Talk:Chemical patent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 27 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jasminesu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Commission report about Pharmaceuticals[edit]

Currently, half the article is about what this report has to say, and the European Commission is far from a independent third-party on the subject of pharmaceutical patents. While there is use to include their POV in the article, the article itself should not be based on it. Because of this, the article reads as a Advocacy of a political nature on the POV of European Commission (2008). I seperated out the section to make this a bit more easier see and fix. Im sorry that I am just pointing out the problems and not fixing them, but currently thats the most I can do at this point of timeBelorn (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph was not meant to read as an advertisement of pharmaceutical patents, or even to present a particular opinion (point of view, advocacy) on pharmaceutical patents. I had only used the European Commission report as a source for reporting the reality out there. That "patents are [and are considered] particularly important in the pharmaceuticals industry" and that "patent protection has a huge bearing on the commercial success of a [pharmaceutical] company" seem to be established facts. Is it the source that you don't like, or the wording that is used, or both? Thanks for any hints so that I can address the issues. --Edcolins (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I think the text looked so much like Advocacy is most because it comes from one and the same source. Independent third-party sources kind of exclude reports made by politicians or pharmaceuticals because they almost always push a specific agenda. Research articles about the report or reports from independent research groups should thus be used if any exist. As for established facts, any disputed fact must be sourced or it very easy breaks NPOV in a article. I wish I could do a bit more, but doing a bit of Google search only gave me some press releases from companies talking about the report. The article generic drug or patent looks like it has some interesting sources that might be useable here, but Im not sure. I made some minor changes and replaced the template with a more precise one to match the actually issue I have. Thanks for trying to improve the article and taking the critique serious.Belorn (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you for your critical eye and input! I have deleted the disputed section altogether and, instead, I have added one sentence supported by three different sources. The article, however, is still extremely short and would benefit from being expanded, such as to cover the topics mentioned in the "see also" section: e.g. compulsory licensing, criticism of pharmaceutical patents, evergreening, generic drug, generic companies and originator companies, Patients Not Patents, patent term extensions and supplementary protection certificates, etc. --Edcolins (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A see also link to de-linkage[edit]

I want to add a see also link to the article de-linkage, which is a proposed model for financing development of new pharmaceuticals as an alternative to chemical patents. Enforced patents are a means for pharmaceutical companies to recoup an investment. Thus both are a way to finance development of new drugs. --Bensin (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

enforcement of patents covering drugs (which may claim compositions or methods) are one means that companies use to get and keep market exclusivity. they also use various forms of non-patent-based means to get exclusivity. but in any case, it is how the patent is used, not the patent itself, that is relevant to market exclusivity. it is the market exclusivity that allows the company to charge a high price and get a high profit, and those high profits are what pharma companies plow back into R&D (at least in part). and "chemical patents" cover a very broad range of stuff outside of drugs - things like say.... Teflon. maybe your link belongs at Prescription drug prices in the United States Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chemical patent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemical_patent&oldid=1198484126"