, of course, necessary because of treaties obliging member states to treat all technology the same, but it causes problems with incentives. We need long patents in regulated industries (namely, bio and pharma). We don't need long patents in EE industries where changing technology makes patented technology obsolete more quickly. This, however, is a hard issue to address. We're mired in international treaties that protect the status quo.

This is a good first step. The US *should* be on a first to file system. Venue for patent suits *should* be restricted to venues that make sense (rarely ED TX).

But some provisions go too far. Damages should be linked to some market definition - NOT what the trial court thinks is reasonable. Also, we need a change to the laws that provide incentive for innovation in regulated industries. Patents are most valuable in the life sciences. We need reform here. We need to better align value with innovation. We've still a long way to go.

In the USA, it is illegal for doctors to get the kinds of kickbacks you described. Of course, just because it's illegal doesn't mean that it doesn't happen . . . but at least it is illegal. And the US DOJ prosecutes the companies giving out these kinds of kickbacks.

Also, there's nothing wrong with being a doctor AND a business-person. If you own a clinic or a piece of machinery in which you invested substantial capital, you should have every right to extract legitimate returns. For example, if you own a CT machine and have it in your office, why in the world would you ever refer your patients out to a private lab to get a CT scan? Frankly, the patients would thank you for the convenience. After all, medicine is, in part, a business.

By the way . . . "Dr. Screw" is hilarious. I'll have to remember that one.